A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 24, 1992

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 24, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice-Chairman; Don Bailey; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Finance Director; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Bailey.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA

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

Accounts Allowed

Payment of bills and bills of indigents, Warrant #159728 through Warrant #160154, for the following accounts:



General Revenue County Transportation Trust

Landfills Mosquito Control

Section 8 Resort & Development Fund Tax

Private Industry Council County Fire Control Fund

Insurance Fund Emergency 911 Fund

Countywide Library Commissary Trust Fund

Law Library Aquatic Weed

Special Projects Greater MSTU

Northeast Ambulance Law Enforcement Trust Fund

Capital Outlay



Accounts Allowed/Assessments/Subdivisions



Satisfaction of Assessment Liens, for the following:



Pine Island Shores



James & Linda Daugherty $642.93



Mount Plymouth



James Robert Wansley,II. $l,911.36



Garcias Subdivision



Ike & Carolyn T. Mobley $386.10



St. Johns-Manhattan



Charles & Ruth Barfield & Herbert A. & Modell

Barfield $5,124.11



COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

Community Services

Request for approval for Social Services to coordinate and distribute approximately 2,000 toys, provided by the Orlando Sentinel to the parents of Lake County's indigent children.



Facilities & Capital Improvements



Request for authorization to use County owned road tractor and trailer to construct float for Christmas parades.



Land Development Regulation/Roads-County & State/Resolutions



Request for approval of a road name change to Glen Eagle Drive, as requested by the applicant.



ADDENDUM #1 - COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

Budget Transfers



Fiscal Year 1991/92 (Year-End Closeout)



1. Fund: Countywide Fire Services

Department: Health and General Services

From: Operating Expenses $31,106

To: Personal Services $31,106

Transfer #: 92-0364



Fiscal Year 1992/93



1. Fund: Sales Tax Capital Projects

Department: Capital Improvements

From: Capital Outlay $86,170

To: Capital Outlay $86,170

Transfer #: 93-0028



2. Fund: Sales Tax Bond Construction

Department: Capital Improvements

From: Operating Expenses $529,388

To: Operating Expenses $321,888

Capital Outlay $207,500

Transfer #: 93-0029



3. Department: Sheriff

Fund: Law Enforcement Trust

Other Current Charges (490) $425.68



Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Resolutions/State Agencies/Jails



Resolution requesting that the General Fund be amended to increase the total budget to include unanticipated revenue received in the amount of $21,000.00, from the State of Florida, Department

of Labor and Employment Security, for the purpose of recruiting applicants for training of employability skills and job placement in non-subsidized employment upon release of the Department of Corrections approved by the Board on September 22, 1992.



Accounts Allowed/Fire & Emergency Services



Request for payment of retrospective premium adjustment for Fire Services Workers' Compensation, in the amount of $33,902.00, for FY 90-91.



ADDENDUM #2 - COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

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

Community Services/Grants



Request for approval and signature on a delegation of authority letter and Genesis grant enabling Mr. Robert McKee the authority to approve all fiscal and quarterly reports required by the sub-grant for the Genesis program for fiscal year 1992-93.



PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

ROAD CLOSINGS

PETITION #690 - Rodney Adams - Lake Jem Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board. He stated that this request was postponed for 60 days, so that staff could meet with the property owners on the site. He discussed the 30 foot easement, which has a private clay road with a gate on the east one-half of a 30 foot right-of-way, and a fence on, or near, the right-of-way line between Lake County and Orange County. He stated that the owner of the gate provided Mr. Adams with a key to the gate. Mr. Stivender stated that there is no necessary reason for the road, that it is inadequate in size and width to meet County requirements, and there is another access from the south. Letters of objection have been received from all of the surrounding property owners, except for Mr. Adams.

Mr. Steve Adams, representing his father, the applicant, appeared before the Board and discussed the location of the gate. He stated that he was given a key to the gate by the Shipes, which will be returned regardless of the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Adams stated that the position of the applicant is to close the road, or, if the Board chooses to have the road remain open, all

barriers will be removed from the right-of-way. Mr. Adams presented the Board with a detailed exhibit showing the location of the fence and gate.

Mrs. Dorothy Shipes, owner of surrounding property and trustee of two other parcels, appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Cowin, who was not able to be present today, wrote a letter of objection. She stated that gates were erected and everybody was given a key, if they needed to have access. Mrs. Shipes discussed her concerns for future development, and the need to have a certain amount of road frontage. If the road was closed, she would lose footage. She stated that the road access is Grove Street, and , if the County wanted to open it to the property owners, they would be grateful, however, it would be costly. Therefore, they all feel that access should be left from C-448. It was noted that the 15 feet of the right-of-way in Orange County is not a publicly dedicated easement.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that a publicly dedicated easement, or right-of-way, cannot be obstructed.

After some discussion, Mr. Adams indicated that the road will remain open, if the gate is removed, and Mrs. Shipes indicated that she would remove it.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board get the assurance from Mrs. Shipes that the gate will be removed, and postpone the final decision on the road vacation, until the obstruction is removed.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board needed to take action on the public hearing for the road vacation.

Commr. Swartz stated that, as the District Commissioner, he would recommend that the Board deny the road vacation, if the obstruction is removed, postponing the request until December 15, 1992.

No one else present wished to speak in opposition to the request.



On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request until December 15, 1992, at which time staff will verify that the gate is removed, and once the gate is removed, the request will be denied, and the issue will be removed from the December 15, 1992 agenda.

PETITION #694 - Herbert Mayer, Jr. - Sorrento Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented this request to the Board. He stated that there were no letters of opposition.

It was noted that Mr. Steve Vaughn, Jr. was present representing Mr. Mayer.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 694, by Herbert Mayer, Jr., to vacate roads in the Sorrento Area, Commission District #4, as advertised.

PETITION #698 - Calvin C. Lee - Mascotte Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, presented the request to the Board and stated that he received a note this morning that indicated that there is a plat that goes along with the road closing, and that the plat has not been finalized, therefore, legal access that would be required for the property owner to the east does not exist at this time. He requested that action be postponed until December 15, 1992.

It was noted that the applicant was not present in the audience.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that the plat and the vacation will need to be on the agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board postponed Vacation Petition No. 698, by Calvin C. Lee, to vacate an easement in the Mascotte Area, Commission District #2, until December 15, 1992.



COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that a gentleman was present in the audience who wished to come before the Board with an item at this time. He informed the gentleman that the time had arrived for the public hearings on the rezoning cases, and encouraged him to appear at the December 1, 1992, or December 8, 1992, meeting at the time that will be indicated on the agenda for the public to speak on issues of concern, or that he could wait until the Board had time today. Commr. Swartz suggested that he contact Commr. Hanson between now and the next scheduled Board meeting.

REZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, Mr. Jim Barker, Director of the Division of Environmental Management, and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

PETITION #51-92-2 Pine Island Lake Grove

PETITION #55-92-2 James Hanson

PETITION #61-92-2 Gary Johnson & Arvid Johnson, Sr.



Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that the zoning cases in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern were on the agenda last month and were postponed until the Settlement Agreement had been signed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), but, as of this date, the Agreement has not been signed.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that last month when the items were on the agenda, the County was contemplating a November 3rd approval of the Settlement Agreement and an approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to implement the Settlement Agreement. This would have changed the land use designations in the Green Swamp. The Board approved the Settlement Agreement and adopted the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which was forwarded to DCA, but as of this date, DCA has not signed the Settlement Agreement. She stated that the County does not have a definitive position in relation to the Green Swamp. The existing Comprehensive Plan is the plan adopted on July 9, 1991;

the Board transmitted an amendment August 25, 1992; on November 3, 1992, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement and adopted the Amendment, and voted to withdraw the amendment transmitted on August 25, 1992. Ms. Lustgarten stated that the rezoning issues before the Board would have to be reviewed based on the existing Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there are three pending Administrative Hearings in relation to Development Orders that were approved in the Green Swamp based on the County's Comprehensive Plan, and DCA's position is that those are not consistent with the guidelines for the Green Swamp. Ms. Lustgarten recommended that the Board continue action on the issues before them involving the Green Swamp, until such time the issue is resolved. If there is no signed Settlement Agreement, the Administrative Hearing Officer would be advised, and by the end of December, a hearing date for the Administrative Hearing would be set on the County's Comprehensive Plan.

Discussion occurred regarding the cases before the Board, with Mr. Stubbs indicating that the Board could act on Tab 3, #52-92-2, Delmar Berg, and Tab 5, #85A-91-2, Central Development, Inc., because they are not located in the Green Swamp.

Commr. Bailey recommended that Tab 1, #51-92-2, Pine Island Lake Grove, Tab 2, #55-92-2, James Hanson, and Tab 4, #61-92-2, Gary Johnson and Arvid Johnson, Sr., be postponed, with Mr. Stubbs stating that he would like to readvertise, re-post, and re-notice these cases.

Ms. Lustgarten suggested that the cases indicated by Commr. Bailey be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and requested that a date certain be set for the postponed cases.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that possibly January, 1993, could be contemplated as far as the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the County will be going to an Administrative Hearing.

No one present wished to discuss the request for postponement of the three cases indicated by Commr. Bailey.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the following cases until January 26, 1993:

#51-92-2 Pine Island Lake Grove

#55-92-2 James Hanson

#61-92-2 Gary Johnson and Arvid Johnson, Sr.



PETITION CUP#92/9/1-2 Cra-Mar Groves, Inc.

PETITION CUP#92/9/3-2 Cra-Mar Groves, Inc.

PETITION CUP#92/9/2-2 Catherine E. Ross Groves, Inc.

PETITION CUP#92/9/4-2 Paul E. Fabry

PETITION CUP#92/9/5-2 Carl & Patricia Fabry



Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, stated that Mr. Jim Barker, Director of the Division of Environmental Management, and staff requested a 30 day postponement on the above indicated cases last month, and recommended that these cases be postponed indefinitely, due to the fact that the County does not have an agreement with Orange County at this point in time.

No one present wished to discuss the requests indicated by Mr. Stubbs.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone indefinitely the following cases, as recommended by Mr. Stubbs:

CUP#92/9/1-2 Cra-Mar Groves, Inc.

CUP#92/9/3-2 Cra-Mar Groves, Inc.

CUP#92/9/2-2 Catherine E. Ross Groves, Inc.

CUP#92/9/4-2 Paul E. Fabry

CUP#92/9/5-2 Carl & Patricia Fabry



PETITION #53-92-3 William B. Joy

PETITION CUP#92/9/6-2 Ted Wyatt



Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, requested that the above indicated cases be postponed for 30 days, in order that all issues be resolved.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing Mr. Ted Wyatt, who was present in the audience, appeared before the Board and stated her concerns regarding this case. She stated that Mr. Wyatt applied for the CUP in August, 1992, and because of questions being presented today regarding County policies, she feels that Mr. Wyatt's position is being prejudiced, as the County cannot

determine which Land Use Map to use. Ms. Bonifay stated that he is consistent with the July, 1991, map, which the County Attorney indicated would be in effect today. The Board did determine, at the November 3, 1992 meeting, that they would consider some of the requests on a case by case basis, even though staff requested that the Board reject all applications that were pending and were not consistent with the November 3, 1992 map. If it is the prerogative of the Board to delay the requests, she wanted the record to reflect that his position has been prejudiced, and there has been no fault to her client. Ms. Bonifay discussed the issue of vested rights, and stated that, if the Board adopts the November 3, 1992 language, which changes the vesting language, there arises a conflict between the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.

After some discussion, Commr. Swartz suggested that Case No. CUP#91/9/6-2 be left on the agenda for consideration.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Petition

#53-92-3, William B. Joy, the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), for the construction of a medical office complex, until December 15, 1992.

PETITION #65-92-4 St. Johns Reserve PUD

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board and stated that the applicant was requesting a 30 day postponement.

Discussion occurred regarding this case being affected by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with Commr. Swartz suggesting that the Board may wish to postpone the request for more than 30 days.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that he would prefer the 30 day postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)

and variance of Section 9.04.03(3) of LDR, for the construction of manufactured homes, commercial site, lodge, clubhouse/restaurant, recreational amenities and utilities, for 30 days, until December 15, 1992, as requested by the applicant.

PETITION #52-92-2 - A to AR - Delmar M. Berg

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board.

It was noted that Mr. Delmar Berg was present in the audience.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

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 the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for the construction of a single-family residential conventional home, and including the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide 33 feet from the centerline of Rester Road, as recommended by staff.

PETITION #85A-91-2 - Amendment to PUD Ord. #48-91 -

Central Development Inc.



Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board and stated that this was advertised, so that the applicant could amend it as they saw applicable. The applicant requested the following: the site be allowed to have the inclusion of mobile homes and manufactured housing within the development; and for the amendment to include the deletion of fire hydrant requirements along the main roadway, which had been required by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Staff had discussed the proposed amendments and requested that a mini-pumper, with an approximate cost of $65,000.00, instead of the fire hydrants, be included as a staff recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the request be approved for an amendment to the PUD Ordinance #48-91, in its entirety, with the elimination of the fire truck requirement, which staff had requested, and adding language that modular and manufactured

housing, as well as a clubhouse, be permitted. There were eight letters against the request. Mr. Stubbs stated that the pumper truck would be housed at the fire station in Groveland.

It was noted that the request meets the requirements under the July, 1991 Comprehensive Plan for density and the transfer from wetland areas.

Mr. Stubbs stated that, if the applicant is not going to have fire hydrants in the area, staff would recommend site built homes. Staff further recommends that the Board try and obtain some type of fire equipment, to meet the minimal requirements of the Groveland Fire Department, and to limit the area to site build homes. He further stated that this was sent to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and they have signed off on it.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that she was present for clarification on certain concerns, and wanted to discuss two issues that were brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this case.

Ms. Bonifay discussed a procedural issue with the Board. She stated that the Board is now acting under quasi-judicial hearings, and it came to her attention that the people who had appeared and commented in opposition to this case and included Commr. Gerber. Through research, since this is quasi-judicial, the same rules and procedures must be followed as the judiciary would follow, which would include the Code of Ethics. She stated that she has presented the County with a brief on this issue, and requested Commr. Gerber to refuse herself from the issue, and if not, she would like the record to reflect this.

Commr. Gerber stated that she would excuse herself based on the fact that she did give testimony on the issue of this PUD when it was presented to the Board on an earlier date, and would abstain from the discussion and vote on the issue before the Board today.

Ms. Bonifay stated that a PUD was approved for this particular site, approximately 700 acres, with a little more than 100 units.

The determined density is one (1) unit per six (6) acres on this site. After the approval of the PUD in August, 1991, she, in behalf of the applicant, applied for a "vested rights" determination. It was reviewed and approved that, approximately 34 days after the passage of the Comprehensive Plan, it did have vested rights for purposes of consistency and concurrency, but, because it came in after the Plan, that was the standard that was used for review. It must meet all of the requirements of the July, 1991, Comprehensive Plan, and the results of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that were adopted in pursuant thereof. She stated that the applicant will withdraw the issue of mobile versus conventional to maintain their vested rights position.

Ms. Bonifay discussed the fire issue and indicated that only clarification was needed. She stated that staff made its recommendation, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, for the pumper, and she feels this is a conventional construction, and that the fire impact fee, when determined, should be paid per unit, which is what the applicant has offered to do.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that this issue involves a vested approved PUD, which has been approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

Ms. Bonifay stated that she has consulted with the DCA staff, and the staff person for the Green Swamp, and provided information as to her intentions, and that it had been indicated to her that, even with the mobile and fire clarification, there would be no change in how it effected the Green Swamp, and therefore, no problems were anticipated.

Mr. Steve J. Richey was called by Ms. Bonifay as a witness, and the oath was administered by the Deputy Clerk.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she has called Mr. Richey as a witness as to the clarification on the fire issue.

Mr. Richey testified as to the circumstances that took place prior to today regarding this request, from the TRC meeting in June, where there was a requirement by the fire department that the

developer buy a pumper, and to provide the $127.00 additional assessment, with no other fire protection discussions taking place. During this time, he questioned the need for the pumper and assessment, and the TRC deleted the requirement for the pumper. He stated that the assessment was the only requirement as he went forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and to the Board of County Commissioners, in August, 1991. He stated that, in October, he received the Ordinance #48-91 regarding the PUD. He reviewed it and found the revisions for fire protection, which were not presented to the Board of County Commissioners. He inquired as to the meaning of the provisions indicated in the Ordinance, and was advised by staff that, if in fact a subdivision is built, and lots are put in that require fire protection, this would be the standards that would have to be met. Some time after this, staff's position was that the developer would have to provide fire protection through the entire project, which was contrary to his understanding of the language in the Ordinance. Mr. Richey then discussed his appearance before the TRC regarding another issue, where he was given the same advise and explanation of the wording contained in the Ordinance. It was never his intention that he be bound to put an urban fire system in this large lot subdivision, and his client never agreed to do this, nor was he ever compelled to do this, nor was he ever compelled to provide a pumper. Mr. Richey stated that he was only required, as a part of the PUD process, to provide the $127.00, which is the assessment that all PUDs pay. The project was presented to DCA, which Mr. Richey elaborated on at this time.

Discussion occurred regarding the pumper, with Mr. Richey stating that the central fire protection on this project was something that never was required by staff, and never was required by the Board when it voted.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she feels the issue of fire protection involves a scribner's error, or a clerical error, due to Mr. Richey's testimony where the same provisions were included in

the project he presented to the TRC in October, 1992, that involved 20 acres. The standards are being included whether they are applicable or not. She stated that a policy should be set by the Board. Ms. Bonifay stated that the developers have agreed to a very low density development, to pay the impact fees, which is the normal assessment for all PUDs, with the pumper being originally discussed and deleted, and that a clarification be made of the language concerning fire protection.

Mr. Stubbs discussed the staff recommendations on this project, and stated that a copy of the PUD was provided, in the normal manner, to Mr. Richey for review prior to the recording of the document. He received no comments from him on the issue. Mr. Stubbs stated that the fire hydrants are a requirement, and that it is now before the Board as a negotiated process of a PUD.

Ms. Bonifay recalled Mr. Richey to the stand for additional testimony. Mr. Richey stated that the wording before the Board today is not the wording that was before the Board previously, and he understood that it had been deleted by the TRC. He further testified as to the records in his files, and to the interpretation of the language.

Discussion occurred regarding the standard fire requirements, with Ms. Bonifay stating that the issue was not the language, but the interpretation of the language.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that the prior code did, in fact, distinguish between lots of 30,000 square feet or under, as far as hydrants, and would have been clarified, if this language had been included in the ordinance. She indicated that it has always been interpreted that, in PUD zoning as well, if it was under 30,000 square feet, the hydrants would be required.

Mr. Roman Cowan, Central Development, Inc, appeared before the Board and was administered the oath by the Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Cowan addressed the Board on the size of the proposed lots, and the size of the upland area.



It was noted that the fire station is approximately 11 miles from the project. Discussion occurred regarding the project not having a central water system, and consideration being given to the distance to the closest fire station.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, if there was opposition to the request, she reserved the right for rebuttal.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Commr. Bailey recommended that the project remain with site built homes, and that he did not feel there was a need for the fire hydrants, but there was a need for at least a mini-pumper, in addition to the impact fee.

At this time, Commr. Swartz closed the public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board denied and deleted the following: Page 18, #85A-91-2: modular, manufactured or, under Terms, Land Use, Residential section of the PUD.

The motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Gerber abstaining from the discussion and vote.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved the request for the mini-pumper, as follows: Page 19, #85A-91-2: delete the three paragraphs, as indicated in the backup material, regarding Public Facilities, and inserting the requirement of a mini-pumper, in addition to the $127.00 impact fee per lot.

The motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Gerber abstaining from the discussion and vote.

PETITION #50-92-5 A to R-2 Lake Butler Groves, Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that this development is adjacent to Silver Beach Subdivision to the east. At this time, he discussed the narrow roadway that accesses this property, and the out parcel that exists in this area. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant is amiable to restricting their access to Keene Road to the north. He then

discussed the property to the east of the out parcel that the applicant owns, and whether or not the applicant should be allowed to develop the lots that would travel through Silver Beach Heights. Mr. Stubbs presented graphics to the Board for review.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that this parcel is approximately 140 acres, with the majority of it being lakes, leaving approximately 63 acres to be developed. She stated that the concerns mentioned by residents at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting did not involve the land use in terms of density, but more about transportation and access points. She stated that these issues were discussed with staff, and stated that her client is prepared to enter into a Developer's Agreement with the County, which she was prepared to present to the County Attorney in draft form for review. The Agreement would indicate that all access would be provided off of Keene Road. She stated that she also had a concern with the out parcel, but was not aware of the complete legalities involved with it, but that she is aware that the property owners want to continue to utilize the same access they have used in the past. At this time, she discussed the design for the project with the Board, and stated that it would be possible to redesign the area, in order that the present residents continue to utilize the access, with other access points being established. She discussed the issues that may exist in trying to establish alternative routes, and stated that, in order to avoid possible problems, the applicant would be willing to limit the access to Keene Road, with some provision being made for the out parcel in the Developer's Agreement. A preliminary plat could be brought back, with residents being notified for public comment.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that there is a difficulty in limiting access to public roads, but that the design could be a vehicle in which to control the access. She stated that a Developer's Agreement could be entered into, which would be recorded as part of deeds of conveyance.

Commr. Swartz discussed the issue of open space in straight zoning, and this particular type of unique natural terrain before the Board today, and suggested that, at a minimum, the Board should look at the issues that make a distinction between PUDs and straight zoning, and, if there is criteria that will make it difficult, perhaps the applicant should be encouraged to go through a PUD.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the issue of a PUD on this particular case was discussed with the applicant, and staff felt that, because of the configuration of the property, and the existing subdivision to the east, this did not have to be a PUD for this project.

Commr. Swartz discussed the issues that may need to be considered in this case, and suggested that, as part as the Developer's Agreement, the applicant might want to ensure some open space, which is not open water body, which would allow the developer to turn some of the lots into open space, which will provide the buffer for the roadway.

Ms. Bonifay discussed the reasons for not making application for a PUD, and stated that the applicant has spent two years on this project, and it has taken since January, 1992, to acquire the parcel needed for the access to Keene Road.

Commr. Swartz discussed the possibility of the applicant entering into an agreement clearly specifying no more than the out parcel and three lots to be included in an inter-connect to Silver Beach; none of the rest of the development could go into other than Keene Road; and that the applicant provide additionally the open space requirement on the upland portion. No open space will be required for the water. Sixty-three (63) acres will be developable, with twenty-five (25%) percent open space on the 63 acres, to be used as a buffer for that segment that will access through Silver Beach, to be included with the $127.00 fire impact fee. Commr. Swartz stated that this would make it consistent, if this were a PUD before the Board.



Ms. Bonifay stated that she has already contacted the City of Umatilla, and that central water would be available.

At this time, Commr. Swartz called for further public comment, with no one else wishing to address the issue before the Board.

Ms. Bonifay stated that, with the calculation of the open space requirements, this would be over 15 acres (30 lots), which would be over 40% taken out of the entire development, because there are only 70 lots in the entire development.

Commr. Hanson stated that, in a case like this with all of the water, it will be difficult to design in some of the area, and that 25% may be to high as far as percentage.

Ms. Bonifay stated that there are 77 acres of water on the site, and discussed further reasons for bringing this through as a straight zoning. She further discussed, as a solution, taking the three lots that abutt Silver Beach Road and designating those as additional open space, which will handle the connection issue, provide the buffer, and leave the additional recreational area, which will allow access to the waterbodies.

Ms. Bonifay clarified the following: keep the three lots that abutt Silver Beach Drive as open space; have the designated area on the master plan as open space remain; have only the out parcel, or no more than three lots, that would have access to Silver Beach; all other residents would have to access versus Keene Road. She stated that the applicant will commit to the Developer's Agreement and have all access versus to Keene Road.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-2 (Estates Residential), for the development of single-family residential homes, subject to the amendments addressing the open space, turning Lots 65, 66, and 67 into open space; no access from any new lots into Silver Beach Heights; including the $127.00 fire impact fee, and subject to the review of the Developer's Agreement, by the County Attorney, which

will include the conditions stated above by Ms. Bonifay. It was noted that picnic tables and barbecue grills were allowed in the open space, as long as they meet the setback requirements.

PETITION CUP#92/9/6-2 CUP in R-6 Ted Wyatt

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulations, presented the case to the Board.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of the Environmental Management Division, appeared before the Board to address the Technical Staff Report. At this time, Mr. Barker reviewed the contents of the report. The conditions in the report pertained to the following: operation and reclamation plans; financial responsibility; setbacks; standards, which included general, environmental protection, operation, and reclamation; and other conditions.

Mr. Stubbs stated that Policy No. 1-17.6 of the existing Comprehensive Plan, which this case was submitted under, states that there shall not be any solid facilities located in the Green Swamp. It was noted that this particular site was located on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) map, and the property is in the Green Swamp, and is a solid waste facility.

Commr. Swartz discussed the solid waste system and stated that, if the Board decides it is going to continue to approve this type of request, construction and demolition (C & D), then it needs to work with the Department of Community Affairs to make sure that they know the difference between C & D, and a landfill that opposes other problems, and maybe conditions can be placed and be sufficient.

Mr. Barker pointed out a provision under the Other Conditions, as follows: This permit shall be reviewed by the County after three (3) years and renewed in five (5) years. He stated that staff has also required them to monitor the access, and to be able to monitor and provide for staff as to what goes in there. There is also a condition that gives staff the opportunity to inspect and determine compliance with the CUP. Mr. Barker stated that an

additional condition was added for the future, to levy a franchise fee to allow in-county waste to go to these type of facilities.

Ms. Lustgarten pointed out that Chapter 21, Flow Control Ordinance, prohibits disposal of solid waste, either generated out of the County, or in the County, unless it is a County designated facility, and unless the Board affirmatively votes, by a majority vote, to permit this.

Commr. Hanson discussed the clay pits in the County that would be excellent locations for C & D, and addressing this issue as part of the County's overall solid waste problem.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that the applicant is proposing to operate a C & D landfill, and at this point in time, she distributed photographs of what the applicant has done previously at another site. It was noted that the photographs were not to be entered as evidence, but were for illustrative purposes only. She discussed the number of existing clay pits throughout the County, with the only other licensed C & D operation being Danis Industries. She stated that there are a number of policy determinations that need to be made, which includes, if the Board delays action on the request today, his position will be prejudiced, because there will be more questions raised as to whether he is in compliance with any future Comprehensive Plan; secondly, as to the issue of interpretation of a solid waste facility; and thirdly, the overall solid waste issue. She stated that there are over 16 illegal C & D operations in the County today.

Mr. Ted Wyatt, applicant, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. At this time, Mr. Wyatt testified as to the conditions that he followed at his other site (as presented in the photographs), and the conditions being proposed.



Ms. Bonifay stated that she had suggested that Mr. Wyatt confer with Danis Industries regarding their conditions, and to discuss the commitments necessary for this type of industry.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Ms. Lustgarten clarified that the Flow Control Ordinance clearly defines this facility as a solid waste facility. Secondly, it is clearly prohibited in the County's Comprehensive Plan to permit a solid waste facility in the Green Swamp. A development order permitting this would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the County is prohibited by Chapter 163 from doing this.

Commr Swartz closed the public comment on the request before the Board.

Commr. Bailey referred to the letter submitted by Mrs. Minnie L. Brown, and requested that communication be made to her indicating that this will not be a problem to her.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board might want to postpone the request today, and to look at a final resolution that will allow

C & D landfills in Lake County, and if so, a policy and franchise be put into place to resolve some of the revenue problems, or for the County to get out of the C & D business, or in the continuing upcoming negotiations with DCA, address the issue of the difference between the two types, should the County decide to allow C & D operations, as to the difference between that and a normal landfill, and the conditions.

Ms. Lustgarten stated that an amendment will be required to the existing Comprehensive Plan.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone indefinitely the request for a CUP in R-6 (Urban Residential) and LM (Light Manufacturing), for the construction and demolition debris landfill to fill old clay pits for future planting of citrus.

PETITION #69-92-4 A to AR Charles & Elizabeth Westcott

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed

the Board that a letter from the City of Eustis had been received, and that the Public Services Department was requesting additional right-of-way to provide 50 feet from the center line of C-44A. He stated that staff had received one letter for the request, and the letter of concern from the City of Eustis. Mr. Stubbs stated that this property is designated suburban on the Land Use Map approved in July, 1991, and is inconsistent with the Land Use Map from November 3, 1992, which now has it designated as rural.

Ms. Bonnie Roof, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Ms. Roof stated that the applicants believe that this property should be rezoned to AR (Agricultural Residential), under the map approved in July, 1991, because when the application was submitted, the map was showing this as a suburban designation.

Ms. Roof stated that the applicants have no problem with the additional right-of-way. At this time, Ms. Roof presented a brief explanation of the plans the applicant has made for the property. He will be dividing the property equally between his two daughters, which will be two 3 1/2 acre parcels. She discussed the difference between suburban and rural, in relation to density, and stated that the applicants were in compliance when they submitted the project. Ms. Roof stated that the application was submitted approximately three (3) months ago.

Commr. Hanson stated that there have been cases in the Green Swamp area that presented the same type of problems, and that the Board had agreed to hear such issues on a case by case basis.

Mr. Alton Roane, Director of Development Services, City of Eustis, was present in the audience and stated that he had no additional comments to be made to the letter received from the City of Eustis.

Ms. Roof stated that, if the Land Use Map proposed on November 3, 1992, is approved, the applicants are willing to enter into a Developer's Agreement, which would limit them to two homesites on this property, for two (2) 3 plus acre parcels.

Discussion occurred regarding the surrounding land designation and zoning, and the difference between this case and the ones being presented to the Board in the Green Swamp.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the application is consistent with the July, 1991, Comprehensive Plan, and it is inconsistent with the August, and November, 1992, Land Use Maps.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if this was a larger parcel, he would not support it, because of the various questions with the Comprehensive Plans, but if the applicants are willing to enter into a Developer's Agreement, for two (2) units, it is consistent today with the Plan that is in place.

Commr. Bailey indicated that he would support the request, by being given the opportunity to review such issues on a case by case basis.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to AR (Agricultural Residential), for construction of a single-family dwelling, with a Developer's Agreement limiting the property to no more than two (2) dwelling sites, and the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide 50 feet from the center line of C-44A, as recommended by staff.

PETITION #68-92-4 RP to R-1 Shelby C. McLendon

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation presented the case to the Board. He stated that the Public Services Department was requesting additional right-of-way to provide 50 feet from the center line of C-44. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that a letter had been received from the City of Eustis recommending denial of the request, and indicating that this would be inconsistent with the City's planning area designation. It was noted that the property was under five (5) acres, and a CUP would not be needed.

Mr. Shelby McLendon, applicant, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. McLendon stated that

he would like to start a small tree farm nursery on the property, but there will be no greenhouses. He further stated that he did not live on the property, and had no future intentions of living there.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant had requested a R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning, with the understanding that he would be building a house and have a nursery. Mr. Stubbs explained the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning to the applicant. At this time, Mr. Stubbs requested postponing the case, until all zoning alternatives were discussed with the applicant, in order to determine what would be most sufficient for his needs.

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

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for limited agricultural uses (future plant nursery), until December 15, 1992.

PETITION #67-92-3 RP & PFD to CFD Tri-City Baptist Church

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board.

Commr. Swartz requested that staff strike all references to "mobile homes", and insert "Department of Community Affairs (DCA) approved modular structures".

It was noted that the applicant, Mr. Jimmy "Rex" Williams, was present in the audience, and was clear on the conditions being presented.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from RP (Residential Professional) & PFD (Public Facility District) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the placement of two (2) DCA approved modular structures and future day care to

add to the existing church and parsonage and accessory uses related to a church.

PETITION CUP#92/10/1-1 CUP in A Richard & Jackie McCollum

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that additional right-of-way was being requested by the Public Services Department.

It was noted that Ms. Jackie McCollum, applicant, was present in the audience.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for CUP in A (Agricultural), for a mobile home for care of infirm.

ADDENDUM #1 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Director, Department of Land Development Regulation, informed the Board that he was in the process of sending the proposed schedule for the Land Use Plan Amendments (LUPAs) for calendar year 1993, to the newspaper for advertising.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that staff recommends that the Board postpone the original dates, December 8, 1992, and December 15, 1992, for the public hearings on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Amendments, until January 12, 1993, and January 26, 1993, at 5:05 p.m. It was noted that the LDR workshop is scheduled for December 1, 1992.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved January 12, 1993, and January 16, 1993, at 5:05 p.m., as the public hearing dates on the LDRs, to be advertised.



PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

COUNTY MANAGER/PLANNING DEPARTMENT/ORDINANCES/COMMITTEES

At 10:45 a.m., the Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the ordinance establishing an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, presented an explanation of the proposed ordinance, and requested that, in the first line of the title, the word "THE" be deleted.

No one present wished to speak on this issue.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance 1992-11, as follows by title only:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1992-6, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE LAKE COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE; PROVIDING FOR A TITLE; PROVIDING FOR A PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF OFFICE; PROVIDING FOR DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

COUNTY MANAGER/PLANNING DEPARTMENT/ORDINANCES/FINANCE

At 11:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the ordinance establishing the Lake County Affordable Housing Assistance Fund.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, presented an explanation of the proposed ordinance.

No one present wished to speak on this issue.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance 1992-12, as follows by title only:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE LAKE COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



COMMITTEES/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution No. 1992-217,

appointing the members of the Lake County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, as follows:

Commr. Catherine Hanson Michael Cox

Mark Ricker Faithy Dowdell

Ruth Pelham Rosemary Bennett

Lee Hokr James Dean



RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12 noon, the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten (10) minutes.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

PLANNING DEPARTMENT/STATE AGENCIES/ROADS-COUNTY & STATE

Mr. John Swanson, Director of Planning, appeared before the Board to discuss the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Functional Classification of roads and urban area boundaries. Mr. Swanson stated that there has been a workshop with the cities and the County, and the table before the Board, dated November 23, 1992, represents the rural functional classification, and the urban functional classification. Mr. Swanson informed the Board that Mr. Renzo Nastasi, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), was present to answer questions of the Board.

Mr. Swanson stated that discussed the outside area, which is classified as rural area, between Leesburg and Tavares classification. The classifications must follow the FHWA Manual, which states you have to have 1,000 people per square mile, and the structures have to be physically located on the site. After the FDOT staff did a survey of the area, reviewing aerial topography, etc., it was determined that the urban boundaries could only be extended as far as reflected on the map before the Board. There is an amendment process, which is identified in the Comprehensive Plan, which is a separate process than what the Board is going through today. The process would be in place, once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, and can be initiated through a series of workshops, meetings, and appeals to the FHWA. Mr. Swanson reiterated the fact that the cities did have the

opportunity to sit down with the County staff and the FDOT staff and review what is being reflected to the Board today.

Mr. Renzo Nastasi, FDOT, appeared before the Board and stated that the cities, which were notified of this issue, are the ones that have been identified as the new small urban areas by the census. The other cities were either already in the urban area, where the boundaries had been established ten (10) years ago, or were completely out of the urban area, and were not notified of the process directly. Mr. Nastasi clarified that the boundaries were established by the Consensus Bureau, and were sent to FHWA, and they are not boundaries designated by the FDOT. The boundaries are being adjusted to reflect the development that has occurred since the census was taken in 1990.

Mr. Nastasi discussed the federal funds for classification of roads, and identifying the various classifications assigned to the roads. This process is different from the State funds for classifications, which determines jurisdiction. Here the funding categories and funding levels are being determined for the roads in Lake County, and which ones will be eligible for the funding. Mr. Nastasi stated that this has been more of a coordination between the County and the State, and the cities were welcome to be involved.

Mr. Rex Taylor, City Manager, Leesburg, appeared before the Board and addressed the area from the corporate limits of Leesburg out towards the Municipal Airport. He stated that there is approximately one mile that is designated under this plan as rural, and the City feels that the designation would be more appropriate as urban. He stated that there should be some unique circumstance for this area, because there is a strip of developable property along this corridor of road, and there is wetland, low land area, and it can meet the necessary criteria.

Mr. Alton Roane, Director of Development Services, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and stated that he has a concern regarding the validity of the process that was used to arrive at

this end product. He stated that initially these were two separate projects, the moving of urban area boundaries, and the classification of roads. Mr. Roane discussed the procedures taken by the City in working with the State, and the City then learning that the County would be coordinating the process, and working with the cities individually, with the County having final approval of the process. He then discussed his concern with the cities having input and being involved with the process, and the County now having the actual research and review abilities, which will be compiled into a recommendation to the FDOT. He requested an explanation of the entire process and the role that the cities will have in this process.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, retained by the City of Lady Lake, and the City of Fruitland Park, as their Land Planning and Environmental Services Consultant, appeared before the Board and questioned this starting out as a FDOT process, and it now being with the FHWA. He stated that he would like to have on record as to what the process actually accomplishes, and questioned these cities' position in this process. He stated that he did concur with the map, as far as being urban with FDOT, but requested clarification.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board representing Mr. Vic Donahay, Vic's Embers, Chuck Shepard, George Pringle, Cecil Shumaker, and those who are affected by the designation being shown on the map. He stated that these individuals have property between State Road 44, the cutoff to Eustis, and Leg A. Mr. Richey stated that these properties are designated rural on the federal highway classifications. He further stated that, if you remove the wetlands, and establish only uplands, with the mobile home parks and the high density residential uses that are located there, you meet the criteria, by deleting the indigenous and environmental factors. He stated that, before the Board adopts a resolution designating this as rural, for the purpose of the federal, or state classification, he requested

that he be allowed to provide the necessary information about this area for review. Mr. Richey discussed Policy 2.1.5 of the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and stated that it includes language regarding areas of transportation concern, which includes this corridor he is speaking about, from Leesburg to Tavares. It states in the Comprehensive Plan that the Board, as part of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), by February, 1992, will undertake and do a study to determine how to deal with this particular corridor, in regards to level of service, etc., and stated that he has not seen where this has been done. Mr. Richey suggested that this be setforth in the Comprehensive Plan, the area he is speaking about is in the urban area of the Land Use Maps, including the map of November 3, 1992. He requested that the Board not prematurely approve a resolution that makes this area rural, without giving him the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Discussion occurred regarding the time limit on the issue before the Board. Mr. Nastasi responded by stating that the original deadline for the Functional Classification process was September 1, 1992. The absolute deadline is now December 1, 1992, but only for the classifications. Mr. Nastasi stated that associated with the classifications is the designation of urban and rural sections of roads, which are determined by the boundaries. He suggested that the Board approve a resolution only for the classifications, and not the designation of urban and rural boundaries.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, directed the Board's attention to the Final Federal Functional Classification, dated November 23, 1992, Page 1, and discussed the segment identified as Map No. 9, SR 500, US 441 to SR 44 to CR44A, (rural), in relation to Page 3, Map No. 500, SR 500, US 441 to SR44 to Cooke Dr./Register Rd., (urban).

He stated that the City of Leesburg is concerned because this is listed as a rural principal arterial, and what they are looking at to be consistent through the corridor is to make it an urban principal arterial. If the Board was to adopt a resolution on the Functional Classification today without making this amendment, it would continue as a rural principal arterial.

Mr. Nastasi stated that the maps need to be approved directly by FHWA, in essence of what was to take place today, which was the concurrence of the boundaries, which are to be sent to FHWA for their approval, and returned to the County for signature. Mr. Nastasi stated that he appeared before the Board today with the understanding that the classifications had been agreed upon, and there would be no other questions as to the urban and rural designations.

Discussion occurred regarding the communication that had been made between the FDOT and the County on the issues before the Board, with Mr. Nastasi stating that, for the FDOT to include the Leesburg Municipal Airport, it would have to be of regional significance, and it does not, and cannot be included.

Mr. Nastasi discussed the two general funding categories, National Highway System (NHS), and Service Transportation Program (STP), with Mr. Nastasi stating that there is no distinguishing between urban and rural when it comes to the funding categories. He further stated that this classification occurs following each census, however, as the character of the road changes through time, there is a procedure where any local entity can request for a re-evaluation of every classification on a particular road.

Mr. Wahl stated that there is an issue here that relates to the application of concurrency.

Mr. Nastasi stated that, beginning January 1, 1993, the new level of service manual will be used in the review of all Comprehensive Plans. He further stated that, under the new manual, areas that have a population of 500 people or more are eligible for the same level of service category as the small urban areas. This would apply specifically to this particular segment of US 441 in question. He stated that this information has been provided to the County and cities.



Mr. Mark Knight, Planner, addressed the Board on the issue of Level Service C for urban and rural areas, and stated that there is a definite distinction between urban and rural in the generalized FDOT table.

Discussion occurred regarding the adoption of the FHWA Functional Classification of roads and urban area boundaries, with the change being presented by the Board, with Mr. Nastasi stating that the entire project has been sent to FHWA for approval, and that it is not realistic with the change, and will not be approved. Therefore, this entire process would have to be followed once again.

Discussion occurred regarding the individuals who met on July 31, 1992, for the workshop on this issue.

Mr. Nastasi stated that there were only there major changes made in the classifications of the roadways.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, since the Board has one week before December 1, 1992, to approve this, staff can meet with all parties involved, to agree that the corridor discussed above is urban, or to disagree that it not be determined urban, and whether or not it will affect the County from a concurrency standpoint, from a funding standpoint, or the County may have to put in place the study, as required in the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Nastasi stated that there is no funding impact, and if it is urban or rural, it is eligible for the same funding. He stated that he, or another representative from FDOT, would be more than willing to meet with any of the representatives from the cities, or County, to finalize the one road in question, and to discuss the level of service.

At this time, the issue of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Functional Classification of roads and urban area boundaries was scheduled on the December 1, 1992, Board agenda.



RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:30 p.m., for the workshop on the Landfill Mining and Expansion Alternatives.

LANDFILLS

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that this workshop was to bring the Board up to date on the areas regarding projects and issues within the solid waste management system. He stated that he would like to review the calendar (flow chart) presented to the Board, and review the list of questions, with representatives from Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan (PBS&J) presenting their report on landfill mining. The meeting will entail Board and staff discussion relating to the issues, and the direction that the Board would like staff to proceed, in terms of the issues regarding solid waste. It was noted that the calendar before the Board contains the identified errors, which have been corrected and amended, which resulted in meetings held previously with the Board members.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and introduced the following staff members: Mr. Bill Cummins, Mr. Steve Hiney, Ms. Claire Bartlett, and Mr. Walter Wood. Mr. Omar Smith, PBS&J, introduced Mr. Tom Keith, Mr. Craig Ferguson, and Mr. Larry Pardue, who were also from PBS&J.

Mr. Stivender directed the Board's attention to the calendar, Page 3, and stated that the following correction needed to be made: 5) DED. (Dedicated) PUMPS - this is budgeted and does not need to be bonded.

Mr. Stivender discussed the Solid Waste Management Division Flow Chart, and explained in detail each of the events, the funding source, and the dollars needed per event, or per year, as well as the concept of each plan and timeframe for each.

Under the Leachate Management event, Mr. Stivender explained that a contract has been sent to the City of Eustis, and that staff has worked on contracts with the City of Leesburg, and the City of Mount Dora. The contracts would be for one year only, with the

option for renewal. Mr. Stivender continued to discuss the Leachate Management, and stated that there should be information on the contract from the City of Eustis for the December 1, 1992, meeting.

Discussion occurred regarding the post closure of the Lady Lake landfill, with it being noted that there are four (4) wells that are currently being monitored, with approximately four (4) to six (6) more being added in the future.

Mr. Stivender discussed the solid waste mandatory disposal assessment, with an estimated cost of $285,000.00 this year, with the cost to be less $100,000.00 for future years to operate the system. At this time, Mr. Wahl discussed the reasoning behind the methods being used for the issuance of permit cards to residents for the disposal of solid waste at a landfill or a transfer station.

Discussion occurred regarding the Astatula expansion, with Mr. Stivender explaining that there is an ongoing contract being negotiated with PBS&J on permitting the expansion. He discussed the deadlines and stated that, by December, 1993, the County will have to have an expansion cell in place, due to the closing of Astatula I. At this time, he discussed what would be involved with the expansion of Astatula, and the costs involved with the closing of Astatula I. Mr. Stivender stated that, by June, 1994, Astatula I has to be completely capped, with all construction completed.

Commr. Swartz brought to the attention of the Board a letter submitted by Mr. Joe Woodnick, who was present in the audience.

Mr. Stivender discussed the potential purchase of the adjacent 40 acres for the Astatula II. He stated that Mr. Richard Bowen indicated that he is interested in selling the entire 200 acres, and would not be in favor of selling only 40 acres. His interest is protecting the value of his property, and he would be willing to sell the entire acreage under friendly condemnation to the County. Mr. Stivender discussed the potential options that would be

available to the County, if the County purchased the entire acreage. It was noted that the property was appraised at 1.4 million dollars several years ago, for the entire 200 acres, and the offer to sell was made at 2.2 million dollars. The County is responsible to have the property appraised and evaluated.

Mr. Wahl stated that the County has 18 acres at the Astatula Landfill that could be developed, with a life expectancy of 8-10 years. If the property was purchased from Mr. Bowen, with 80 acres being utilized for additional landfill space, this would take the County through the year 2010. The County would still be in a situation where it may not have adequate alternative disposal space, or landfill space, to put the Board in the position where, if it chooses to renegotiate an agreement with the waste energy plant, an alternative would have to be in place, in the event those discretions fail. Communication has been made with the two property owners at Site K, with a purchase option agreement being offered to each, and neither of them has accepted the proposal. One has made a counter-proposal, with the County moving forward in trying to develop options in those two areas. Mr. Wahl suggested that, because there is no firm recommendation to be made to the Board at this point in time, there are a number of options that staff will continue to explore. If the County proceeds and acquires Site K, then the County would not need the 200 acre tract of land. The Site K purchase amount is twice the asking price of the Bowen site. It was noted that approximately 20 acres will be needed for the water retention area.

Mr. Larry Pardue, PBS&J, addressed Page 3 and discussed the monitoring and permitting for the landfills, which is funded somewhat by the waste disposal fee.

Mr. Wahl directed the Board's attention to the list of questions regarding solid waste, and stated that staff would like to get some direction from the Board on these issues. He stated that the first two items regarding landfill mining can be addressed, after PBS&J present their report.

Mr. Omar Smith, PBS&J, addressed the Board on the work effort recently approached by PBS&J, including landfill mining evaluation, and also the feasibility of expanding Astatula. He discussed these issues with the Board, and in conjunction with this information, he tied it together with the schedule for the consent order being negotiated with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) on the closure of Astatula I. Included in his discussion was the costs in terms of the expansion of the facility. At this time, the Board reviewed overhead projections with information regarding these issues.

Mr. Smith presented a video tape showing the landfill mining field investigation at Astatula I, and once the film was over, a question and answer period was conducted. Questions were asked as to the costs involved with landfill mining, with Lake County looking at approximately $200,000.00 to construct the cell, and approximately $20.00 per ton to mine and manufacture it over a five year period.

Discussion occurred regarding the current landfill mining in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and Collier County, and issues including types of landfill cells, and cover systems being used for the closing of cells, in accordance with State regulations.

Discussion occurred regarding the old cell at the Astatula I landfill, and the existing contamination problem. Mr. Smith discussed the problem that the County is having with water that is flushing out the landfill, and the necessity for a capping system. It was noted that the landfill can be capped and mined.

Information was supplied to the Board from Collier County entitled "Design and Cost of Innovative Landfill Closures Using Unprotected Geomembranes."

Mr. Smith discussed the different types of landfill liners that are available, and how each would affect the water flow at the Astatula landfill. He stated that a liner would reduce the water flow from 600,000 gallons per acre down to 52 gallons per acre by using a liner.

Discussion occurred regarding the contamination assessment report being prepared on the Astatula landfill. Mr. Smith stated that the report will probably not be completed by the time the County will have to have the closure permit. Questions evolved concerning the difference in costs for a zipper cap and a permanent closure cap, with the zipper costs being approximately ten percent (10%) more per acre. Mr. Smith then discussed the concept of each type of liner, with it being noted that a conventional cover would cost $42,849.00 per acre, and the alternative cover would cost $50,420.00 per acre.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the County go forward with the necessary permitting on the new landfill, the expansion at Astatula; go forward on the necessary closure permitting contemplating a conventional closure; go forward on the assessment report; and recognize that, when the report comes back, if necessary, the Board will look at landfill mining once again.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved for staff to proceed with the efforts to permit the additional eighteen (18) acres, with the idea of constructing the first ten (10) acres; for the time being, put landfill mining on hold, and consider reviewing this issue after the contamination report comes back to the Board; and to go forward with the necessary conventional closure permitting.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 4:13 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten (10) minutes recess.

LANDFILLS (CONTINUED)

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the Board wanted to request staff to come back with costs regarding the following items listed under the Solid Waste Questions: "Solid Waste Operations", the expansion of the Transfer Station Program, and under "Hazardous Waste", the establishment of satellite drop-off points. At this time, the Board was in agreement with this direction to staff.



Mr. Wahl stated that staff has begun the traffic studies on the existing transfer stations, and suggested directing Mr. David Carl and Mr. Walter Wood, Department of Land Development Regulation, to look at what it would involve to have one on the north end of the County, and to have one on the south end of the County.

Commr. Swartz stated that it might be helpful to request staff to come back with what the impact would be of going ahead with a two-tiered tipping fee system. Mr. Wahl stated that he is meeting with two of the cities on Monday to look at this very issue, and that, in long term, the County needs to look at a uniform assessment program, and at recycling as a separate portion of the assessment program.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Solid Waste Committee has been established of residents from the unincorporated area, and suggested that the issues being discussed be sent to the Committee for consideration, and for the Committee to bring back to the Board alternatives to these issues.

It was noted that the issues involving the expansion of the transfer station program and the expansion of the solid waste assessment program would be sent to the Solid Waste Committee to review.

Mr. Steve Hiney, Recycling Coordinator, discussed the membership of the Solid Waste Committee, and stated that the Board would be receiving a letter from him requesting changes to the membership, and addressing the chairmanship, and the term of the Committee.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the issue of continuing recycling in Lake County be addressed by the Solid Waste Committee.

Mr. Hiney discussed the suggestion being made to include a recycling fee in the assessment program, and stated that this is the last year for the grant program, which has subsidized the program. He stated that another issue the County needs to consider is marketing responsibilities. At this time, he discussed information he has received from a Tampa firm regarding the marketing of plastics.

Commr. Swartz suggested that Mr. Hiney provide the Board with information regarding marketing concepts, with this also being an issue for the Solid Waste Committee to consider.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was of the understanding that it was the desire of the Board to continue to recycle, and to look at different alternatives for the rural and urban areas, both in terms of collection, and in terms of packaging and marketing of those recyclables.

Discussion occurred regarding composting, with Commr. Swartz stating that he supports yard waste composting, due to being cost effective, and environmentally effective. He suggested that the County communicate with some of the municipalities who are looking at more extensive operations, such as a yard waste, composting and a sludge program, to determine whether the County can be involved with them.

Mr. Wahl discussed putting into place a policy to mandate, or encourage, the use of recycled products, and suggested that the Board direct staff to initiate a program where there is a competitive market, for example paper, or paper products, where the County can acquire those items at not more than a ten percent (10%) variance from low bid. He stated that the County can then create a market for recycled products, and anything where the costs exceed the ten percent (10%) variance will be brought back to the Board on a case by case basis.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to direct staff to develop a policy for the use of recycled products, as stated above by Mr. Wahl, and to bring it back to the Board for consideration.



COMMISSIONER BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the ratification of financial items which needed to be paid prior to the Board meeting.

RESOLUTIONS/STATE AGENCIES

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the proclamation designating December 1 through December 31, 1992, as "Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month" in Lake County.

MEETINGS

Discussion occurred regarding the date, December 14, 1992, from 10-12 noon, for the meeting with the Lake County Legislative Delegation. Mr. Wahl informed the Board that staff had been requested to submit to him issues to be incorporated into a Legislative Delegation package. Discussion also has taken place with the cities, and Mr. Wahl requested that, if the Board members have items they would like addressed, he will incorporate them into the package. At this time, it was noted that issues needed to be presented to Mr. Wahl prior to December 8, 1992.

Commr. Bailey questioned the possibility of grant monies being available for certain projects. Mr. Wahl suggested that, if there are specific projects, either for an individual district, or on a countywide basis, the members may also want to present these items, so that the Legislative Delegation will look to specific departmental budgets to incorporate such appropriations.

COMMISSIONER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Gerald B. Galbreath to replace Edward Bergman as the District 1 representative on the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Bergman's term will expire April 30, 1993.



ADDENDUM #1 - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, presented the Board with a resolution adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timetable for 1993.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Senior Department Director, Land Development Regulation, appeared before the Board to discuss the purpose for the timetable, and stated that the Board may submit, at any time during the calendar year, a land use plan amendment, with staff performing the administrative work, until such time that it falls within the timetable being presented.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the resolution adopting the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Timetable for 1993, including Exhibit A.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, informed the Board that she had copied them on a letter to Mr. James C. Shipman, Executive Director, Florida Association of Counties, regarding the Article V litigation. She explained briefly that Article V is the judicial section of the Florida Constitution, and it requires that the State assume costs of the operation of the courts system. She stated that, over the course of years, the Legislature has enacted a series of Legislative acts that have passed certain costs onto counties. The Florida Association of Counties retained a former Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Alan Sunberg, to do an analysis of a potential litigation with the State to challenge what has been done. The Association is seeking input from various counties as to whether they would be interested in going forward and joining in such litigation. Only fourteen (14) counties responded to the initial questionnaire last August. Lake County had determined that it did not have enough information, and the County has now received another questionnaire from the Association wanting the information for the Legislative seminar the beginning of December. They are requesting that the response be made no later than November 30,

1992. Ms. Lustgarten stated that she will provide the new members with additional backup for review, and bring this issue back to the Board on December 1, 1992, Once the Board has taken action, the information will be faxed to the Association.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that Lake County has budgeted this year $1,560,000.00 for judicial costs, which has steadily been increasing over the years.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION

STATE AGENCIES

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, discussed the status of the Comprehensive Plan, and stated that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has not signed the Settlement Agreement. She stated that the Board has been copied on the communication that has been ongoing with Mr. Jake Varn, Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, and DCA. It has been determined that the amendment adopted on November 3, 1992, which was a remedial amendment to implement the Settlement Agreement, was understood to be transmitted as the basis for withdrawing the August 25, 1992 amendment. The new amendment was to implement a Settlement Agreement.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see this issue on the agenda for December 1, 1992, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that she would be bringing back alternatives as to what is available to the County on this issue.

Commr. Swartz discussed the costs being expended to Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that a summary of the expended funds will be made available to the Board on December 1, 1992.



There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m.



G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\11-24-92\12-17-92

A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

NOVEMBER 24, 1992

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, November 24, 1992, at 5:05 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice-Chairman; Don Bailey; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbara Lehman, Finance Director; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

COUNTY POLICY/ORDINANCES/PUBLIC SERVICES/SIGNS

At 5:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amending the Lake County Code, Signs.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that the Board had before them a memorandum dated November 19, 1992, with the revised ordinance, as amended last week by the Board.

No one present wished to comment on the proposed ordinance.

The Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting, due to no public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1992-13, as follows by title only:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER XI, LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.01.04, OFF-SITE SIGNS, TO LIMIT OFF-SITE SIGNS ALONG SPECIFIED ROADS AND HIGHWAYS TO CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PERMITTED DISTANCE BETWEEN OFF-SITE SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.





ROADS-COUNTY & STATE/EDUCATION/ORDINANCES

The Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amending the Lake County Code, Road and School Impact Fee.

Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, presented the Board members with a handout, which states that all changes by the Board last week have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The proposed amendments she presented today were essentially scriveners errors.

Mr. Hubert Hartman, Mount Dora, appeared before the Board and stated that he had submitted to the previous Board a letter that provided considerable information on the economic conditions of Lake County. He discussed the statistics he provided regarding family incomes, in relation to the surrounding counties. He stated that he did not have a problem with the reduction of impact fees, so that more affordable housing could be provided, but with the statistics established in this County in terms of income, he did not see any reason to entice more people with lower incomes to move to Lake County. He discussed the unemployment figure in Lake County, and the proposal for an extension of a bus service in Orange County into Lake County to take care of the employees who live here, but work in Orange County. He stated that he did not see why the people already living in the County should be penalized, by bringing industry into Lake County and providing others with tax breaks. Mr. Hartman discussed Proposition I, and the chart he prepared on his own home, which indicated that, in a three years time, the property taxes went up 34 1/2 percent. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) went up 3.9 percent, with the millage staying about the same. He further stated that the school taxes went up 75 percent over a three year period.

Commr. Swartz indicated to Mr. Hartman that the proposed ordinance addresses some of the issues that he has brought to the Board's attention.



Mr. Hartman indicated that his basic concern is reducing impact fees on any property at this time, for any purpose.

Commr. Swartz stated that this ordinance provides that the Commission may waive requests for a reduction for low income housing. Secondly, in order to qualify, you must have been a resident in Lake County for one year prior to occupying that residence. Thirdly, it provides that the County shall adopt administrative regulations and guidelines to insure that the housing remains as affordable housing, and it will also setup the criteria upon which that waiver may be granted. There is an Advisory Committee that will have to review the applications and make recommendations to the Board, as to the waiver of those fees. Any affordable housing project, which is approved, and a reduction in the impact fee is granted, the funds must be made up, and may have to come from a different source of revenue. Commr. Swartz stated that he feels the Board is trying to address the issues presented by Mr. Hartman.

Commr. Hanson stated that she also had some of the concerns being expressed by Mr. Hartman, and it has been brought to her attention that the affordable houses will actually be in the $55,000.00 range, but the cost will be approximately $45,000.00, which will allow for more of a property tax.

Commr. Hanson stated that several months ago the City of Eustis held a seminar for affordable housing. The idea is, once an individual owns a house, he will be educated in home ownership and become a more productive citizen. She extended her appreciation to Lee Hohr, Mayor of Lady lake, who is on the Advisory Committee.

No one else present wished to comment on the proposed ordinance. The Chairman closed the public portion of the meeting, due to no further public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the amendments provided by the County Attorney, as follows:



On Page 3, Line 8, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 3, Line 11, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 3, Line 22, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 3, Line 25, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 3, Line 26, Strike

"low"

And Insert

"moderate"



On Page 5, Line 4, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 5, Line 7, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 10, Line 11, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 10, Line 14, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 10, Line 25, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 10, Line 28, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 10, Line 29, Strike

"low"

And Insert

"moderate"



On Page 11, Line 6, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 11, Line 9, Insert

after "annual"

"adjusted gross"



On Page 11, Line 22, Insert

after "Impact Fee"

"Per Dwelling Unit"



On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1992-14, as amended, and as follows by title only:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15, LAKE COUNTY CODE, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ROAD AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15, LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 15.00.00, ROAD IMPACT FEES, SECTION 15.00.02, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.00.06, IMPOSITION OF ROAD IMPACT FEES, TO CHANGE THE WAIVER PROVISIONS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.00.09, USE OF FUNDS, TO REQUIRE A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTY IN A ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT, AND FINDINGS BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT USE OF ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT FUNDS FOR A PROJECT OUTSIDE A ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT IS NECESSARY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.00.09, USE OF FUNDS, TO PROVIDE A PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION OF FEES COLLECTED WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES FOR USE WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN THREE (3) YEARS OF COLLECTION; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.00.09, USE OF FUNDS, TO PERMIT UTILIZATION OF FEES ALLOCATED TO A MUNICIPALITY FOR OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.01.00, SCHOOL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.01.07, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.01.10, PAYMENT OF VALUE OF LAND OR USE OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, TO CHANGE THE WAIVER PROVISIONS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.01.10, TO UPDATE THE FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE ANNUAL OCTOBER 1 ADJUSTMENTS INCORPORATED TO DATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:27 p.m.



G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\11-24-92.B\12-17-92