The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, at 2:30 p.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, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
This meeting is a continuation of the LDR Workshop meeting that was held on March 27, 1995.
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WORKSHOP
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the Board should clear up any misunderstanding there might be by staff and the development community, regarding action that the Board took at the Land Development Regulations (LDR) workshop meeting held the previous day, March 27, 1995. He stated that he had misunderstood the action taken, with regard to a memorandum from Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten (former County Attorney), dated July 17, 1992, in which she gives a definition for "original parcel". He stated that, during the entire discussion, he thought the part of the memorandum that she was wrong about was the date. However, it was not the date that Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, was suggesting that Ms. Lustgarten was wrong about (the date was correct), it was the fact that she was stating that one could look at the date of the deed to determine if an "original parcel" was created. He stated that it was not his intent, nor did he feel that it was the Board's intent, to say that lot splits that occurred between May 20, 1981 and June 1, 1992 were not legally created lots, unless they were created by the following three ways, which Mr. Hoban states in his memorandum dated March 28, 1995, being (1) by plat, (2) adhere to the lot split process, and (3) meet the definition of a lot of record. He stated that they would not fall into any of those three categories, they would simply be a parcel that was divided and deeded and the County would have had nothing to do with it. He stated that, if the County adheres to something that says they have the same status as the three categories listed in Mr. Hoban's memorandum, then the County will be giving to them something that they have not had in the past.
Commr. Swartz stated that his intent was to allow the County to find a way to let two parcels split, but it was not to provide a way to let two parcels split and then split again.
Commr. Cadwell stated that that was his intent.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was also her intent, noting that times change as the County has more growth and what might not have been appropriate ten years ago might be appropriate today.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that that was not the issue that he had brought before the Board at the meeting of March 27, 1995. He stated that the Board was mixing apples and freight trains, at which time he clarified what he had brought before them. He referred to a summary that Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, had distributed to the Board indicating his understanding of what the Board had approved at said meeting and that it was also his understanding of what had transpired, with regard to "original parcel", as it pertains to the lot split process.
Mr. Richey stated that the County did not have the term "original parcel" in the Code, or in the Comprehensive Plan, until June 1, 1992, therefore, suggested to the Board, on March 27, 1995, that the County make effective the "original parcel" wording, when it was created, which was June 1, 1992, which he understood Ms. Lustgarten's memorandum to do. He stated that her memorandum stated to look at the deed and, if the deed was dated before June 1, 1992, one applied the "original parcel" concept; however, if it was after that date, one did not. He stated that it is not the date, but what the date means.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board were to do that, they would be saying to all those people who came in, went through the process, paid their money and played by the rules, that it was for nothing, because the County is now going to change the rules and they did not have to do that.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County does that every day, which she elaborated on.
Mr. Richey was questioned as to whether he had seen Mr. Hoban's memorandum, dated March 28, 1995, regarding the issue in question.
Mr. Richey stated that he had, however, did not agree with it. He stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Hoban's memorandum compares apples and oranges and does not deal with the "original parcel" issue.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the issue of "original parcel", the correct definition of same, and when it actually went into effect.
Mr. Richey and members of the Board debated, at length, about the matter and whether or not to retain the definition proposed by Ms. Lustgarten in her memorandum dated July 17, 1992 and confirmed in her memorandum dated May 20, 1993.
Mr. Hoban noted in his memorandum, dated March 28, 1995, that the Board had given direction, at the workshop meeting held on March 27, 1995, for the next 45 days, to use the June 1, 1992 date and adhere to both the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs, however, noted that this would be contradictory, since utilizing the June 1, 1992 date conflicts with the LDR requirement that both property owners place county deed restrictions over their properties to jointly maintain the easement.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the most common sense, conservative approach to the matter would be to maintain the approach that staff has been using, during the next 45 days, and not create a new category of legally created lots that is conflicting with what has been in place all along.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the only fair way to deal with the issue would be to bring the date forward. She agreed that there are some problems with it; however, she did not feel that it was right to continue to be unfair to all the people.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board were to create a new definition for "original parcel", as Mr. Richey would like for them to do, for the next 45 days, it would grant rights to people that the County has turned other people away on. He stated that there is no way to justify creating special rights for this one category, when all the others have had to fall under the definition of a "legally created lot" by plat, by adhering to the lot split process, or by meeting the definition of a lot of record. He further stated that, to do what Mr. Richey is asking, the Board would have to add a No. 4 to Mr. Hoban's memorandum, which would state that there are four ways to legally create a lot in Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Knight's summary stated what he felt the Board's intention was on March 27, 1995 and that he did not feel the concerns Commr. Swartz noted were that serious.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating, for clarification, that Ms. Lustgarten's memorandum was written on July 17, 1992; however, she wrote another memorandum on May 20, 1993 (which he read into the record) and he felt that, if she had had a different intent, after a year of consideration, there would have been some sort of clarification.
Discussion continued regarding the matter.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that she felt there had been more than adequate discussion about this matter and that the Board needed to move on. She stated that the Board was spending hours and hours on something that she felt affected only a very few people and she felt that those people that are affected should come to the public hearings and plead their cases.
Commr. Hanson disagreed with Ms. Bonifay, stating that she felt a lot of people were going to be affected by the amendments before the Board this date and that she did not have a problem with Mr. Richey's recommendation.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to retain the definition proposed by Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten (former County Attorney), in her memorandum dated July 17, 1992, and confirmed in her memorandum dated May 20, 1993, regarding "original parcel", in that an "original parcel" is a parcel of land which was created before June 1, 1992, the effective date of the Land Development Regulations, and that the phrase "original parcel" addresses the total number of lots that can be created, via the lot split process, and considers the ownership of property as of June 1, 1992, and to direct Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, to draw up language stating that fact.
Under discussion, staff was questioned as to how they felt about the Board changing the policy regarding "original parcel" and staff having to deal with it for the next 45 days.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, stated that it would increase staff's case load for lot splits, for a period of time; however, he saw it as a revenue boost, from a budgetary standpoint.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed.
Commrs. Swartz, Gerber, and Good voted "No".
Regarding the issue of Timeliness Criteria, Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Services Division, referred to a memorandum, dated March 27, 1995, regarding Table 3.00.03 - Land Use - Zoning District Matrix, which had been provided to the Board, stating that she had added language regarding MUQDs that was not necessary, noting that, if the County were deleting MUQDs, they did not need to add language about timeliness.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board stating that on Page 1 of Table 3.00.03, Land Use - Zoning District Matrix, under Suburban, she felt the language "Subject to Timeliness 1 du/gross ac" was very misleading. She stated that it means, if it meets timeliness, one would get up to one dwelling unit per gross acre. She stated that, if one is subject to it, however, cannot meet it, there are Base Densities, so she did not feel that said language was correct. She also objected to the language "PUD with Timeliness 3 du/gross ac", in that she did not feel the number noted was the correct number.
Commr. Swartz questioned what language should be substituted for "Subject to Timeliness".
It was noted that "Meeting Timeliness" would be better language.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt, if the County was going to continue to use timeliness, it should move Suburban to Rural and do away with Suburban.
Ms. Bonifay suggested doing a Comprehensive Plan amendment, along with the County's next change, and down zone Suburban to Rural, or do an administrative rezoning of the County, as she feels the County should have done, after March 3, 1995, and then explain to people what they have got, which is one dwelling unit per five acres, not one dwelling unit per one acre, or one dwelling unit per three acres. She stated that the County could also explain why it has not amended the Comprehensive Plan, in conformance with Chapter 163, to reinterpret the policy dealing with PUDs.
Mr. Richey stated that there were a couple of DRIs that had been approved and had gone through the process and he was not sure how timeliness fits in with a DRI that has gone through the process, therefore, requested staff to look at those DRIs that have gone through the process and are vested on the map, in the sense of timeliness.
Discussion continued regarding the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board approved to have staff include, in the LDR amendment process, the language regarding timeliness criteria, as modified this date, per the memorandum dated March 27, 1995, from Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Services Division.
Commr. Hanson voted "No".
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the vote.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, distributed the Chapter V - Concurrency Management section of the LDRs, for the Board's perusal.
No action was taken at this time, regarding same.
Commercial Locational Criteria
Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Services Division, referred to a draft, dated March 27, 1995, regarding Commercial Locational Criteria - Future Land Use Element, which she reviewed with the Board. She stated that, when the LDR Committee met over the past year, there was discussion on trying to fix Commercial Locational Criteria in the LDRs and it was noted at that time that there were some inconsistencies in the Future Land Use Element. She stated that the Committee came before the Board stating that their charge was to look at the LDRs and questioned whether the Board would like for them to expand their review. She stated that the Board chose to keep the review of the Commercial Locational Criteria, as it relates to the Future Land Use Element, to themselves, so the Committee did not review it.
Ms. Strum noted only one change, being to Policy 1-3A.1: Development of Neighborhood Activity Centers, on Page 4, under Minimum Gross Leasable Area. She stated that the figure 10,000 square feet should be changed to 5,000 square feet.
Ms. Strum referred to Policy 1-1.6: Function of Community Activity Centers, stating that not every commercial center had a function, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, she looked to the LDRs and did not feel the intent was to change.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, and member of the LDR Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board stating that the conclusion of the Committee was that the County could not fix the LDRs without fixing the Future Land Use Element, because it contained inconsistencies, which were pointed out to staff. She stated that the Committee felt this issue was one of the most important issues that the County needed to look at.
Ms. Bonifay further stated that the change made this date, to Policy 1-3A.1: Development of Neighborhood Activity Centers will enact what is in the County's Comprehensive Plan, but, if the County wants to have an Economic Development Element that means anything, they need to modify the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that all the County has done is codify what it has and what it has got does not work.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, distributed a draft, dated March 27, 1995, regarding Minor Subdivisions of Land, at which time he noted that the Board had not yet discussed Paragraph D. Standards, on Page 10, regarding minor lot splits and family lot splits, and that staff needed direction regarding same.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Commr. Swartz had noted a concern he had about an individual ending up with two quarter acre lots and questioned whether staff could come up with wording to alleviate that problem, possibly allowing one to get two lots out of a split, but have a minimum size requirement.
Mr. Knight informed the Board of some options that he had developed, which he felt would alleviate Commr. Swartz's concerns. A brief discussion occurred regarding said options, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the County would be creating a problem for those people who do not live on a paved road and are unable to have the road paved, yet may want to split their property, due to a hardship.
It was noted that the County needs to create an incentive to encourage people to go through the minor subdivision process and put the infrastructure in.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to eliminate the paved road requirement for a minor lot split, for 20 acres.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected, for informational purposes, that staff would insert the necessary language, with regard to easements.
Mr. Knight then reviewed the following sections of the draft regarding Minor Subdivisions of Land, dated March 27, 1995, with the Board:
Page 11, Paragraph 5 - Criteria for an exemption for a variance from the three year retention period for parcels created for family members. He noted that Items a. and b., under Paragraph 5, are the two criteria that will go to the Board of Adjustment.
Page 13, Paragraph A. Generally - The language of a legally created lot, not contained within a platted subdivision was added.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that the language not contained within a platted subdivision should be struck from said sentence, noting the reason for same.
Page 14, Option 2 - Legal descriptions and acreage, or square footage of the original and proposed lots and a sketch of description showing the intended division, prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Florida, is the Option that the Board chose to use.
Page 14, Paragraph D. Standards - Delete the following language that had been added under Item 1.: However, there shall not be more than one (1) agricultural lot split approved per original parcel.
Page 15 - Option 1, which required a minimum width of 80 feet, however, was modified to 66 feet, which is the standard footage for a rural type road, is the Option that the Board chose to use.
Staff was directed to create language that would take care of several concerns that were raised about private easements, with regard to Option 1.
Page 16, Section 14.10.03 - Lot Split Application - Change four months to six months, for minor lot splits, and eight months to twelve months for a family lot split.
Page 16, Section 14.10.04 - Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to (effective date of this ordinance) - Option 2 - Old Applications Have Grace Period to Finish Process, is the Option that the Board chose to use, giving a six month grace period.
Mr. Knight requested clarification regarding the definition of "original parcel". He stated that, due to the fact the Board chose not to use Ms. Lustgarten's definition, as stated in her memorandum dated July 17, 1992, he assumed the Board wanted to go with Mr. Hoban's definition of same.
It was noted that the definition currently being used is the definition that will continue to be used.
Concurrency Management (Cont'd.)
Mr. Richey, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and requested that they look at how long concurrency for various kinds of things will last, which he elaborated on.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development Services, questioned whether staff should expect to bring back the three or four districts needed to parallel the Comprehensive Plan redraft on commercial activities.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with the language before the Board this date.
Ms. Strum informed the Board that the Comprehensive Plan identifies five different types of activity centers, which range from neighborhood convenience centers to regional activity centers. She stated that the LDRs currently have C-1, C-2, and C-3 districts, which are employment centers, however, under the Comprehensive Plan, they are industrial, rather than commercial, in CP.
Commr. Swartz stated that he has been asking, for at least two years, for an employment center concept that is on the Land Use Map, noting that there is very specific criteria for an employment center. He stated that, when the County put on the Land Use Map that all industrial zoned land was vested, that was different, because they were not employment centers, it was industrial zoned land that was vested. He stated that it was clearly the intent of the Board to vest that zoning, which has been done, but they are not employment centers. He stated that, if the Board makes them employment centers, it will restrict what can be done with them.
Mr. Bergmann informed the Board that staff had a rough draft of the concept available for their perusal, however, could have a better draft available for them at the meeting scheduled for April 6, 1995.
It was noted that the matter needed to be addressed as soon as possible.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK