MAY 5, 1992

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, May 5, 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; Don Bailey; C. W. "Chick" Gregg; Richard Swartz; and Catherine Hanson. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.



At 5:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the first of two public hearings on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). At this time, Commr. Bakich explained to the audience how the meeting would be conducted. He also informed the audience that the second and final public hearing would be May 19, 1992, at 5:05 p.m.

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the members of the LDR Review Committee, who worked with the consultant, Ms. Gail Easley, Henigar & Ray. He stated that the changes made at the previous workshop sessions were before the Board today for consideration.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she had a few minor amendments to review with the Board, with the Board indicating that it would proceed with public comment before reviewing those.

Ms. Dorie Hostettler, Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board and requested that the Board retain the present wetland regulations.

Ms. Mary Smith, President of the Lake County League of Women Voters, appeared before the Board and stated that the League has always held the position that we, as citizens, should promote resource conservation, stewardship, and long range planning with

the responsibility for managing natural resources shared by all levels of government. Therefore, the League supported the 1984 Regional Planning Act, which mandated that the government propose a State plan to the Legislature. She stated that all land use decisions should be made by the lowest level of government capable of such a decision. She further stated that the local wetland acreage is shrinking, and we should not relinquish our responsibility for the wetlands, which is a local concern.

Mr. John H. Kauffman, Grand Island, appeared before the Board representing Citizens for Controlled Positive Growth. He stated that the organization supports and applauds the Board's decision to take a positive stand for the Department of Community Affair's (DCA) approval of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, as submitted in 1991. He stated that the citizens believe this plan will reflect a controlled positive growth for Lake County and encourage a stronger economic base for future generations. At this time,

Mr. Kauffman submitted his letter for the record.

Mr. Dick Seran, Tavares, appeared before the Board and stated that it would be out of order, if the Board tried to attempt to change an ordinance that has yet been approved. He also discussed the issue of the County not enforcing the law, and the State becoming involved with the issue. He further indicated that he did not know how the Board can take an action, in its official capacity, to obstruct enforcement of public law.

Mr. Joe Spencer, owner of property south of Highway 50, appeared before the Board and stated that he is a farmer, and that the farmers and the developers are not hurting the environment. He discussed the regulations that are being proposed to limit development of property, and stated that rights will be taken away from the landowners, including the farmers and developers.

Mr. Spencer discussed the wetlands and commented that there are particular wetlands that should be protected, but not all them south of Highway 50.

Mr. Donald Bronson, farmer and rancher in Lake and Polk Counties, appeared before the Board and stated that he believes in local control for protecting wetlands, and all of the land. Mr. Bronson questioned the types of business each of the members of the Review Committee is in, with it being noted that there was no one representing agriculture. He stated that he lacks confidence in the State and feels that the representatives in Lake County are adequate to run the County. He further stated that he lives in the Green Swamp and discussed this issue with the Board.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board did make an error by not having a representative from the agriculture community on the Review Committee, and that the Board is now attempting to put together a committee to review all proposed ordinances pertaining to agriculture.

Mr. Leon Parish appeared before the Board and discussed being a land owner in Lake County. He discussed raising pigs and growing citrus, and stated that he has used fertilizers, but has never used any chemicals.

Ms. Barbara Kent, Eustis, appeared before the Board and stated that she is a farmer. She stated that she cannot understand the split between the farmers and developers. She discussed the State law and stated that everyone can read it and understand the meaning of it.

Mr. Thomas Birns, Groveland area, appeared before the Board and stated that he has citrus in this area of the County. He discussed the different types of land, and the uses for the land.

Mr. Todd Angel, Clermont, appeared before the Board to clarify the designation of land and explain that all of the Green Swamp is wetlands. He stated that he is not against farming. He explained that, in 1969, the Soil Conservation Service and Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) prepared a soil conservation map, which designates different properties. He discussed the Green Swamp and areas that are high recharge, and stated that the problem does not come from the use of the swamp for farming, but when you

place high density development on it and you block the recharge out. Mr. Angel discussed people contamination from septic tanks and cesspools, and stated that, if there are no wetlands and high recharge, there will be an outbreak of diseases. He went on to discuss the water quality in Lake County, and the flow of the rivers.

Mr. Claude Smoak, Clermont, appeared before the Board and stated that he lives in the Green Swamp. Mr. Smoak presented the Chairman with a petition signed by approximately 300 families that support the Board in their action to defend the plan that the elected people in Lake County developed and presented to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated that he is an active farmer and citrus grower, and that he feels there is a tremendous amount of room for the environmental community, the agricultural community, and the development community to move together, and to find common ground to develop positive policies that everybody can live with. Mr. Smoak discussed the Green Swamp and challenged anyone to point out those so called areas of shrinking wetlands. He further welcomed anyone who is concerned with the wetlands to visit a working ranch in the Green Swamp that is concerned with the wetlands. He requested an explanation from the County Attorney on Chapter I, 1.02.00 Vesting for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, 1.02.01 Agricultural Waiver, in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

Ms. Lustgarten explained the wording in Chapter I to Mr. Smoak, with Mr. Smoak commenting that an individual will have lost the use of the land for their dwelling purposes for which it was purchased, as indicated in the wording, and suggested that the Board look at this section closely and consider a minimum of five years, or a reasonable time.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that a land use plan amendment would always be an option available to the property owner. She stated that an agricultural waiver would create 40 acre tracts, which is consistent with all land use categories in the County. This

section is permitting development based on the prior existing development regulations by December 1, 1993.

Discussion occurred regarding the large lot waiver and the language contained within the proposed LDRs. Commr. Swartz stated that he had suggested something similar to the "old lot of record ordinance", which recognized that, when zoning came into Lake County, there were a lot of substandard lots. The ordinance indicates that any single individual that bought one of those lots could develop on that lot, subject to the necessary infrastructure being put in. If an individual owned more than one of those lots, he could only get a density for one unit on that lot. He feels this would be more fair, and should be incorporated into this section.

Discussion occurred regarding Groveland Farms and Lake Highlands, and how the "old lot of record ordinance" protects those areas.

Mr. Smoak stated that he disagrees with the language being proposed, if it is the intent to discriminate against a multiple owner of buildable tracts, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that an individual would have to meet the size requirement for a particular lot. Mr. Smoak stated that he would request that the Board review this issue with staff very carefully before it is approved.

Mr. Smoak discussed the issue of all agricultural activities being considered the same as development activities, and stated that he has a problem with this.

Commr. Gregg requested that Mr. Smoak put his concerns in writing and submit them to the Board members and staff to be reviewed before the next LDR meeting.

Mr. Bill Ray, resident of south Lake County, appeared before the Board and stated that the LDRs, as written and as they pertain to the Green Swamp, are concise and give the County the flexibility to design proper development under the Comprehensive Plan that has been submitted. Mr. Ray questioned Chapter VI, Resource Protection Standards, Page VI-4, which pertains to the wetlands, and stated

that he was of the understanding that, in a move to limit duplication, the County was going to delegate jurisdiction to the St. John River Water Management District (SJRWMD), but that this section does not give this indication.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control, stated that the current language indicates that the policies that were not covered by other agencies, either were not consistently covered, or were not covered at all, would be deferred to other agencies for permitting.

Mr. Ray discussed the Technical Committee's report from Polk County, and stated that this is an issue of Polk County trying to tap Lake County's water supply. He further stated that this is not an environmental issue, but is an issue of water resources, and that Tampa has voiced a desire to freely utilize Lake County's resources and force Lake County's property owners to subsidize their growth and development.

Mr. Egor Emery, Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board and discussed the clearing of wetlands around Lake Apopka, and stated that this is not improving the land. Mr. Emery stated that he does not want Lake County to add another layer of bureaucracy on a mountain of regulations, but he does want the County to protect the wetlands by being the unifying force between the different agencies. He discussed the consultant's Impact Fee Study, and stated that the County needs to start collecting the proper impact fees and using these fees to regulate development. He requested that the Board represent the interest of all Lake citizens, and protect the wetlands.

Mr. Kent Williams, vocational agricultural teacher in Groveland, appeared before the Board and introduced three students who are members of the Future Farmers of American (FFA) organization, as follows: Ms. Melinda Ross, Mr. Rhett Kelly, and Ms. Missy Moss. At this time, Ms. Missy Moss, a State finalist, made a presentation, which included the reciting of the FFA creed.

Mr. Jay Vandermeer appeared before the Board and stated that the 1977 Comprehensive Plan did a very good job protecting the Green Swamp, and that the County ordinance is all of the protection that the County needs for the wetlands. He questioned the reasons for the proposed lower densities, and stated that the Bill of Rights protects the land owner, and the only way land can be used for the good of us all is with due compensation.

Ms. Caroline Carter appeared before the Board and discussed unregulated sludge dumping in the Green Swamp area. She discussed the conditions of the lakes and the land of the County, and stated that the County needs to keep local regulations, in order to change the present conditions.

Mr. Frank Bouis appeared before the Board and discussed an article from the Daily Commercial and stated that he disagrees that the County is a mess, but it may get that way in the future. He discussed the period of time (1971) that the Green Swamp was declared an area of critical State concern. He stated that, in 1971, he was the Chairman of the Lake County Water Authority, and in that capacity, he testified at the public hearings, at which time the Green Swamp was declared an area of critical State concern. At that time, the head of the United States Geological Service testified that the Green Swamp was not a water recharge area. He stated that this fact was ignored, because Lake County was a part of the Southwest Florida Management District. Mr. Bouis continued to discuss the past history involving the Green Swamp.

Mr. Bouis stated that there is no reason why the Lake County Commission should enact and enforce any regulations in addition to those that are actually needed for the benefit of the people in Lake County, and there should be no other consideration to take place. He wished that the Board would adopt such a policy.

Mr. John Hall, Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and stated that people had moved from other counties to Lake County to remove themselves from the congestion. He stated that, in the past year, the County has rezoned three PUDs in this area, for a

total population of 17,000 people, who are miles away from city services all because the land is cheap. He stated that he objects to a Technical Review Committee based solely on developers and land use attorneys. He suggested that the Committee be developed of citizens from all parts of life. Mr. Hall referred to the LDR that relates to the section that has been slashed by 50% in regards to the minimum tree requirement for multi-family and commercial use. He stated that there were no tree farmers or environmentalists on the Technical Review Committee.

Mr. Donald Vaughn, Umatilla, appeared before the Board and stated that the County needs to protect the farmer, and help the developer to develop the property, so that it is advantageous to the people.

Mr. Jim Bible, The Greater Construction Corporation, appeared before the Board and addressed his letter to the Board regarding suggestions made for consideration. The first recommendation made involved Section 14, as follows:

That PUD and MUQD zoning be made permanent and thereby treated similarly to all other zonings. The PUDs and MUQDs would be subject to the County Land Development Regulations including its concurrency provisions.

The next suggestion referred to Chapter V Concurrency, Section 5.05.04B, as follows:

The capacity reservation fee be based upon the transportation impact fee and not all the impact and connection fees. Also, the applicant should be able to reserve capacity for up to three years which is a reasonable time frame to proceed from zoning through improvement plan approval, site construction and platting. Capacity reservation for one year would require prepayment of 100 percent of transportation impact fees, two year reservation would require 50 percent each year and for a three year reservation the capacity would be 33 1/3 percent each year. All other impact fees would be due at the time a building permit is issued.

The 6 percent processing charge (Section 5.05.04B) should also be subject to a maximum dollar amount of $1,000.00.

Mr. Bible stated that his letter also consisted of additional suggestions related to the proposed Lake Development Code.

Mr. Howard Barry, Clermont, appeared before the Board and spoke to the issues of growth and taxation, in relation to the updating and amending of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the present residents of Lake County are obtaining the burden of

subsidized growth in their present taxes and fees, which go to promoting growth. He further stated that they oppose this Commission's version of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and endorse the recommendation of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Mr. Barry stated that the DCA is the only government, or organization, in this State that has tried any "brake" on taxes.

Mr. Ronni Caggiano appeared before the Board and stated that he gives the Board full support, and he wants the Board to continue to protect his property rights and his grandchildren's rights.

Mr. Ray Watson, Umatilla, appeared before the Board and discussed the issue of the County getting out of the wetlands protection business, and allowing the State agencies to come in and run this business for Lake County. He then discussed Polk County and the proposals this County has made regarding the Green Swamp issue, and stated that nothing that Polk County has proposed can possibly pertain to Lake County.

Commr. Bailey stated that he does not agree with what the Task Force did in Polk County regarding the Green Swamp, and, for the record, he does not intend to recognize it as a member of this Board. He stated that this issue will be handled in Lake County, and that the duplication problems pertaining to wetlands need to be dealt with, in order to cut costs. He further stated that the people are saying they want local control on these issues, and for the local Board to decide land use, and that they do not want the duplication process with the wetlands. Commr. Bailey stated that, until the State sends the money back to Lake County, the County should not handle the wetland requirements.

Mr. Watson discussed the condition of the lakes in the County, and stated that the County needs to take care of the headwaters.

Mr. Dale Ladd appeared before the Board and challenged anyone to define "green swamp". He stated that he owns land in the Green Swamp, and the State cannot define it. He questioned how the County can regulate issues that cannot be defined.

Mr. Parrish appeared before the Board to discuss the water problems in Lake County.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that she represents a number of property owners, business owners, business interests, and agricultural interests, and that, since the Board has limited speakers to five minutes, she requested the record reflect that she did not have time this evening to give the name, address and business interest, or individual property ownership, of each and every one of her clients. She requested that the record reflect that she is submitting a list to the Chairman of the people she is representing, and this, in no way, abridges their right, or keeps them from speaking individually, and also having standing on their own right.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, with the newly proposed regulations, individuals will have difficulty representing themselves on land issues in the future without the assistance of professionals.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she is concerned with large lot waivers and lot approval, and stated that the only difference of whether an individual can get a lot split, or a lot as created versus a lot large waiver, is where it is located. She stated that, if it is on an easement, a large lot waiver is administra-tively pursued, or if it is on a County maintained road, a lot split will be done. Ms. Bonifay stated that the Board is discriminating and not giving those people equal protection. She urged the Board to change this and treat those lot splits exactly like you would lots that are created through the large lot waiver process.

Ms. Bonifay requested that the Board extend the time for PUDs and suggested that, on the issue of concurrency and impact fees, there needs to be some formula and some percentage figure to determine the actual costs. She further stated that the issue of variances will now require legal proceedings before planning and zoning commissions and boards of adjustment. Ms. Bonifay discussed Comprehensive Plan amendments and stated that she feels this

provision is incorrect, because the Comprehensive Plan is done twice a year. She went on to discuss the issue of the Green Swamp, and stated that the Board should be careful and suspect of a study that has not been endorsed by anybody in Polk County, much less Lake County.

Mr. Bennett Walling appeared before the Board and presented a petition with approximately 100 signatures, and stated that the property owners support the majority of the Commissioners in their efforts to keep the Tallahassee Bureaucrats of DCA out of their business in Lake County and defend the local control of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in July, 1991. Mr. Walling commented on the wetland rules and the duplication of procedures.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that he would like to preserve his rights to put his comments regarding this issue in writing before the next meeting. Mr. Richey discussed definitions being placed in the LDRs, and especially the term "propagation", and stated that he has concerns with his rights. He went on to discuss the wetland issue and stated that he is concerned with the requirements being made for environmental easements. He further stressed his concern with the variance section, and requested that the Board take a good look at this section, in order for people to get relief from the criteria being proposed.

At 7:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the meeting would be closed to any further public comment reserving further comment to the Board.

Ms. Lustgarten directed the Board's attention to her memorandum dated May 5, 1992, with proposed amendments to the LDRs, as follows:

1. Chapter IX, Pages IX-70 and 71. These are changes requested by the Fire Rescue Section.

2. Chapter XIV, Pages 7-12. These changes reflect the Planning and Zoning Commission sitting as the Local Planning Agency

for land use plan amendments, as previously approved.

3. Chapter XIV, Pages XIV-73 through 76. These pages reflect the

Section 14.10.01, Minor Lot Split language that was before the

Board of County Commissioners on April 7, 1992, the last workshop meeting. Section 14.10.02, Large Lot Splits, reflects the language before you at the April 7, 1992 workshop, as well as the approved changes.

Ms. Lustgarten discussed Chapter XIV, Page XIV-73 regarding Minor Lot Splits, which codifies the existing process in place. She referred to Page XIV-74, 14.10.02 Large Lot Splits, which includes the changes that were approved by the Board on April 7, 1992, for variances. Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board has before them, in the LDRS, proposed language submitted by the Planning Department, with a couple of items that were left out from the April 7, 1992 meeting. She stated that Mr. Stubbs has also submitted to the Board members a memorandum dated April 29, 1992, which addresses this particular section as well.

Mr. Stubbs stated that he disagrees with the proposed language submitted by Ms. Lustgarten, as follows: "Each proposed lot shall front a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) feet on a paved private road, a publicly maintained road, or an easement." Ms. Lustgarten explained that this wording was before the Board on April 7, 1992.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, in his memorandum, he added the following, which was due strictly from a public health, safety and general welfare concern:

6. If a variance is sought from the requirements of the above

referenced standards the Board of Adjustment shall consider

the inclusion of the following:

a. An improvement of the non-exclusive easement with

clay or other stabilized surface as approved by

Lake County.

b. The inclusion of maintenance requirements for the

easement into the deeds or Deed Restrictions for the

proposed administrative subdivision in a form

acceptable to the County.

c. Limiting the number of lots being created to remain

consistent with the development pattern in the

surrounding area of the proposed administrative


Commr. Swartz stated that he was not opposed to adding the above language, because it does put people on notice, but questioned whether there is a road frontage requirement in the

current LDRs. Mr. Stubbs responded that there are no requirements, and he reviewed the requirements of the zoning code.

Mr. Stubbs and Ms. Lustgarten informed the Board that they wanted the following inserted into the language: flag lots cannot be created.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to strike the language requiring the 150 feet on a paved private road (#5), and insert language that says flag lots will not be allowed to be created under this large lot split process.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add the language provided by Mr. Stubbs to indicate that, for any administrative subdivision, the appropriate language be recorded on the proper lot documents, including the maintenance of the easement. This would include the change on Page XIV-76, Number 6, as indicated in Mr. Stubb's memorandum, with the exception of the variances granted. Generally applicable language will be added for large lot splits.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the language on Page XIV-75, D. Standards, in Mr. Stubb's memorandum, which states only five (5) new lots may be created per original parcel (the total number of lots created shall not include the original parcel).

Discussion occurred regarding the proposed changes to Chapter IX, Pages IX-70 and IX-71, which were contained in Ms. Lustgarten's memorandum, and submitted by Fire Rescue, regarding potable water requirements in relation to fire.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to place the proposed language into Chapter IX, Pages IX-70 and IX-71, pertaining to potable water, into the Technical Specifications Manual, as recommended by Ms. Karen Bowerman, Assistant Fire Coordinator, Fire Rescue, and as amended.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendments to Chapter XIV, Pages XIV-7 through XIV-12, as submitted by Ms. Lustgarten, County Attorney.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following changes to Chapter XIV, Page XIV-12:

14.02.10 Exceptions: C. Small scale development activities if the proposed amendment is a residential land use of ten (10) acres or less with a density of ten (10) units per acres...."

C. 1. The cumulative effect of the above condition shall not exceed sixty (60) acres annually;...

Ms. Lustgarten discussed Chapter III, Page III-28 regarding the definitions of kennel or cattery, and the number of cats and dogs allowed. She discussed the issue of "greyhound dog farms", and stated that the way that the current code is drafted, this is not a listed permitted use, and it is defined as a commercial kennel based on the current definitions. She discussed some of the objections that the greyhound owners had with obtaining a commercial kennel license.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that there are a number of typographical errors, and scrivener errors as well, which will be brought before the Board in amendment form before the next meeting. Certain language was also left out of the Wekiva amendment, which will be inserted, and will also be brought before the Board in amendment form.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the issues concerning the parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas; mobile home bond process; and care for the infirm need to be included in the LDRs, with no changes being made to the verbiage. He discussed the building of towers and stated that this should continue to be allowed, in accordance with the State and Federal laws. Mr. Stubbs stated that another issue discussed was the average setbacks for commercial and industrial, which have been included in the LDRs, and requested that he be allowed to also include the setbacks for residential.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, in Policy 1-1.10 in the Comprehensive Plan, it establishes the 80% rule for density to assume adjacent to a municipality, and requested that this also be included in the LDRs.

Ms. Lustgarten summarized what the Board will have before them on May 19, 1992.

Commr. Bailey discussed Chapter II, Page II-15, the definition of development or development activity. He stated that he would like to make the following changes:

Strike: "...of a site. (striking the period)

Add: "...of a site, except as activities apply to normally accepted agricultural practices.

Commr. Swartz requested clarification on the changes being proposed by Commr. Bailey and questioned if this is designed to deal with the active agricultural and silvicultural activities that are currently being done on lands that are currently being in agricultural use, or will this also apply to the clearing or intrusion into lands that are not currently being used for those agricultural practices. Commr. Bailey stated that it would include all of this land. Commr. Swartz stated that he would not support extending this into the lands that are not currently being used for these purposes.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gregg, to approve Chapter II, Page II-15, the definition of development or development activity, to reflect the definition of development from Florida Statutes 380.04.

Ms. Gail Easley sited Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the definition of development, which is the same definition referenced in Chapter 163.

Commr. Swartz extensively discussed the motion on the floor. After further discussion, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

Commr. Bailey referred to Chapter VI, Page VI-3 F. Standards for Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices, and proposed the following change:

Strike: "Where habitat is known to contain designated species, a notice of intent and approved management plan shall be required. Wetlands shall not be fenced so as to restrict the movement of wildlife and shall be allowed to separate ownership of lands."

Ms. Lustgarten stated that this language tracks the language from the Comprehensive Plan, and would require an amendment to the Plan, in order to strike the language.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gregg, to approve to strike the above language from Chapter VI, Page VI-3.

Commr. Swartz stated that, as a point of clarification, if the Board decides to approve the motion, the same language is on Page VI-15, and should be included in the motion. After review, Mr. Barker stated that the last two sentences being struck are not included in the section on Page VI-15.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Swartz voting "no".

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved to insert into Chapter VI the revised language pertaining to the wetlands, from the memorandum presented by Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Pollution Control.

Commr. Swartz voted "no".

Commr. Bakich referred to Chapter VI, Page VI-17 B. Relocation, and questioned the singling out of gopher tortoises, with Mr. Barker stating that he would review the wording in the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz discussed the issue brought forward by Mr. Smoak regarding minor lot and large lot splits, which will be under a new land use map and will be incompatible, and therefore nonconforming. He stated that he supports the concept of a system such as the "lot of record", and that these lots should gain the same rights.

Discussion occurred regarding Chapter III, Page III-28 and the language concerning "lot of record". Commr. Gregg suggested that Mr. Stubbs review this section and present, in amendment form, how this issue can be addressed, and Commr. Swartz requested that he

include the impact of the lot of record process, as well as the administrative waivers that created lots.

Commr. Swartz referred to Chapter III, Page III-18, regarding the R-1 zoning, Non-Intensive Agricultural, (C & P) with Ms. Lustgarten stating that, if it is under five acres, it would be a permitted use, and if it is over five acres, it would be a conditional use permit. It was noted that clarification would be made on this issue, and to Page III-19, Plant Nurseries, (C & P).

Commr. Swartz referred to Chapter IV, Page IV-12 A. Open Space, regarding a minimum of twenty (20) percent of the gross area of land of the PUD shall be used for open space. He then referred to Page IV-15, A. Allocation of Uses, and stated that in #5, the minimum should be 15% of the gross land area of a MUQD.

Commr. Bakich referred to Chapter VI, Page VI-10 B. Clearing Limitation of the Shoreline, and questioned the total of 25 feet of the shoreline vegetation. It was noted that this language is contained within the Comprehensive Plan. After discussion, the Board requested that this issue be placed as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz referred to Chapter XIV, Page XIV-2 D. Mail, regarding the three hundred (300) feet of the perimeter of the Applicant's property. He stated that this section should read "150 feet for all other than mining, which requires 300", with clarification and direction being given to staff to incorporate this language. Mr. Barker stated that he also understood that the language be tracked for the noticing that has to be on the nearest roadway. It was noted that the additional posting on the intersection or access road would be included for the mining process.

Commr. Gregg requested that staff review the technical aspects that were referred to by Mr. Barker, so that they comply with DER, and report back at the final hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved to not place a time limit on PUDs and MUQDs.

Commr. Swartz voted "no".

Commr. Gregg discussed the requirement of charging all impact fees up front, and stated that an individual should pay the fees when the system is impacted. He stated that he would like to see some charge, but not a requirement to place 100 percent of the potential impact fees up front, and tying up capacity.

Discussion occurred regarding placing the impact fee requirements within Chapter V relating to concurrency. Mr. Stubbs stated that there will be some fee schedule amendments, with a resolution being adopted at the last meeting.

Commr. Bailey discussed the suggestions made by Mr. Bible regarding Chapter IX, Page IX-8, Section 9.01.04 and Section 9.02.07, which allows six (6) trees for lots greater than six thousand (6,000) square feet up to and including one (1) acre; and six (6) trees for each additional acre in excess of one (1) acre. He requested that staff review this section.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.