The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, October 10, 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: Sandy A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue B. Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to the BCC Office Manager; Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Department of Planning & Development Services; Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Department of Planning & Development Services; Mr. Barry Brown, Department of Planning & Development Services; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION ITEMS
Commr. Gerber announced that public comment would not be taken this date on the Impact Fees and the Vested Rights workshops.
Commr. Gerber stated that Mr. Everett Kelly has requested the use of the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room on October 24, 1995, at 4:30 p.m., for a State Natural Resources Committee meeting. She noted that on said date the Board has a public hearing scheduled at 5:05 p.m. on Land Development Regulations and suggested that said public hearing be moved to 7:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Board to allow the State Natural Resources Committee to use the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room on October 24, 1995, at 4:30 p.m., and to move the Land Development Regulations public hearing to 7:00 p.m., if necessary.
Commr. Hanson noted that a joint townhall meeting between the City of Mount Dora and the Board of County Commissioners was scheduled at 7:00 p.m. this evening in the Mount Dora Community Center.
IMPACT FEES WORKSHOP
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Department of Planning & Development Services, appeared before the Board to present the workshop on impact fees and discussion on the report titled "A Quantitative Assessment of Impact Fees in Lake County", prepared by Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc., at the direction of the City of Leesburg Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that the workshop this date was to provide the Board the opportunity to raise questions, and to request additional information in regard to the impact fee study. She explained that a presentation would be scheduled by Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. and the City of Leesburg Chamber of Commerce. She noted that the contract did not require that an evening meeting be scheduled for the presentation as previously indicated.
Mr. Barry Brown, Planner II, Planning and Development Services, appeared before the Board and directed the Board's attention to a memorandum dated September 28, 1995, titled "Assessment of Economic Impact Study". He explained that the primary purpose of the review was to look at the accuracy and methodology employed in the study, and to briefly comment on the conclusions. He stated that one area of concern was the use of the maximum proposed impact fee of $4,408.00 for a four (4) bedroom home as the basis for projections and analysis throughout the study. He suggested that it would have been more appropriate to use a three (3) bedroom fee of $3,000.00 since ninety (90%) percent of the homes in Lake County were three (3) or less bedrooms. He further expressed concern that the four (4) bedroom rate was applied to the 1990 median home value of $67,400.00 for analysis of interest effect and price sensitivity, and that a more current number should have been used. He stated that the study used a marginal cost analysis to measure the economic effects of the increase in impact fees, however, the stated range of increase from $1,919.00 to $3,196.00 was incorrect, and staff has computed the range to be from $1,325.00 to $2,882.00.
Commr. Gerber discussed lost revenue from ad valorem tax collections and stated that this was a significant issue because one side of the equation could not be considered without the other. It was noted that the study did not address this issue.
Commr. Good noted that one key factor that had been omitted from the study was the ratio between the percent increase in funds coming in and the percent decrease in services being required, and that no indicator had been included in the report that clearly identifies that relationship. He expressed concern that the study has omitted from the short equation a number of parameters such as stormwater factors, the number of additional automobiles on the road, air pollution costs, garbage, and impacts of carbon loading in the atmosphere. He stated that the impacts would be much greater in the long equation.
It was the direction of the Board to have Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. address all of the concerns expressed by the Board this date.
Commr. Gerber requested that a comparison be made of the cost of infrastructure per unit versus what said unit produces in ad valorem tax dollars.
Commr. Good stated that one issue for consideration was the effect of this study on the affordability of houses in Lake County, which affects wages and the profitability of manufacturing and commercial.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Services, appeared before the Board and directed the Board's attention to the Trip Generation Rate Study and Comparison with the ITE Trip Generation Rate Manual, dated September 22, 1995. He stated that the spreadsheet provides for comparison of trip rates exhibited in Lake County with those found in the ITE Trip Generation Rates. At this time, he discussed the study and comparison with the ITE Trip Generation Rate Manual and explained that weekday traffic counts were taken at various locations throughout Lake County via the Department of Public Services. At the Board's request, he stated that he would furnish a chart indicating the date that each trip study was performed.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that staff review the report prepared by the Lake County Conservation Council on impact fees. At this time, the Board directed staff to review the report made by the Lake County Conservation Council, provide an assessment of said report, and provide the additional information requested this date, from Real Estate Research Consultants, prior to the public hearing on Impact Fees.
Commr. Gerber requested that the County Attorney provide a legal opinion in regard to separation of impact fees if industrial, commercial, and residential were in one package, and whether the same percentage must apply to each of those users. She further requested that staff survey the counties of Volusia, Seminole, Osceola, Orange, Marion, and Sumter to determine the status of impact fees for industrial and commercial in those surrounding counties and how competitive Lake County would be if those counties chose to eliminate their impact fees for industrial and commercial.
Commr. Gerber further requested information on how the Five Year Road Plan applies to economic development and industrial development. She stated that she would like to see an integrated plan outlining where the infrastructure was going to be, and the funding and revenue sources for industrial and commercial.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the staff send the "Assessment of Economic Impact Study", and the requests for additional information to Real Estate Research Consultants prior to the public hearing. He stated that the costs that are in the report are projected on anticipated growth. He questioned where the funding sources would come from to support services and programs if not through the impact fee program.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess, and reconvene at 1:00 p.m. for a workshop on Vested Rights.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PLANNING
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, appeared before the Board to present a proposed Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and a proposed Vested Rights Ordinance. He explained that the Settlement Agreement has been prepared by the Department of Community Affairs, and the Land Development Regulations were prepared by staff.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, directed the Board's attention to a memorandum, dated October 10, 1995, in regard to a proposed Vested Rights Settlement Agreement, which had been distributed prior to the start of the meeting this date, and stated that the memorandum addresses his recommendations on the proposed Vested Rights Settlement Agreement. He stated that the new Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which are a condition of the Settlement Agreement, adopt statutory and common law vesting, and it was his recommendation that the dates should be removed from Section 1.02.04, and that the language be generic so that the concept could be used for subsequent Comprehensive Plan or LDR changes. He explained that the majority of development permits and approvals, which are the basis for vesting, do not require public notice and public hearing before their initial issuance and, therefore, he was recommending that no notice be given when an application for vested rights was received. He stated that the Board of Adjustment was the County board set up to hear appeals for administrative decisions, and it was his recommendation that the initial decision to issue a vested rights certificate should be a staff decision with the applicant having a right to appeal to the Board of Adjustments. He stated that a new section should be added which sets forth the effect of issuance of the vested rights certificates, and that this section should include a termination provision. He suggested that the vested rights certificate expire upon the expiration of the development order, or at the time that the development fails to continue in good faith, or a specific time frame which could be a fixed period of time or the time frames in the LDR's for termination of that type of development order, whichever comes first. He stated that the lot of record changes were not directly related to the vesting issue and require a substantial revision. He explained that the new LDR language was a loosening of the current LDR language. He further explained that currently the LDR's require aggregation of lots of record up to five acres, and the proposed LDR's only require aggregation up to 12,500 square feet if you are on a County maintained paved road.
Mr. Hoban explained that the lot of record ordinance, as written today, states that, if a road had not been built by the developer, the lot was not vested. He stated that the County Attorney's office provided an interpretation after the lot of record ordinance was written in December of 1993 that statutory vesting applied if there was a final local development order, a recorded plat, and development continued and was completed. He stated that, before the Board at this time, was the codification that you are only required to aggregate up to 12,500 square feet if you are on a County maintained paved road and that the developer of the road was not an issue. Mr. Hoban stated that the lot of record was not a part of the Settlement Agreement with the DCA.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the County goes only with common law and statutory vesting, some of the lot splits, which have been done, may be subject to question because they do not meet the five acre threshold and are in the rural areas.
Commr. Hanson stated that she has no objection to the recommendations and comments presented by Mr. Minkoff. She expressed concern with the time limits on new development and that she would have a problem if those time limits were not applied to other types of vesting.
Discussion occurred in regard to the recommendation that the Board of Adjustment hear appeals from administrative decisions; at which time Mr. Minkoff stated that vested rights appeals would be minimal once the initial fifty (50) vested rights appeals were completed in approximately eight (8) weeks. He stated that he was suggesting, as part of the Settlement Agreement, that those applications be reviewed only for statutory and common law vesting and not be reviewed under the old provisions of the LDRs.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Settlement Agreement before the Board at this time has been approved by the Department of Community Affairs and staff would like a date for a public hearing to adopt said agreement.
Commr. Good stated, for the record, that he was a member of the Lake County Conservation Council and was a party to the Conservation Council challenge, however, that would not influence his vote and that he would, in no way, personally benefit from this vote.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to instruct the County Attorney's Office and staff to include in the proposed Vested Rights Ordinance, as consistent with the Settlement Agreement, that the concepts of statutory and common law vesting as set forth in Section 1.02.04 are adequate and all vested rights applications should be measured against these standards, and to remove from these sections (old language) and the new language be made more generic so that the concept can be used for subsequent Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Regulations changes.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to instruct the County Attorney's Office and staff to delete from the proposed Vested Rights Ordinance Section 1.02.03 relating to St. Johns MSSW permit language.
Extensive discussion occurred in regard to appeal of vested rights certificates, and the recommendation that said appeals go before the Board of Adjustment. Commr. Swartz requested that Mr. Minkoff prepare a formal hearing process, which would provide the opportunity to challenge the staff determination through circuit court; and an informal process, which would provide the opportunity to go before the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the New Property Rights Act provides for the above noted procedure. He stated that language could be inserted in the Vested Rights Ordinance which states that the property owner has the opportunity to request a hearing officer pursuant to the Property Rights Act, or to appeal to circuit court.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to instruct the County Attorney's Office and staff to draft language in the proposed Vested Rights Ordinance providing the property owner the opportunity to request a hearing officer pursuant to the Property Rights Act mediation process, or to appeal to circuit court.
Commr. Hanson discussed Section 1.02.03, Vested Rights in the Wekiva, and expressed concern that Section 1.02.03 would wipe out the commercial zoning within the Wekiva River Protection Area.
Mr. Minkoff responded to Commr. Hanson's concern and stated that the dates would not be remove from Section 1.02.03, Vested Rights in the Wekiva.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to instruct the County Attorney's Office and staff to include in the proposed Vested Rights Ordinance, as consistent with the Settlement Agreement, a new section which sets forth the effect of issuance of the vested rights certificates; and to include a termination provision that the vested rights certificate expire upon the expiration of the development order, or at the time that the development fails to continue in good faith, or a specific time frame which could be a fixed period of time or the time frames in the LDR's for termination of that type of development order.
On motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to instruct
the County Attorney's Office and staff to include in the proposed Vested Rights Ordinance, as consistent with the Settlement Agreement, language to measure each of the existing applications that are pending against the requirement of common law or statutory vesting.
Discussion occurred in regard to the expiration of development orders not directly related to vesting; at which time Commr. Gerber stated that she would support a three (3) year time frame for termination of vested rights.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would support a five (5) year time frame for expiration of vested rights.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4 - 1 vote, the Board approved, based on the Chairman's concept of a fixed time frame for validity or termination of vested rights, a three (3) year time frame.
Commr. Hanson voted "No".
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board directed staff to prepare the Vested Rights Ordinance and set the public hearing dates for the adoption of the Settlement Agreement which would include, as an attachment, the Vested Rights Ordinance.
Discussion continued in regard to the lot of record proposed changes under Section 3.02.01, Lot of Record, at which time, Commr. Swartz requested that the County Attorney's office and staff prepare a recommendation for the Board's review in regard to lot of record language.
Mr. Hoban directed the Board's attention to language on page III-39 (a), and explained that said language was not currently being enforced by staff. He further explained that staff was enforcing an interpretation that states that, if a paved road was built by the County, by the Department of Transportation, or by a developer, the lots on that road would only have to aggregate up to 12,500 square feet, and not the five acres or rural land use. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that the County has to aggregate lot of record to the land use.
Mr. Paul Bergmann discussed the Development Order Expiration Dates chart, which had been distributed prior to the workshop this date, and explained that, based on a previous workshop and direction of the Board, staff has revisited the staff recommendations and has added an additional year in each category. Commr. Swartz requested that staff draft language that would provide for a one (1) year extension for large platted developments where infrastructure was in place and a good faith effort has been shown.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to authorize staff to prepare ordinances at the appropriate place in the code for Development Order Expiration Dates as indicated on the chart dated October 10, 1995.
Commr. Cadwell expressed concern with the time period of five (5) years and questioned if the Board would consider extending the time period to six (6) years.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 4 - 1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted "No".
Commr. Hanson brought up for discussion the issue of requiring a Conditional Use Permit for bars and taverns in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning. She explained that at the present time a bar or tavern could be put in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) with no conditions. She requested that this issue be addressed during the present round of amendments, and that consideration be given to allowing message therapists in C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning.
Commr. Swartz suggested that Commr. Hanson have staff address her concerns in a format to be brought back to the Board for consideration, noting that he has issues to be addressed also during the current round of amendments.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK