The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, November 2, 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: Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that this meeting was the first public hearing dealing with amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRS) and that the draft amendments before the Board this date, dated October 27, 1993, included everything that had been duly advertised thus far, other than Chapter IV, Special Districts, Subsection 4.01.00 - Airport Zoning, at which time he distributed a handout pertaining to same, noting that it had not been duly advertised for this meeting, however, was in the process of being advertised for the second public hearing, scheduled for November 16, 1993.
Mr. Hoban stated that, if the Board chose to do so, they could hold a second public hearing on this particular change to the LDRs, approximately two weeks after the November 16, 1993 hearing. He stated that it comes from a Code Enforcement violation, wherein the County's ordinance was in conflict with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rule.
It was noted that said conflict affects the Umatilla Airport and that the County is trying to get the matter resolved, to where there is only one set of rules.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., appeared before the Board and requested clarification concerning Lots of Record. He referred to Pages III-35 through III-40, Subsection 3.02.01, and questioned whether one would have to meet the requirements listed in Paragraphs A. 1. a. through e.; 2. a. and b.; 3. a. through d., etc., or whether they were options, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that one can only fit, theoretically, into one of the seven options listed.
It was noted that, if one took their Lot of Record, tested it against the seven options and met one of them, they would be able to build on their lot.
Mr. Beliveau then pointed out the fact that on Page III-36, Paragraph 5., it states "The minimum lot size requirement for the Suburban and Transitional Land Use Categories shall be one (1) acre." and questioned whether that meant that one would not have to worry about the infamous rooftop counting business, to which he was informed that one would not have to, as far as Lots of Record are concerned.
Ms. Janet Brady, a resident of Eustis, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the Lot of Record Ordinance was going to still contain the ability for people to split parcels into lots and develop them, by using some sort of special assessment, rather than putting the roads in themselves, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that, under the current regulations, a developer might be able to come in, add lots together, and use the County process for doing road assessments - have the County pay for 1/3 and the property owners pay for 1/3, for existing lots.
Ms. Brady questioned whether this was previously allowed, before the most recent Lot of Record Ordinance was passed, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that said policy has been governed by the County's road policies, concerning when the County would and would not pave. He stated that those policies have remained consistent over the last ten years, however, the Lot of Record Ordinance has changed drastically over that same period.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the original LDRs were put together, which was June 1, 1992, the old Lot of Record Ordinance was left out, therefore, the requirements that existed for the old Lot of Record Ordinance ceased to exist as a part of the Code. He stated that it was that part of the Code that required aggregation and, under some circumstances, would have limited the number of building permits, unless the infrastructure was put in.
Commr. Swartz stated that, from June 1, 1992 until today, that Lot of Record language did not exist, however, it now exists and would require that the road be put in by the individual or individuals who own said lots and they would only get one building permit, unless they put said roads in. He stated that there was a gap when that requirement was omitted.
Mr. Hoban interjected that there is still a gap and the gap will not change until December 1, 1993, when the LDRs are officially adopted in their current form.
Commr. Hanson stated that one still had to aggregate lots on a non-county maintained road and the only way that the situation differs now is that one has to aggregate to five acres on a non-county maintained road.
Mr. Hoban interjected that, from the period of June 1, 1992 to February 15, 1993, one could only get one building permit per lot. However, in February of this year, the County made one aggregate to the zoning district, whatever it might be, but there is no road requirement.
Commr. Swartz stated that the amendments before the Board this date will put the road requirement back in.
Ms. Brady informed the Board of a situation that occurred at the last Board of Adjustment Meeting that was held concerning a case involving an individual who owns approximately 90% of the lots in a local development, in that said individual was given double the amount of lots that he had been assigned a couple of years ago and that he will not have to put in the roads.
Ms. Brady stated that the County will be doing some sort of special assessment agreement with him, so that the roads can be put in, at a later date, by the County. She stated that she wanted to protest the fact that the County is going to pay 33% of the cost of those roads and is going to build the roads and then wait seven years, under a special assessment situation, to get the money back. She stated that she felt that was not right, that taxpayers' money should not be subsidizing developers.
Commr. Swartz agreed with Ms. Brady, stating that it is an unfortunate omission in the LDRs. He stated that, whether or not the County is entering into any agreement for a special assessment, he did not know, but he knows that there are some provisions in the road policy which may prohibit the County from entering into such an agreement, not withstanding the gap he alluded to earlier.
Commr. Hanson stated, for the record, that the omission Commr. Swartz alluded to was not an omission, noting that, in February, the Chairman came up with the language that was put in, stating that the special assessment and road right-of-way dedication would be inserted and that was when the Board adopted said language. She stated that the Board consciously did it, in an effort to take care of the road situation.
Commr. Gerber read into the record a portion of a letter the Board had received from Mr. and Mrs. David Nye, concerning the issue of the Lot of Record Ordinance and a request that language be inserted requesting developers to pay their own way, with respect to infrastructure.
Mr. Frank Kutch, a local realtor, appeared before the Board stating that he had a problem with that portion of the LDRs that requires any development that takes place within 1,000 feet of a water and sewer line to connect to said line. He noted the reason for his disapproval and stated that he would like to see that portion of the LDRs modified.
Commr. Swartz stated that the language Mr. Kutch referred to is language that is in the Comprehensive Plan and, whether it is in the LDRs or not, it is a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it is also a requirement of the State Statutes. He noted that the Board had provided an exemption for existing development so that, whether it be residential or commercial, it need not connect, as long as there are no environmental problems with the water or wastewater.
Mr. Kutch stated that, just because said requirement was put into the State Statutes, it does not mean that the LDRs have to require it. He stated that the LDRs do not follow the State Statutes all the time. He stated that they are developed by the County as a tool to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that the connection requirement has been in the County's Code book for approximately 15 years. He also stated that, at this point in time, unless the Board is going to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the language that is in the LDRs tracks the language that is in the Comprehensive Plan, as it is required to do. He stated that the only way to accomplish what Mr. Kutch is suggesting is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and remove said language. He reiterated the fact, however, that the State Statutes require the same thing.
It was noted that the Board could not do anything about the issue that Mr. Kutch addressed, at this time.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that staff will be coming back during the next round of LDRs, which will be sometime between June and October of 1994, addressing the very issue being discussed, a mandatory connection - when one will and will not have to do it. He stated that staff will be bringing proposed language back to the Board, at that time, regarding same.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, a local attorney, appeared before the Board and suggested a change that she felt should be made in the language contained in Subsection 1.02.14 - Master Park Plan, on Pages I-5 through I-6; Subsection 1.02.25 - Preliminary Plat - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-11 through I-12; and Subsection 1.02.27 - Site Plan - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-12 through I-13.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, by making said change, it allows the developers to have spent the extra money to do the permit, or they have to commence the development by October 1, 1995, and she feels that that will fit more in line with what the Board did on PUDs and construction drawings. She stated that, on most of those, given the uncertainty of the process of what the County has been going through for the last two years, people have not been moving forward with a complete application to the St. Johns River Water Management District for an entire development, because they did not know (a) what the Comprehensive Plan had in store for them; (b) whether or not there was going to be any vesting; or (c) what the development regulations were going to look like.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the Board leaves the language in the LDRs the way that it is presently written, they will have divested most of those preliminary plats and she does not think that it is parallel with what they did under the PUDs and construction plans. She suggested that, instead of making it a requirement that a developer have both the commencement of development and the St. Johns River Water Management District permit, in each one of the sections she alluded to earlier, as indicated, the word and should be changed to or.
Ms. Bonifay then requested the Board to, once again, look at the issue of CP zoning and give those clients of hers who have gotten development plans approved, with commercial zoning, some window of opportunity that, if they did a development plan, in conjunction with that commercial zoning, they would have at least 12 to 18 months to come in with a final site plan and that they be vested for density and intensity, at this point in time.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., appeared before the Board and referred to Paragraphs A. 1. b. and c., under Subsection 3.02.01 - Lot of Record, on Page III-35, and questioned whether a Lot of Record would be issued a building permit if the Lot or Record met either the requirement of Paragraph b. or Paragraph c., or if it meant something else, to which Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, responded, stating that one would have to meet all of the requirements, Paragraphs a. through e.
Ms. Roof stated that it would be impossible to meet the requirements of Paragraphs d. and c. at the same time, however, Mr. Hoban disagreed.
Ms. Roof then questioned whether the Board would be addressing the issue of existing subdivisions that have 25 foot setbacks, in the agricultural zoning districts, and 10 foot setbacks, in the rural residential zoning districts, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that the setbacks are being changed and said changes are contained in Chapter III.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson referred to Subsection 1.02.22 - Plats - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Page I-10, and stated that the language "and depicted on Comprehensive Plan Map I-5", contained in the second and third sentences of said paragraph, undermines the vesting of final plats which may have been recorded in the Wekiva Basin.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that said language should be deleted, because it is stating that if the plats are not on the Comprehensive Plan Map they are not vested. She stated, however, that in another part of the Comprehensive Plan it states that all zoning is vested in the Wekiva Basin, so, obviously, there is a conflict.
Mr. Hoban stated that the reason the Comprehensive Plan states that all zoning is vested is because staff took every kind of zoning there is, made a category for it, and said that it was vested.
Commr. Hanson interjected that nothing has been depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Map for the final plats in the Wekiva Basin, which is inconsistent.
