FEBRUARY 23, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, February 23, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning & Development Services; Susan M. Strum, Planner III, Planning & Development Services; James E. Barker, Director of Environmental Management; Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services Division; Rebecca Jetton, Planning Manager, Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.


On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reschedule the April 4, 1995 Regular Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to April 6, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., due to a conflict with Lake County Days in Tallahassee.



Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development Services, stated that the workshop this date was a continuation of the workshop on February 6, 1995 for the purpose of discussion on the time frames for submitting Land Development Regulations (LDRs) for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and procedures and requirements for minor subdivisions of land.

Time Frames for Submitting Land Development Regulation Amendments

Mr. Bergmann stated that Mr. Mike McDaniel, ACSC Administrator, Department of Community Affairs, had requested, in

his letter dated September 28, 1994, that a new time frame be determined for the completion of the County's Land Development Regulations for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. Mr. Bergmann briefly discussed the time frame for the issues under consideration and indicated that staff was not comfortable with setting a specific time frame but would provide an estimated date.

Commr. Hanson stated, for the record, that she was offended by Mr. Michael D. McDaniel's letter, dated February 3, 1995, in which he stated that he was looking forward to working with the "new" Board. She stated that the Department of Community Affairs should be non-political in county government, and to imply that the "new" commission was going to move forward rapidly and give them what they want immediately was a misconception.

Mr. Bergmann indicated that a full package of the County's Land Development Regulations, in draft form, would be available to the Board in three (3) months, and completion of the Land Development Regulations should occur in six (6) months.

Discussion on the Concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the Planning and Zoning Commission has requested time to workshop the Timeliness and the Commercial Locational Criteria Policies with County staff prior to the County Commission taking formal action on adopting new policies or regulations which relate to the potential development of residential or commercial projects within Lake County.

It was the decision of the Board to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission time to meet with County staff for a briefing on the issues of Timeliness and Commercial Locational Criteria.

Chapter V - Concurrency Management

Mr. Bergmann distributed a revised copy of Chapter V - Concurrency Management to the Board for their review. At this time, no discussion occurred on Concurrency Management.

Chapter XIV - Platting Procedures and Requirements for Minor Subdivisions of Land

Mr. Bergmann brought up for discussion platting procedures and requirements for minor subdivisions of land.

Commr. Swartz discussed the responsibility of the County to those who purchase a lot in a minor subdivision of ten (10) lots or less, and suggested that a Performance Bond be issued that requires infrastructure to be in place for a minor subdivision within a two (2) year time frame. He further suggested that, if the developer did not sell any lots within a two (2) year time frame to generate the ability to put the infrastructure in place, the plat would then be dissolved.

Mr. Frank Kutch appeared before the Board and explained that the majority of individuals that are subdividing land at this time are not subdividing because they wish to become developers but because they cannot maintain their land, and stated that there must be help for those individuals who are distressed. He explained that the purpose of the minor subdivision was to assist the individual who has a ten (10) or twenty (20) acre block and wishes to sell off incremental lots from time to time. He suggested that the location of the property be reviewed to determine if the property requires a road, and if a road was not necessary, he questioned the feasibility of requiring the developer to build a road. He stated that it was not feasible to have one lot split policy for all areas of the County and suggested that each area of the County be addressed individually.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not believe that the County could handle all of the potentials on a minor subdivision in any language and suggested that a possible answer would be a common driveway to accommodate a cluster of tracts.

Extensive discussion occurred in regard to the appropriate size for a minor subdivision, at which time Commr. Hanson suggested

that a minor subdivision should consist of no more than ten (10) lots.

Mr. Kutch suggested that an ad hoc committee be formulated to meet on a regular basis, to include bankers who are knowledgeable in FHA financing and professional people, to review the issues pertaining to minor lot splits.

Commr. Cadwell cited an example in the City of Umatilla where the City accepted a Developer's Agreement with a Letter of Credit and a two (2) year time frame. He brought up for discussion the option that a double surface treatment road be required for a minor subdivision, with a stipulation that within a time frame the developer would be required to bring said road up to County standards.

At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to request staff to draft platting procedures and requirements for minor subdivision of land with language which indicates that a minor subdivision would consist of ten (10) lots or less, and that the road requirement would provide for a two (2) year time frame with a Letter of Credit or a Performance Bond that assures road construction would ultimately meet County standards unless an extension of the required Performance Bond or Letter of Credit was granted.

Discussion occurred regarding the availability of a water supply for fire protection, how Access Management requirements address splits along a County paved maintained road, and common open space requirements for minor subdivisions.


At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes, and reconvene at 11:00 a.m.


Chapter XIV (Continued)

Discussion continued regarding open space requirements in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.

Extensive discussion occurred in regard to family lot splits, at which time, Mr. Hoban stated that family lot splits were simply an exception to the Future Land Use category, and indicated that the rules and regulations for family lot splits should be outlined in the Land Development Regulations. At this time, he discussed the difference between a minor lot split and family lot split.

Commr. Swartz questioned if it was the legal opinion of the County Attorney's Office that creation of parcels for family members could not be accomplished if the requirement was not addressed in the LDRs, to which Mr. Hoban responded that the Land Development Regulations were to be followed.

Commr. Hanson stated that family lot splits were a variance to the density requirement, and that the purpose was to establish an avenue of relief to families who have owned property for many years, particularly in the Wekiva River Basin Protection Area.

At this time, Commr. Gerber suggested that staff draft the Land Development Regulations to match the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz requested that a legal opinion be prepared by the Interim County Attorney to indicate whether the County could legally create parcels for family members, if the rules and requirements are not addressed in the Land Development Regulations. He stated that any type of development permitting or approval must cease if said development was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that there are permits in the process currently that have been recorded, the necessary surveys have been completed, and are to come before the Technical Review Committee; to which Commr. Swartz suggested that all of the monies should be refunded on the cases alluded to by Mr. Hoban.

Ms. Bonnie Roof, a local resident, appeared before the Board and cited an example of a lot split that she has been working on for over a year. She indicated that her client could not afford to

pull the building permit at this time, and questioned if this legitimate lot split would be permitted. She expressed concern for the individuals who are in the process, or close to finalizing a lot split.

Commr. Gerber clarified that staff would draft Land Development Regulations to match the Comprehensive Plan in regard to family lot splits, and suggested that staff prepare options for consideration as far as tracking family lot splits. Discussion continued regarding family lot splits and Commr. Gerber clarified that until such a time that Land Development Regulations were in place on family lot splits, the County would not initiate any new family lot splits, with the exception of those who are in reliance at this time. She further clarified that those who have just started through the process would be refunded their money and instructed to wait until the Land Development Regulations are in place to implement the policy of the Board.

Timeliness Criteria

Ms. Susan M. Strum, Planner III, Planning & Development Services Division, distributed a memorandum, dated February 17, 1995, in regard to the latest draft of the Timeliness Criteria Land Development Regulations amendments, and explained that said memorandum addresses changes to Table 3.00.03, Land Use - Zoning District Matrix, which was the critical link between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. She stated that Section 4.04.00, Mixed Use Quality Development should be deleted.

Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that a workshop has been scheduled on March 7, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., on the Economic Element, and requested that specific concerns pertaining to the Economic Element be discussed with Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator, prior to said workshop.

It was the decision of the Board to schedule a workshop on the redraft of "Platting Procedures and Requirements for Minor

Subdivision of Lands", and the "Timeliness Criteria" on March 23, 1995, at approximately 10:00 a.m. It was noted that on April 13, 1995 a Horizons West workshop has been scheduled at 9:00 a.m., and an Impact Fee workshop has been scheduled 11:00 a.m.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.