The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, September 14, 1993, at 5:05 p.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Catherine Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to the BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
FINAL PUBLIC HEARING
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that this is the second and final hearing on the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Ms. Lustgarten informed the Board that the changes before them deal specifically with PUD zoning, as result of the last LDR meeting, along with other minor changes.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that the Board has before them three (3) Memorandums from him, as follows: August 18, 1993; September 13, 1993; and September 14, 1993. The memorandums would be referred to by date during the discussion. It was noted that the September 13, 1993 Memorandum contained the different options that the Board requested to be explored, and the September 14, 1993 Memorandum provided an additional option and clarifying language.
Commr. Hanson referred to the August 18, 1993 Memorandum, Page III-38, and the language that had been developed to address the aggregation of lots of record. She stated that she could understand aggregating lots, but not lots of record.
Mr. Hoban discussed the manner in which the LDRs define a "lot of record", as follows: "Each lot in a plat is called a lot of record." He referred to the September 13, 1993 Memorandum, Page III-36, 6. and 7. "Notwithstanding Subsection 3.02.01.A.1 - 3.02.01.A.5". Mr. Hoban explained that, if there was a Final Lot of Record Determination prior to September 14, 1993, the only thing an individual would have to do to get a building permit would be to get a septic tank permit from the State; do the mobile home check; and agree to a special assessment for road improvements. If there was, in the period of time before several months ago, a preliminary final, an individual would receive a Lot of Record Determination, and Lake County would honor this.
Commr. Hanson referred to the August 18, 1993 Memorandum, Page III-39, 2. Wekiva b. and stated that the lots of the zoning are vested in the Wekiva Basin, and she feels that this is contrary to the five acre aggregation rule.
Mr. Hoban explained that the zoning, for Lots of Record in the Wekiva, is vested; however, the Board has the option of enacting ordinances which are stricter than the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board has directed, in the past, that the County not alter the Wekiva in any way that would make the regulations stricter. She stated that she wants everything reviewed in the Wekiva, and if it further restricts, she wants to look at it very carefully. She further stated that she is strongly against approving anything that is going to further restrict what is in the Wekiva.
Discussion occurred regarding the language contained in the Comprehensive Plan, in relation to the Wekiva, and a reference was made to Policy 1-20-3. It was noted that everything was vested in the Wekiva up through zoning based on March 12, 1990.
After further discussion of concerns indicated by Commr. Hanson regarding the Wekiva language, Mr. Hoban stated that those individuals who have recorded plats, which have RR zoning, or R-1-7 zoning, would have to aggregate up to R-1-7; however, with the publicly maintained road language added in by the Board, you do not have to aggregate up to the R-1-7 zoning, but you would have to aggregate up to five acres. This would be more restrictive than the language in the Comprehensive Plan for the Wekiva.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that she recalls, through discussion with the Board, that, if it was not a plat that was a Lot of Record, an individual would have to aggregate to the A-1-20, or the A-1-40, and the Board was limiting it to the five (5) acres.
Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting on the LDRs.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing several individuals, appeared before the Board and stated that the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission met on August 25, 1993, as the Land Planning Agency (LPA), and made recommendations with regard to the vested rights on Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). He suggested that the Board consider the recommendations made by the P & Z Commission, sitting as the LPA, and as set forth in the minutes from the P & Z Commission meeting on August 25, 1993.
Through discussion with those present, it was determined that the P & Z Commission minutes of August 25, 1993, were approved at the scheduled meeting of the P & Z Commission, which was held yesterday. The following information from the minutes was discussed by the Board and staff:
"A motion was made by Commr. Mayfield to recommend endorsement of the language provided by The Greater Construction Corporation regarding the vesting of Planned Unit Developments but changing the vesting period from two years to five years. Commr. Chapman seconded the motion."
"Commr. Logan said this five-year period was established without discussion, and he could not support that. Commr. Carey suggested amending the motion to allow the Board of County Commissioners to establish a reasonable time line for vesting of Planned Unit Developments, but with a time period of at least two years. This amendment was agreeable to both Commrs. Mayfield and Chapman. The amended motion passed by a vote of 8-0."
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting, addressed the Board on the minutes from the P & Z Commission meeting dated August 25, 1993, and explained what material and information that was presented to the P & Z Commission at that time, and the action that was taken. It was noted that the following motion was also made at the meeting:
"Commr. Chapman made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan be changed with regards to aggregation of lots of record and approve the Land Development Regulations, as written. Commr. Mayfield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-2 with Commrs. Bryan and Ladd voting in opposition."
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that she attended the P & Z Commission meeting, with the Commission sitting as the LPA, and stated that they approved the August 18, 1993, LDRs, and made a motion on the Lots of Record, and specifically made a separate recommendation on PUDs as a part of the approval of the LDRs.
Ms. Susie Bergman appeared before the Board and addressed the regulations that were being considered by the Board, and questioned whether there had been any changes made to the August 18, 1993 draft of the Amendments to the LDRs.
Commr. Swartz explained that several of the Commissioners had requested, from the legal staff, various types of language on different issues.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Assistant County Attorney, stated that there had been a minor change to the Lot of Record that clarifies, if you receive a final lot of record determination by the County, it will be honored, and you will not have to aggregate lots. This clarification is contained in the September 13, 1993 Memorandum.
Ms. Bergman stated that she is concerned with the regulations addressing Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). She stated that legislation has already been passed in Tallahassee, which replaces DRIs with Intergovernmental Coordination Elements (ICEs). She further stated that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will be addressing this issue in January. It is going to provide for a regional mitigation process, for a dispute resolution process, a process to allow amendments, and procedures to implement joint planning areas and joint infrastructure areas. Ms. Bergman discussed the aggregation of lots and stated that the County is still not giving anyone the chance, in advance, to use the property for the reason they bought it. She discussed the variance process and stated that this is not the answer to get something back that you already had.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board did vote to draft language that would include tentative rules that would allow for the variance procedure to be done at a staff level.
Ms. Bergman stated that she does not feel much is being done on the County level to help the landowners. She discussed the position being established for the new Director of Economic Development, and the position she holds as a realtor. Ms. Bergman presented the Board with a letter, which urged the Board to continue the discussion on the regulations, but to table the vote until the time that the Board is completely comfortable with what it is doing.
Mr. Frank Ketch, licensed real estate broker, appeared before the Board and requested a clarification as to what is a lot of record, and not just in replatted and recorded subdivisions as indicated on the honeycutts.
Mr. Hoban presented a brief overview of a Lot of Record, as indicated on Page II-36, in the August 18, 1993 Memorandum. It was noted that honeycutts are shown on the maps as lots of record.
Mr. Ketch discussed the economy, and the needs of the people in Lake County. He discussed the LDRs and the requirement to hookup to sewer lines, and stated that this is not doing the environment any good. He stated that the County needs variances in the LDRs. He stated that the people in Lake County need opportunity, because it has the highest rate of unemployment in the State.
Mr. Jim Bible, Greater Construction, appeared before the Board to address the issue of vested rights, with regards to PUDs in multi-phase subdivisions. He recommended that the Board consider adopting the LPAs recommendation to this Board on the PUD vested rights language contained in his letter of August 17, 1993. He further stated that his letter addresses the multi-phasing of subdivisions, which does not seem to be addressed in any of the language from the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Bible stated that there is some language that the County Attorney's Office has asked for, with regards to Developments of Regional Impact (DRI), and also PUDs, but he does not feel it is needed, because he feels these issues have been adequately addressed in the additional language recommended by the LPA. It was noted that the eighteen (18) months has been changed to twenty-four (24) months in the last sentence of Numbers 1-4 in his letter of August 17, 1993.
Mr. Jim Tyre, Clermont, appeared before the Board and stated that he bought a lot in Howey Subdivision A, Block B, in 1989. It was a buildable lot when he bought it, but when he came to get a building permit a few months later, he was told it was not a buildable lot. In the next two years, the County petitioned for a paved street, which was approved several months ago. Mr. Tyre stated that several days ago he was told he had to have five acres to build on, and the only way he could build on his lot was to get a variance.
Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Tyre would have the right to come and request a vested rights determination, which would show that, because of the special assessment, they are all buildable lots.
Mr. Stubbs explained the administrative process that Mr. Tyre would go through to obtain the necessary permits to build on his lot.
Ms. Marian McKinney appeared before the Board and discussed the procedures that an individual has to follow when coming to the Planning and Development Division, and the adverse attitude being displayed by staff to the local individual when asking for assistance. She explained that an individual seeking assistance from staff wants to know County policy and law, not personal views. Ms. McKinney expressed to the Board that more government is not the answer for landowners of this County. She further indicated that there is mis-communication between the Board and staff, and with what is being presented to the public.
Discussion occurred regarding the framework of laws and policies that the County staff has to work with, and the problems being presented to the Board at this time.
Ms. McKinney directed the Board's attention to the first page of the August 18, 1993 Memorandum, with regards to the new definition of "Abutting Lots of Record", and requested an explanation.
Commr. Swartz stated that the definition was an effort to provide language that clearly indicates when lots are considered to be abutting, and when they are not.
Discussion occurred regarding the definition on Page II-1 of the August 18, 1993 Memorandum. There was a question of non-publicly maintained roads that become, through a special assessment, a publicly maintained road, with it being clarified that when they do, they cease to be abutting. Discussion occurred regarding there being a differentiation between a publicly maintained road and a non-publicly maintained road.
Ms. McKinney referred Page I-2, 1.01.03 Administrative Lot Split, which indicates that any lot legally created by the Agricultural Lot Split process, Large Lot Split process, or Minor Lot Split process prior to March 2, 1993, shall be vested for density, and to Page I-6, 1.02.14, which indicates a lot legally created by the Minor Lot Split process prior to March 2, 1993, shall be vested for density only.
Mr. Hoban directed Ms. McKinney's attention to Page I-6, 1.02.16 Mobile Homes - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), and Page I-7, 1.02.17 Mobile Homes - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), in order to answer her questions regarding mobile homes.
Ms. McKinney referred to the language that indicates a mobile home may replace a legally existing mobile home as of July 15, 1991, and stated that, at the last meeting, it was understood that everything would be vested as of March 3, 1993, as far as density and intensity.
Discussion occurred regarding setback requirements, which were shown on Page III-46, with staff presenting clarification.
Mr. Bill Ray appeared before the Board and stated that he has reviewed the vesting language, as it pertains to PUDs, and he finds it disturbing. Mr. Ray stated that the language is complicated, because it uses three sets of Comprehensive Plan dates, and mechanisms that pertain to "catch 22" situations, such as requiring all phases of the project to be permitted to obtain vesting. He questioned whether you had to prepare all final construction drawings, and permit the project in its entirety before you could break ground.
Mr. Hoban stated that, under both options presented, you would look at vesting for density and intensity. Once you have both density and intensity, you would have to determine what rules you would fall under. If you have the St. Johns permits, you would fall under the old rules, and if you do not have the St. Johns permits, you would be under the new rules. Mr. Hoban stated that, if you let the permit lapse, you would still have density and intensity, but you would be under the new rules.
Mr. Ray discussed Page I-1, B. Common Law, and stated that a problem that has arisen State wide involves the defining of "commence" and "is continuing in good faith".
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the section for Common Law vesting sets very specific parameters, and if you meet them you would be vested, and if not, other options would be considered.
Mr. Ray recommended that the vesting rights language presented by Greater Construction is appropriate. He stated that there was other language that he feels is also appropriate, as follows: you have until October 1, 1997, to submit an application for final plat on Phase 1. He recommended that the Board adopt language presented by Greater Construction, or the language he has submitted with the cut off date of October 1, 1997.
Mr. Ray referred to Page I-7, 1.02.18 Other Projects (Common Law Vesting), a. 4, and stated that it would be unfair to deny the property owner the opportunity to complete the project, and that this would be a discretionary call as to what is unfair. Mr. Ray stated that Ms. Lustgarten gave a very clear and concise directive that the Ray Ranch project was vested in all five (5) phases. He then discussed a problem with an individual questioning the vesting of the Ray Ranch PUD, and the individual indicating that the Planning Department would be unable to sign off on the final plat without a vesting letter. Mr. Ray stated that he does not have a vesting letter.
Mr. Ray referred to Page I-8, 4. c. Designated a flood prone area by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), and Mr. Hoban explained that this wording is from the Wekiva section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ray referred to the September 13, 1993 Memorandum, I-28, C. 3. which references Subsection 1.02.22.D, and Mr. Hoban clarified that this needs to be changed to Subsection 1.02.22.C throughout.
Mr. Ray referred to the two Options for the vesting of PUDs, as indicated on Page I-27 and Page I-28 of the September 13, 1993 Memorandum, and Mr. Hoban explained the language regarding Expiration of Vesting.
Mr. Ray strongly recommended either of the two options that had been presented to the Board, as follows: 1) the Greater Construction memorandum, as amended with the 24 month period; or 2) allowing for a final plat to be submitted by 1997.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 6:42 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten (10) minutes.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (Continued)
Mr. John Sheehan appeared before the Board and questioned why the County is doing more than the State requires, and questioned the dates being applied to the plats.
Ms. Lustgarten explained that the date being used for plats was established, because that was when the County first started requiring construction of infrastructure associated with plats.
Mr. Sheehan discussed the Board having the right to exempt subdivisions, such as Carlton Village, and stated that he feels the County should leave them alone. He discussed the aggregation of lots, and stated that the Commissioners signed off on the plats that indicated he had buildable lots, which he has now found out are not buildable lots.
Mr. Hoban discussed common law statutory vesting, and stated that the mere purchase of lots in old plats does not grant common law vesting under the case law.
Commr. Hanson stated that there is a difference between grandfathering and vesting and exemptions, and she believes that the existing subdivisions should be grandfathered, or some type of other language should be developed, if there is a problem with the term vesting.
Mr. Hoban stated that he has spoken to the attorney's office at DCA, who put the language in question into the Comprehensive Plan, and DCA realized lots of record would be problem, and therefore, exemption language was added.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board voted today to provide for an exemption as a part of the second annual Comprehensive Plan amendment, and it is being transmitted. If it is not approved, the Board will then try to identify those lands under those types of developments, and rearrange the current map, so that density will be reallocated to those areas. Commr. Swartz indicated that it was his understanding that grandfathering would not be enacting parts of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sheehan discussed the location and configuration of his lots. Mr. Stubbs explained that there was a policy in place that has been utilized by staff, which allows an individual to get more lots, which was not by ordinance, and dealt with corner lots.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Florida Statutes sets out the vesting rights criteria, statutory or common law, and this is what is in the Comprehensive Plan as well. She stated that the County has defined lots of record based on criteria that the past commissions have established. The whole fundamental issue, in relation to vested rights, is that there has to have been reliance on some County action. The old plats did not require construction of infrastructure.
Commr. Hanson discussed minor lot splits, and stated that there has been no infrastructure put into place, but those lots have been vested. She questioned why the County cannot also vest these ongoing subdivisions by the same action.
Commr. Swartz addressed the action taken previously by the Board and suggested that the Board, in the next amendment time frame, if it has not gotten an affirmative response from DCA, or the County has pulled that particular amendment, because of the potential adverse response, begin to look at the reallocation of some of the land.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and addressed the language being proposed. He expressed the difficulty he has had interpreting it, and suggested that the County propose something that is very simple and easily understood by all. Mr. Beliveau addressed the language provided by Greater Construction and stated that it is precise and clear. He referred to Page I-9, 1.02.24 Preliminary Plat, and questioned an individual not having a preliminary plat unless he has all of the required permits sufficient to allow construction. He stated that this was not his understanding of the language, after much indepth discussion at previous meetings. Mr. Beliveau addressed the March 2, 1993 date being required for completed applications, and stated that it does not give a "window" in which to obtain the permits. Mr. Beliveau stated that he endorses the amendment being supplied by the P & Z Commission sitting as the LPA.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board representing a number of individuals, and stated that what is being proposed is not workable. She addressed the problem of not receiving information in a timely manner, so that it could be reviewed before the meeting. She referred to Page I-9, 1.02.24 Preliminary Plat, and stated that this language still does not reflect what she thought was the consensus of the Board, and which is reflected on Page I-5, 1.02.13 Master Park Plan, and Page I-10, 1.02.26 Site Plan. Ms. Bonifay addressed PUDs, and stated that she recommends that the Board endorse the changes submitted by the LPA. She discussed the opinion rendered by the County Attorney's Office regarding vesting, which implies that you are not vested for any subsequent phases, and that each vesting issue is handled by a different formula. Ms. Bonifay discussed Section 1.02.01, Vested Rights Generally, and stated that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes supplies this language, as well as common law, not DCA. At this time, she submitted the following language to the Board for consideration:
C. Previously issued vested rights determinations shall remain in full force and effect.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her other concern is that the County requires people to spend a lot of time and money to go through its vested rights process. She addressed Section II, Lot of Record, and stated that it is within the power of the Board to define a lot of record. She also addressed PUDs and DRIs, and stated that
she sees no reason why, the people who are encouraged to go through the PUD process before applying for a DRI, their development order is not treated the same as others.
Mr. Bob Mandell, President of Greater Construction, appeared before the Board and addressed the amendment to the LDRs presented by Ms. Bonifay, and stated that this is very important to him, because once you go through a vested rights determination, the banking institutions want to be reassured that whatever has been approved will remain in affect. He requested that the Board seriously consider the amendment presented by Ms. Bonifay.
Ms. Bonifay stated that there would be no problem with the existing vested rights determination, that has been issued by the County, being valid. She stated that the 1985 Florida Statute that the County is operating under, in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically deals with the statutory vested rights language, or the common law vested rights language, that is required. The Board has the option of putting a date on vested rights determinations from that particular date, because there are old ones that are not based on the same criteria that is being used now. Any existing vested rights determination issued in the 1985 Act clearly would be recognized and would continue to be valid.
Ms. Dorothy Shipes appeared before the Board and stated that she did not have any specific suggestions or changes, but she did want to ask that the Board, through its deliberations, proceed cautiously and not destroy the "security blankets" established by families in the County.
Mr. Frank Ketch appeared before the Board and stated that the LDA membership is not being represented in the community. He stated that the County needs a better representation on these types of committees. The second issue he addressed was the Lot of Record that were subdivided in 1971-1972, and stated that he has had building permits turned down on two lots on Turkey Lake Road, because there is a pond, that is less than one acre, adjoining the two lots, and now he would have to aggregate them. It was noted that he pays taxes on the entire five acres.
Commr. Hanson stated that the water bodies have been excluded, as indicated on Page III-38 and Page III-39, and that those water bodies should be allowed, when an individual has to aggregate up to five acres, as long as you can get a septic permit on the five acres.
Mr. Ketch discussed the variance process, and stated that there needs to be language for exceptions. He stated that continuity is needed in the County's program,, which cannot be achieved until the language is simplified in the LDRs.
Ms. Margory McDonald appeared before the Board and stated that her property lies between Park Place and 44B. She stated that several years ago people began investigating the property, because they were interested in buying it, and in 1988-89, she went through the PUD process, and because of the economy, the property was not pursued. This spring someone showed interest in the property, and she met with Mr. Stubbs, but only to discover that the PUD for 350 units had no validity. Ms. McDonald stated that this is her retirement, and she would like to see this be a growth opportunity for the County, but she questioned whether she would have to go back through the process and spend additional monies. She requested that the Board establish language that is reasonable for everyone.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that in February, 1993, he requested a Vested Rights Letter from the Couny, on behalf of one of his clients, for an RV park on Lake Dora. Approximately 45-60 days ago, he requested that Mr. Hoban not write this letter, because he was of the understanding that the County could not find all of the information that he claimed had been filed with the County. Over the last two months, most of the information has been found, including construction drawings that were approved in January, 1986, and Mr. Hoban indicated that he had drafted a Vested Rights Letter, to be signed by Mr. Wahl, and that the letter was based on the ordinance that the Board is reviewing tonight, which has not been approved. The letter basically says that the 800 RV sites, and the improvements indicated in the construction drawings, have to be made and built by April 1, 1985, pursuant to the code rules before the Board. Mr. Richey referred to Page I-13, 1.02.06 Construction Drawings, in the August 18, 1993 Memorandum, which basically shows that the drawings do not expire, and stated that this language, even though it is noted to be struck out, still remains today. He referred to Page I-3, 1.02.07 Construction Plans, which indicates that, by April 1, 1995, he has to have everything built. Mr. Hoban's letter dated September 13, 1993, indicates that the construction drawings shall never expire if, prior to, or on April 1, 1995, the infrastructure has been completed and approved by Lake County. It was explained to Mr. Richey by Mr. Hoban that the reason this is in the language is because it is the Board's policy that the Vested Rights Letter that he is reviewing for the County, be based on what is before the Board tonight, not what, in fact, is the law. Mr. Richey requested that the Board not vote on this tonight, because of these types of issues that have been brought to the attention of the Board tonight, and to instruct staff to follow the policies that have been adopted by a vote, rather than to follow policies that have not been adopted. Mr. Richey stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not say to do away with the construction drawings that were approved.
Mr. Casey Contene appeared before the Board to discuss the issue of PUDs, and the approval of PUDs prior to the DRI process, and are approved under a questionable Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated that he favors most of the language that deals with trying to restrict the term of vesting such that only the near term projects, that were approved under the old Comprehensive Plan, be vested, and that those projects that were approved under the old Comprehensive Plan, and do not plan to have any activity for a considerable amount of time, fall under the latest Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Bergman appeared before the Board and questioned the time frame involved with the transmittal of the amendment to DCA.
Mr. Wahl responded that the adopted timetable would be December 21, 1993, if it makes it through the process. It was noted that the position of the LDRs will be the same as they are tonight, unless there are changes.
Ms. Bergman discussed the different legal opinions being presented, and suggested that the Board table the entire issue for two to four months, and get several legal opinions, because the professionals in the County cannot even understand the language.
Ms. McKinney addressed the Board about a letter from the Senate regarding DCA not having any involvement in the referencing of vesting. She stated that Ms. Lustgarten has informed the Board of this tonight, and that the Board can vest whatever it wants to vest.
Ms. Lustgarten clarified that the Board can vest within the constraints of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, and the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. McKinney referred to Page I-16, 1.02.11 Large Lot Split, which has been removed from the language, and stated that the Board had indicated that the date would be March 3, 1993.
Commr. Swartz stated that March 3, 1993 was related to the lot of record issue, and that there is language in the LDR that clearly says that large lot splits and minor lot splits, that have been approved by the County, are vested. It was noted that this language was on Page I-4, 1.02.11.
Ms. Barbara Morris appeared before the Board and addressed Page II-1, Abutting Lots of Record, and stated that she can foresee this as a problem for staff, and presented her opinion on the language regarding the issue of lots of record which are separated by a publicly maintained road, or water body, not being abutting.
Mr. Tony Morris appeared before the Board to discuss the issue of old subdivisions, and there being no investment, or infrastructure, and suggested to the Board that a commitment for a special assessment and a private road maintenance agreement is an investment by a community for infrastructure.
Discussion occurred regarding the requirement to aggregate across County road right-of-ways, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that this will be a policy decision made by the Board.
Mr. Morris questioned lots of record versus lots of unity, and Mr. Hoban explained the difference. He stated that the way the language is currently written in Chapter III, the County recognizes final lot of record determinations, and Mr. Morris has final lot of record determinations, and he would have to aggregate across the streets.
At 8:25 p.m., the Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, Commr. Swartz closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board needs to look at PUDs and the subdivisions, and look at them from the economics of Lake County. She discussed the time frames being established, and stated that the Board is creating an artificial supply and demand situation for the development of subdivisions. She stated that the time frames are not wise, and the Board needs to be as flexible as possible with the vesting of the different types of subdivisions, and protect them. Commr. Hanson stated that, if she was to approve any one of the proposals for the PUDs, she would choose the final plat being filed by 1997. However, going back to the recommendation from the LPA, she would not have a problem with it. She stated that the Board should go with the least restrictive language, and to allow some means for those even beyond 1997 to remain vested. One option would be a means of bonding that would protect the capacity and concurrency requirements. If the Board eliminates the planned subdivisions, people will continue to move into Lake County, but in an urban sprawl manner, rather than a situation of clustering, which has been determined as a good means of planning. Commr. Hanson stated that she would agree with the vesting rights determination, and also looking at the abutting lots of record. She stated that she is concerned about the paved road requirement and, if someone does a special assessment, it is an investment into that property. She stated that the Board needs to look again at the lot of record definition, and anything that the Board can do that is within its power, not DCA mandated, to make the rules a little more flexible, the Board needs to do. She stated that the Board needs to look at the five acre suggestion that was made, and that, as long as somebody has five acres under the aggregation rule, and can get a septic tank permit, the Board needs to consider. Commr. Hanson stated that she strongly objects to anything in the Wekiva Basin that makes it more strict. Therefore, she recommended that the Board postpone this issue for two weeks, in order to streamline the language. She stated that there needs to be much less opportunity for variances, because it will only create more bureaucracy.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to postpone, for approximately two weeks, action on the amendments to the LDRs.
Under discussion, Ms. Lustgarten informed the Board that the County is under some direction in relation to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, which requires the County Commission to adopt a vested rights ordinance by July, 1993. This may have some affect on how DCA addresses the hearing officer in relation to the County's compliance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had no problem supporting the motion except that the Board needs to get with staff right away and discuss the problems being presented.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would support the motion, in order for everyone to have a better comfort level.
It was clarified for the record that the motion is to postpone the issue for approximately two weeks, in order for the Board to meet in a workshop to review the language.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried unanimously.
It was noted that the language, as follows, as presented by Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, will be incorporated into the language:
Previously issued vested rights determinations shall remain
in full force and effect.
Ms. Lustgarten explained that, in 1985, the language in Chapter 163 went into effect requiring comprehensive plans. This is the mandated language, in relation to how vested determinations would be made, either based on statutory constraints, or the common law constraints. Ms. Lustgarten stated that the Board is not required to put a date in the language. She stated that anything issued, since the Comprehensive Plan has been in place, is valid and is acknowledged and is in full force and effect.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following language: existing vested rights determinations issued by the County remain in full force and effect, with no limitations.
Discussion occurred regarding the master park plan and the construction plan.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved for staff to make the construction and master park plans equivalent to one another, so that with either one of these plans, the recording of a final plat would give the same rights.
Discussion occurred regarding Section 1.02.08 Development of Regional Impact. It was noted that there were no changes.
Discussion occurred regarding Section 1.02.11 Large Lot Split (Formerly Large Lot Waiver).
Ms. Lustgarten directed the Board's attention to the September 13, 1993 Memorandum, Page I-27, and the clarification made to Section 1.02.10, "Employment Center".
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to insert language under Section 1.02.10, with it being renumbered accordingly.
It was noted that there were no changes made to this page.
It was noted that there were no changes made to this page.
It was noted that there were no changes made to this page.
Discussion occurred regarding Section 1.02.20, with it being noted that the changes made to this section have been presented in the September 13, 1993 Memorandum. Mr. Hoban and Mr. Stubbs explained Option 1 and Option 2 in the memorandum.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, for the Board to approve the LPA's recommendations for the PUDs, which is the modified "Bible", with the 24 month change.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to have Option 2 left in with the modified "Bible".
Mr. Hoban explained the difference between Option 2 and the modified "Bible", and stated that, under the old PUD ordinance, you had two years to do a preliminary plat on a portion of the PUD, or come in and get an extension, and if you did not do a preliminary plat, or come in for an extension, or the Board denied the extension, the PUD was dead and revoked under the old Lake County code. Those that should have been dead under the code will now be alive under the "Bible" option, whereas under Option 2, if they had died previously, they would remain dead.
Commr. Gerber made a motion to substitute Option 2 in the original motion. The motion died for the lack of a second.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion failing by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Cadwell, Swartz and Gerber voted "no".
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved Option 2, as stated in the September 13, 1993 Memorandum.
The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Hanson and Bailey voting "no".
Discussion occurred regarding Section 1.02.21 Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Which Rules and When Vesting Expires. Mr. Hoban explained that Option A is more flexible than the "Bible" option, which allows the old rules forever. He stated that, under Option B, if you have a St. Johns permit you get the old rules, if you do not have a St. Johns permit you get the new rules.
Commr. Swartz stated that the "Bible" option and Option A are not acceptable, and that he feels at some point you would come under the new rules.
Mr. Hoban explained that Option A and the "Bible" option are identical on the choice of the rules, but not identical on the expiration.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, the Board approved Option A, as indicated in the September 13, 1993 Memorandum.
The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voting "no".
Discussion occurred regarding the Memorandum dated September 14, 1993, and Page I-31, DRI Vesting. Mr. Hoban explained Option X, Option Y, and Option Z.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved Option Y, as indicated in the September 14, 1993 Memorandum.
The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voting "no".
Ms. Lustgarten discussed the advertising of the ordinance to the appoint the Sheriff as the Chief Correctional Officer, and stated that the Board can proceed under the emergency provision, with the Board voting to waive the notice requirements of Florida Statute 125.66 based on an emergency situation.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved to declare an emergency and waive the notice requirements, pursuant to Florida Statute 125.66, and advertise the ordinance appointing the Sheriff as the Chief Correctional Officer, for the September 28, 1993 regular Board meeting.
The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Cadwell voting "no".
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK