APRIL 13, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, April 13, 1995, at 11:00 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, Jr.; and Catherine C. Hanson. Commr. Cadwell was not present. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.



Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that they had in their backup material a copy of the proposed impact fee ordinances and the proposed Resolution adopting the Fee Schedule. He stated that staff had made a number of changes to the School Impact Fee Ordinance and that every other Impact Fee Ordinance the County has will be mirror copies of the School Impact Fee Ordinance.

Mr. Hoban referred to Page 8 of the draft Ordinance (School Impact Fee Ordinance) before the Board this date, dated February 17, 1995, stating that a question had been raised about the prepayment of impact fees. He stated that county staff had historically interpreted the County's regulations to say that one has to pay building impact fees at the time they pull a building permit; however, people have questioned what would happen if they paid the fees the day before they were to go up and then needed to change the building permit and staff has informed them that, when they do the amended building permit, the County will charge them the new rate, give them credit for the old rate, and they will have to pay the difference.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Mr. Hoban then reviewed the School Impact Fee Ordinance, noting the following changes:

On Page 4, the word ordinance was changed to article.

On Pages 5, 6, and 7, and the top of Page 8, all language pertaining to Section 15.01.06 - Rules of Construction was struck through, because said section was moved to the very beginning of the Ordinance.

On Page 8, Paragraph B, Lines 17-19, it referenced County staff and School Board staff and that was changed to Lake County Technical Review Committee or City staff.

Mr. Hoban noted that, for the EMS and Fire Ordinances, said language would be changed to the County Manager or designee and for the Library Impact Fee Ordinance, it would be changed to City staff and the County Manager or designee.

On Page 9, Paragraph A was deleted, due to the fact that it was a duplication.

Commr. Swartz noted a concern he had about Paragraph B, on Page 8 of the draft Ordinance, under Section 15.05 - Dedication of Land or Payment of School Impact Fees. He stated that he feels the Board needs to be involved, if the dedication of land or payment of school impact fees involves a county issue, and, if it is a city or School Board issue, then they can designate how they want it to be handled. He stated that he did not want to see the County having sites accepted by the Technical Review Committee, or by the County Manager or designee, and then have a developer go out and sell a site, stating, for instance, that the County had accepted it for a fire station and that one would be constructed in three to five years, with the Board having no knowledge of it whatsoever.

Mr. Hoban stated that would be more of an administrative issue, because the Code states that the County, or the Technical Review Committee, will decide whether the County wants land or impact fees.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel it would be an administrative issue, which he elaborated on. He stated that, if land or some alternative form of payment is going to be utilized for the required fees, he feels that it needs to be reviewed, at some level, by the Board.

Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the current language covers the problem very well, noting that it states "as determined by the County". She stated that it will be up to the Board to go from there.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Ordinance could keep the current language, however, suggested inserting additional language stating that, if a determination is made to accept some alternative dedication of land, equipment, etc., in lieu of impact fees, that it needs to be approved by the appropriate agencies and staff and/or constitutional officers that are involved and, in the event that it requires some alternative dedication, as opposed to payment of the impact fees, then that will need to be reviewed and approved again, by the appropriate collective bodies.

Mr. Hoban noted that said language would be inserted in the Ordinances.

Mr. Hoban referred to Page 8, Line 37, stating that the date of August 1, 1991 was inserted, replacing the language effective date of the ordinance.

A brief discussion occurred regarding an individual going from a two bedroom to a three bedroom home and what said individual would need to do, with regard to the payment of impact fees.

Mr. Knight stated that the matter is covered under the Exemptions section of the Ordinance.

Mr. Hoban referred to Page 9, Lines 23-28, stating that staff had printed a large portion of the Florida State Board of Education Administrative Rules in the Code and, because they are constantly being amended and changed, the Ordinance references the Florida State Board of Education Administrative Rules and the language pertaining to same was deleted.

Commr. Hanson noted that on Page 9, Line 17, the word advise should be advice.

Mr. Hoban referred to Pages 10, 11, and 12, stating that the language that was struck through was language that was obsolete and standards that the School Board could not comply with, because they have their own standards that they have to comply with, therefore, staff referenced documentation that the School Board uses.

On Page 13, Section 15.02.07 - School Impact Fee Schedule was deleted, due to the fact that it was a duplication.

On Page 13, Mr. Hoban noted that Item 1. Establishment of Fee Schedule states that the Board shall adopt, by Resolution, a School Impact Fee Schedule.

On Page 15, Item 3. Notations on the Fact of the Plat was deleted, because it did not serve any purpose.

Commr. Gerber requested that staff change the heading for

Item 4. Fifty Five Years and Older Reduction.

Commr. Swartz stated that there is a specific Statute that deals with the matter and suggested using said language.

It was noted that staff would make said change.

On Page 16, Item 4. Mixed Uses was deleted, because it was a clause that was carried over from the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. It was noted that said language would not be in the Education Impact Fee Ordinance, but would be included in some of the other Ordinances.

On Page 16, Lines 18-32, Mr. Knight stated that a lot of said language was put in for multi-use, with regard to transportation. He stated that staff does not have a problem making a determination about whether a house is a house or a mobile home.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see language giving staff the ability to make a determination, on a reasonable basis, when an individual states that they only have a one bedroom home, yet have four other rooms that they have listed as a den, library, study, etc.

Mr. Hoban stated that staff could add said language, however, it would come down to the building official's determination.

Commr. Swartz suggested talking to Mr. Jack Bragg, Building Official, to see if he had some suggestions on how to deal with the problem.

On Page 16, Item 6. Change of Use or Density - Mr. Hoban stated that staff had received a number of questions from the cities about this matter and that said language was just codifying the County's existing practice.

Mr. Knight stated that it was really designed more for the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page 17, Paragraph 2, stating that the Board should be made aware of when alternative studies are being done and accepted, so that the Board is aware of when an applicant has submitted a different fee schedule and when, in review by staff, they have determined that an alternate fee schedule is appropriate.

It was noted that the Board would only need to be notified of the ones that staff feels are valid, not the ones that staff rejects.

Commr. Swartz referred to Paragraph B. - Waiver of Impact Fees, on Page 17, stating that the Board does not waive impact fees, therefore, suggested developing alternative language to waiver of impact fees.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time staff noted that they would develop alternative language.

Commr. Gerber referred to Paragraph 1., Line 18, on Page 17, stating that she had a problem with the language in the alternative, which she elaborated on, and suggested that it be struck.

It was the consensus of the Board to do so.

On Page 18, Commr. Gerber suggested changing Paragraph E. - Lake County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to Paragraph C., because she felt it was better suited coming under the paragraph dealing with reductions in impact fees.

On Page 18, Paragraph D. - Defer Payment of Impact Fees, Commr. Swartz suggested adding language that will indicate what the County is doing, with regard to said subject, so that it will be consistent with policies adopted by the Board. He stated that there will be policies adopted and the deferment of those fees needs to be consistent with those policies.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was suggested that the Industrial Development Authority be charged with developing a deferral policy.

On Page 19, Section 15.01.11 - Dedication of Land or Payment of Fee Prior to Building Permit was deleted, due to the fact that it was a duplication.

On Page 19, Section 15.02.09 - School Impact Fee District, Mr. Hoban noted that there are different districts for each Ordinance and that they are covered on Page 6 of the Ordinance.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested establishing the fee districts by Resolution and having the fees, the districts, etc. all in one Resolution.

On Page 20, Paragraph G. - Mr. Knight stated that said language was inserted to allow for administrative costs that are associated with impact fees, however, said costs shall not exceed 5% of the total amount expended or encumbered by the County.

On Page 20, Section 15.02.13 - Refund of Fees Paid, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the ability to refund fees needs to be changed, which he elaborated on.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to have a separate paragraph inserted that gives the County some flexibility, if it has paid for the improvements that were anticipated.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with inserting said language, if it is handled case by case, however, did have a problem with using it across the board.

Mr. Hoban stated that his office would need to research the matter and get back to the Board, because he felt there would be a problem associated with it, which he noted.

On Page 21, Paragraph B. - Funds Not Expended, Commr. Swartz clarified that landowners would have six years to expend school impact fees; however, the Board can extend it by three years.

It was noted that there were no changes to Section 15.02.14 - Exemptions and Credits.

On Page 23, the language contained in Lines 6-19 was deleted, because staff feels that said procedure can be done less formally than what is stated. It was noted that it is more of an administrative function.

On Page 24, it was noted that the language contained in Lines 37-40 indicates the method by which to deliver notification.

It was noted that there were no further changes to the Ordinance.

The next Impact Fee Workshop was scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 1995, at 2:00 p.m.


At 12:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 3:00 p.m. for the Land Development Regulations Workshop.



Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, distributed a handout, dated April 8, 1995, regarding Towers and zoning districts for same. He stated that they should be conditional, except in the CFD district, which should be permitted, noting the reason for same.

Commr. Swartz suggested further review of this issue, before making a decision, and directed staff to check with other agencies, to find out how they deal with it.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development, referred to a handout that he had distributed referencing Section 3.11.04 - Termination of Nonconforming Uses and Development, dated April 8, 1995, stating that the matter had been discussed at a prior meeting and the following exemption clause was inserted: The discontinuance of any agricultural uses (not requiring a CUP) as the result of a natural disaster for fifteen (15) consecutive years. He stated that said language was inserted so that, if a grove was frozen out, or trees were cut down, it would not terminate the agricultural use, noting that the landowner could continue with a similar agricultural use.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Hanson questioned why it had to be as a result of a natural disaster, why market conditions could not apply.

It was the consensus of the Board to delete the language natural disaster.

Discussion occurred regarding a time frame, with regard to the matter, at which time it was noted that there would be a time frame of two (2) years for residential and fifteen (15) years for agricultural.

Mr. Knight distributed a handout giving two options for a Lot of Record definition, which he addressed with the Board.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.

Mr. Hoban stated that he had a discussion with Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, about this issue and it was Mr. Reed's recommendation that Option 1 not be adopted, until such time as staff has had a workshop meeting with the Board on vesting, and until such time as he could be present.

Commr. Gerber questioned whether the County could do a Lot of Record for the Green Swamp and another one for the rest of the County.

Mr. Hoban stated that it could be done, however, it would be very complicated and it is complicated enough, as it is.

Commr. Swartz stated that Option 2 would keep a Lot of Record as it presently is, therefore, suggested going with Option 2, until such time as the Board considers any changes.

Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), appeared before the Board to respond to a memorandum, dated March 22, 1995, from Ms. Robin Branda, Planner IV, DCA, in which DCA notes language that they feel is acceptable as defining a Lot of Record. She stated that this date was the first time that she had seen the memorandum in question, however, noted that DCA has had a lot of conversations with staff about trying the get the County to adopt a more stringent Lot of Record definition.

It was the consensus of the Board to stay with Option 2 and try to resolve the issue of the Green Swamp with DCA. It was noted that a lot of the issues could be dealt with in the Vesting Rights Ordinance.

Mr. Knight informed the Board that staff was going to try to get back to them with Commercial Locational Criteria, however, noted that there was a difference of opinion between members of staff regarding the matter. He further noted that he had been informed that the Board wanted to readdress the issue of Concurrency Management, however, it was his understanding that the County would be going to a public hearing regarding same.

It was noted that the Board did not want to readdress the issue of Concurrency Management, at this time.

Mr. Knight distributed a handout dealing with criteria pertaining to Bed and Breakfast Inns, as requested by the Board at

a previous meeting, which he reviewed with the Board, noting the difference between a Bed and Breakfast Inn and a Rooming and Boarding House or Bed and Breakfast Home.

Discussion occurred regarding same, at which time it was suggested that the heading Rooming and Boarding Houses be changed to Bed and Breakfast Homes.

Mr. Knight stated that the Standards for all Bed and Breakfast Inns are basically the same; however, noted that there are minor differences in the sign size requirements, which he elaborated on.

Commr. Swartz suggested adding the language or principal accessory structure to the first sentence of Paragraph 3. - Structure Design, on Page 2.

Commr. Good suggested deleting Paragraph 5. - Uniqueness, on Page 2 of the handout.

A brief discussion occurred, at which time it was noted that said paragraph would be struck.

Commr. Hanson suggested having staff come back to the Board with some allowance for an efficiency apartment that is part of a primary structure.

There were no further changes to the handout.

It was noted that the LDR Public Hearing would be held on April 18, 1995, at 6:00 p.m.


At 3:15 p.m., the Chairman turned the Chairmanship over to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Good, and left the meeting, due to another commitment.

Ms. Jetton, DCA, reappeared before the Board and suggested that the word potential be struck from a sentence contained in Chapter 8-13, of the LDRs, pertaining to Septic Tank Provisions, as it relates to a drain field being located within 75 feet of a potential wetland.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was decided that the word potential would remain in the sentence.

Ms. Jetton then questioned language contained in Chapter 9.07.04, Paragraph 4, of the LDRs, with regard to flood plains and the ability to transfer density rights.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested leaving the status quo as it is, at this time.

Ms. Jetton referred to Chapter 13.02.01 - Powers and Duties, questioning what type of variance one might apply for.

Discussion occurred, at which time it was noted that the Comprehensive Plan says to follow FEMA's recommendation regarding same.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.