Mr. Hoban stated that all zoning should have been depicted, as of March 11, 1990, on Comprehensive Plan Map I-4.
It was determined that Mr. Hoban's statement was correct.
Mr. Hoban noted that, in Subsection 1.02.22 - Plats - Chapter 7 (Wekiva), the reference made to Comprehensive Plan Map I-5 should be changed to I-4 and that it should show all zoning existing as of March 11, 1990 as being vested, in the Wekiva Basin.
Commr. Hanson questioned Mr. Hoban as to whether anything had been done that takes away from the original language in the Wekiva amendment, to which he responded, stating that the road requirement and aggregation is policy decision that the Board can make and it simply adds another requirement onto the vesting language.
It was noted that the Board has made that decision.
Commr. Gerber questioned why the word natural was taken out of Paragraph A. 3. b., in Subsection 3.02.01 - Lot of Record, on Page III-35, to which Mr. Hoban responded, stating that the Comprehensive Plan has a requirement for open water bodies, natural included, and that said language follows the Comprehensive Plan policy.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Commr. Hanson stated that, at the last meeting, Commr. Swartz had mentioned the possibility of a variance, for aggregation, however, noted that she had a problem with that, in that she feels it will affect affordable housing in many areas. She stated that she is concerned about the Mt. Plymouth area, particularly the CDBG area that the County has now received a grant for, where the road will be paved. She stated that there are areas in Mt. Plymouth where there is a need to find more affordable housing lots and she does not believe that the County has anything that allows for that.
Mr. Hoban stated that the County allows variances in the Wekiva Basin for the road requirements, but they do not allow variances for the Comprehensive Plan aggregation requirements. He stated that one can get variances for the roads, for the paving requirements, but they cannot get a variance if they are in a rural area, where the requirement is to aggregate up to five acres, and the person owns five acres worth of little lots.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that, if the road requirement was taken out and the requirement for a special assessment was left in, somewhere down the road, those individuals that Commr. Hanson is concerned about, from an affordable housing standpoint, are going to end up having to pay a special assessment.
Commr. Gerber questioned language contained in Paragraph C. 2., in Subsection 1.02.21 - Planned Unit Development (PUD), on Page
I-10, at which time it was clarified that there was a typographical error, in that a reference made to Subsection 1.02.20.C should read Subsection 1.02.21.C.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, brought up the fact that Commr. Gerber had questioned the issue of open water bodies and natural open water bodies and stated that he felt it is a term that, at some point, may become important and that the Board may need to define it somehow.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, however, no action was taken at this time regarding same.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like for staff to look into Ms. Bonifay's request to change the word and to or, on Pages I-11 through I-13, as well as Pages I-5 through I-6, as suggested earlier in the meeting.
Discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the changes Ms. Bonifay was requesting would do to Preliminary Plats, Site Plans, and Master Park Plans what has been done to PUDs, which is eliminate the requirement for having achieved some level of permitting that gives one more vesting, with easier regulations, as opposed to it coming under less stringent regulations.
Mr. Hoban interjected that that would be his understanding.
Commr. Swartz stated that there is something to be said about consistency and that he would suggest changing the PUD back, to be consistent with the others, as opposed to changing the others to be consistent with the PUD.
A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve the change requested by Ms. Bonifay being that, in Paragraphs A. 1. a.; A. 2. a.; B. 1. a.; and B. 2. a., for Subsection 1.02.14 - Master Park Plan; on Pages I-5 through I-6; Subsection 1.02.25 - Preliminary Plat - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-11 through I-12; and Subsection 1.02.27 - Site Plan - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva), on Pages I-12 through I-13, the word and, at the end of Paragraphs a., in each subsection, should be changed to or and to eliminate any inconsistencies which might exist within said subsections.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he would vote against the motion, because he felt that it was doing exactly the same thing to the subsections involved that was done to PUDs.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried.
Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "No".
The Board chose not to act on the second proposal by Ms. Bonifay, which was to readdress the issue of CP zoning.
It was noted that the final public hearing dealing with the LDRs would be held on November 16, 1993, at 5:05 p.m.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board declared an emergency situation, as it pertains to Subsection 4.01.00 - Airport Zoning of the LDRs, which could affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the area of the Umatilla Airport, and removed the requirement for advertising the first public hearing regarding same.
It was noted that said subsection would be advertised in time for the second public hearing.
Commr. Bailey questioned what staff had found out about the issue of impact fees, to which Mr. Wahl, County Manager, responded, stating that a staff person from Reynolds, Smith & Hill had returned a call from him regarding the matter, however, said individual was not familiar with the language and indicated that he would have to look into the matter and get back with Mr. Wahl at a later date, at which time staff will bring the matter before the Board, for discussion.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK