The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 24, 1996, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that she would like to add to the County Manager's Departmental Business two items, being (1) a request from Community Services for authorization to apply for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, and (2) approval of changes to the attachments to the AmeriCorps contract with the Florida Commission on Community Services.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said items on the Agenda, under the County Manager's Departmental Business.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following request:
Accounts Allowed/Growth Management/Subdivisions
Request from Growth Management for approval to release a Letter of Credit, for maintenance, in the amount of $10,000, and a Letter of Credit, for maintenance, in the amount of $5,000, for Cross-Tie Ranch, Phase I Subdivision.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ROAD VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 827 - JIM STIVENDER, JR. - LEESBURG
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by him, as the Director of Public Services, to vacate a rights-of-way, in Section 22, Township 19, Range 24, in the Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.
It was noted in the Board's backup material that this request pertained to that portion of a former State of Florida road rights-of-way numbered Section 1164-150, known alternatively as the Leesburg By-Pass, State Road 44A, also known as Thomas Avenue and Griffin Road.
Mr. Stivender reviewed a map indicating the rights-of-way in question and stated that the County did away with the curve in Thomas Road, moved the intersection, and signalized it. He stated that the curve in the road was the main road alignment and, since it was uphill, it was not very conducive for drainage. He stated that the request is to vacate the rights-of-way, however, to reserve a utility easement for existing utilities. He stated that Mr. Bartch, an adjacent property owner, gave the County additional rights-of-way on the outside corners of the project and that this request was a follow-up of that process.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 827 (Resolution No. 1996-135), by Jim Stivender, Jr., to vacate a rights-of-way, in Section 22, Township 19, Range 24, in the Leesburg area - Commissioner District 1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
The County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, informed the Board that, under the County's policies, if a party wished to have witnesses sworn in for testimony, for any of the rezoning cases, that all the witnesses for that particular case would have to be sworn in.
PETITION NO. 13-96-4 - A TO CFD - EDWARD GLOVER
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board stating that the Petitioner, Mr. Edward Glover, had requested that this case be withdrawn.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Good to approve the withdrawal of Case No. 13-96-4, a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a Boys Camp, as requested by the Petitioner, Mr. Edward Glover.
Mr. Gary Zimmerman, an adjacent property owner, informed the Board, from the audience, that he was an adjacent property owner and had not been notified that the case would be withdrawn.
Ms. Farrell informed the Board that staff had attempted to notify all surrounding property owners, therefore, they must have had an incorrect telephone number for said gentleman.
The Chairman reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Zimmerman appeared before the Board and confirmed the fact that the Petitioner would not be able to build the Boys Camp, as planned, without reapplying for the rezoning.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman reclosed the public hearing.
It was noted that the motion stood, as stated.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. PH35-96-2 - R-1 TO R-3 - BARBARA G. HARMON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone 33 acres from R-1 to R-3, for the establishment of a single family residential subdivision. She stated that it is on Lake Minnehaha, off CR 561, and has an Urban Expansion land use designation. She stated that the site will consist of 60 lots, with an overall density of less than three dwelling units per acre, and will be serviced water by Lake Utility Services, Inc. She stated that there are no immediate plans for sewer lines to run to this particular parcel of property. She stated that it meets the residential density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, which the County can control at the Technical Review Committee stage, however, noted that it has not yet been presented to the technical staff. She stated that, at such time that it is presented to them, staff will also obtain a conservation easement for that portion of the lakefront property that meets the Code for environmental sensitive lands. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She submitted, for the record, a plat (County Exhibit A) of the proposed development.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether a Developer's Agreement limiting the density would be part of this request.
Ms. Farrell stated that the Developer's Agreement would be dealt with at the Technical Review Committee meeting.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Lenny Baird, Attorney, representing the Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the Applicant would be tying into Lake Utility Services' existing sewer facility.
It was noted that, if a sewer facility was not close enough to service this development, septic tanks would be placed in the yards to facilitate future connections.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Gerber that the Board uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request to rezone property from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for the development of single family residential homesites.
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber thanked staff for the information they provided in the Analysis, noting that making the Board aware of the fact that there is existing development adjacent to the property in question, with density equal to that being proposed, was very helpful to the Board.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. CUP96/9/1-4 - CUP IN A - JAE KWAN AND WON SUP SIM
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture), from the Applicant, Mr. Craig Hegstrom, with the owners of the property being Mr. Jae Kwan and Won Sup Sim, for the continuation of a mobile home, as a caretaker's living quarters, to assist in the care and maintenance of a greenhouse on a five acre parcel of property. She stated that the parcel of property was located in the Sorrento area, on Adair Avenue and C-437, in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node. She stated that staff looked carefully and critically at this request, noting that a lot of the requests in the past for agricultural housing has been on larger parcels than five acres, most recently on 120 acres and several on ten acre tracts.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff was recommending denial in this case, based on the fact that they do not feel a second home would be necessary on a five acre parcel for the maintenance of the agricultural use. She stated that the applicant could apply for a lot split. She noted that the area in question is a mix and is leaning toward single family site built homes. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, by a 5-3 vote. She then presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a plat (County Exhibit B) of the property in question.
Commr. Hanson questioned how the applicant could get a lot split, as mentioned by Ms. Farrell.
Ms. Farrell stated that there would be an option for a family lot split, due to the fact that a family member would be living on the site. She stated that she was not sure, however, that they would pass the mobile home count.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that neither the applicant nor the applicant's representative was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson questioned the fact that, if the applicant were to go for a family lot split, whether any of the fees could be transferred.
Ms. Farrell stated that the County could work with the applicant, with regard to that aspect.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for placement of a mobile home on the site in question, for use as a caretaker's living quarters, to assist in the care and maintenance of an existing greenhouse/nursery operation, but staff was encouraged to work with the applicant, to determine if a mobile home would be appropriate for the rooftop count and to work with the applicant on the fees, if the applicant chose to come back with a family lot split request.
PETITION NO. CUP96/9/2-3 - CUP IN LM - BRUCE P. KING
TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in LM (Light Industrial) zoning, for a telecommunications tower. She stated that it is currently located in an employment center on Old Hwy. 441, in what is considered an industrial and residential area. She stated that staff looked closely at this request and, although the current zoning is LM, they did have some concerns about the introduction of another tower in the area in question. She stated that it is staff's opinion that the introduction of the tower into the residential uses currently on the property would not be consistent and compatible with the area. She stated that there was one letter and one petition (containing 30 signatures) on file, in opposition to this request. She stated that the applicant currently utilizes the SECO (Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.) tower located on SR 500, near Lowe's. She stated that there was a lengthy discussion about the request at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request and presented, for the record, an aerial (County Exhibit A) and a plat (County Exhibit B) of the property in question.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce King, the Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that he was the Planning Manager for Cypress Real Estate Services, who works for AT&T Wireless Services throughout the State of Florida. He stated that he was present to talk about the project related information and identify what the project issues were that arose during the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and review the Conditional Use Permit criteria that are used for consideration in the approval, as well as briefly discribe some of the community benefits associated with telecommunications.
Mr. King stated that staff's recommendation at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was for denial, due to their perception of incompatibility with the adjacent single family residential area. He stated that there was modest opposition expressed at said meeting and that AT&T Wireless Services has amended their application to mitigate the perceived impacts to the adjoining residential area. He stated that, originally, the proposed facility was a 220 foot self-supporting tower; however, the application now calls for a 200 foot monopole, with dual mode lighting, which provides a white strobe light during the day and a red beacon at night. He submitted, for the record, a photograph (Applicant's Exhibit A) of a monopole and stated that such lighting will not create any adverse visual impacts at night and minimal effects during the day, yet will provide the necessary safety for nearby aircraft. He stated that the application received an affirmative recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a lengthy debate and discussion.
Mr. King stated that he felt it was important that the Board understand the need that AT&T Wireless Services has for this tower. He stated that AT&T currently has a 220 foot self-supporting tower located at the SECO substation in the northwest quadroon of the intersection of U.S. 441 and U.S. 19 north; however, SECO notified AT&T of their intentions to sell said property, since the substation did not represent the highest and best use of the land. He stated that the existing tower will be removed, thus creating AT&T's current need to relocate their antennas. He discussed the problems that AT&T was faced with, in locating acceptable alternative sites. He stated that the subject site met the radio frequency design requirements, was the best location, from a zoning perspective, and provided sufficient buffering, to mitigate any visual impacts. He further elaborated on the tower and safety precautions that will be taken, with regard to same.
Mr. King discussed the type of industrial uses that are currently located at the proposed site, as well as what the existing surrounding land uses are. He displayed and submitted, for the record, several (13) photographs (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the proposed site and surrounding property. He stated that the area in question has been designated as an employment center, with an Urban designation for the surrounding areas, with a maximum density of seven (7) dwelling units per acre, on the County's future land use map. He stated that the future land use designation is consistent with the current zoning and the current land uses, as well as the proposed monopole structure. He stated that the industrial park is approximately 19.5 acres in size and was originally established more than 45 years ago. He stated that it was expanded to include the subject site 25 years ago, before any residential uses were existing, which he felt was an important factor.
Mr. King stated that the residential uses to the south are located 300 feet or more from the proposed tower site and the residences to the east are approximately 1/4 mile, or further, from the proposed site. He stated that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducted extensive research on the potential health effects from cellular radio transmissions and concluded that there are no potential risks. He stated that there is substantial vegetative buffer between the industrial park and the residential uses to the south, which is between 20 and 30 feet in height, and completely screens the tower base and a substantial part of the tower itself from the adjacent uses. He stated that the residential uses to the east are screened by an existing orange grove and trees in the industrial park.
Mr. King stated that there is another tower located approximately 800 to 1,200 feet to the northwest of the facility and there has not been any public opposition to that facility. He stated that the proposed use will not have an adverse impact on existing traffic patterns, traffic movements, or intensity and the frequency of maintenance visits to the site will be one to two vehicular trips per month. He stated that the proposed project is for a monopole and an unmanned equipment room, therefore, there will not be any traffic generated on a typical day. He stated that only electrical power and a telephone connection are required for the project, therefore, there will not be any adverse impact on the public infrastructure and services, as confirmed by the County staff in their analysis.
Mr. King stated that there are a number of community benefits associated with telecommunications, two of which are public safety and security, which he elaborated on. He stated that, based on AT&T's need to improve service to this particular service area, the extensive industrial uses in the area, the highly intensive nature of those industrial uses, the fact that there will be no traffic impacts and the existence of visual screening and buffering, AT&T strongly believes that it has been sufficiently documented that granting approval of this request will not adversely affect the public interest.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the AT&T tower could be combined with towers that will be located at the new Waterman Medical Center, on Hwy. 441, in Eustis.
Mr. King stated that hospitals do not want cellular antennas located on their facilities, because they do not want to encounter interference from the cellular phones.
Mr. Gene Smith, President, Triangle Industrial Park, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, a plat (Applicant's Exhibit C) of the industrial park, which he reviewed with the Board. He pointed out the fact that the proposed tower would be located in the interior area of the industrial park. He stated that he wants to be a good neighbor and is trying to clean up the park and make it more attractive. He stated that, if any person adjacent to the park has a problem with anything that he is doing at the park, or has a problem with any of his tenants, if they will let him know, he will address their concerns immediately and do everything within his power to correct any problems there might be. He stated that he felt AT&T had addressed every objection to the tower the best they could and requested the Board to approve the request.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing several homeowners in the area of the proposed site, appeared before the Board and submitted, for the record, a map (Opposition's Exhibit A) of the area in question indicating those homeowners who were objecting to the tower being located in Triangle Industrial Park. She noted that the map had been prepared by the homeowners. She stated that a petition (contained in the Board's backup material) had also been submitted and that the names on the petition were indicated on the map. She requested that Mr. Smith, Mr. King, and Mr. Jeff Richardson, a member of the County's staff, be sworn in for questioning.
At this time Mr. Bruce King, Planning Manager for Cypress Real Estate Services; Mr. Gene Smith, President, Triangle Industrial Park; and Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Growth Management Services, were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and questioned by Ms. Campione regarding the request.
Ms. Campione stated that some of the homeowners were present to discuss how they felt about the tower and the impact that they felt it would have on their community. She stated that the matrix in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) allows a communication tower in all zoning districts, except RV, with a CUP. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Element refers to the requirement that the LDRs implement policies that protect against incompatible land uses and this is why a requirement was placed on the zoning districts, so that in each case, the Board could look at them on a case-by-case basis. She stated that, in order to make that determination, she would like to present some factual information about the area in question.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, due to the fact that Ms. Campione had requested that some of the witnesses be sworn in, all witnesses would have to be sworn in.
Mr. Charles Bammesberger, President, Mission Village of Mt. Dora Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He read a statement into the record objecting to the location of the proposed tower. He stated that the homeowners feel the proposed tower will mar their homesites and lower their property values. He submitted, for the record, a map (Opposition's Exhibit B) of the area in question, indicating where the tower will be located, as well as what is located within a one mile radius around the tower.
Mr. Robert J. Hreha, a resident of Mission Village of Mt. Dora, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He was then questioned by Ms. Campione as to what his home is assessed at ($156,900) and what type of neighborhood he lives in. He stated that he was concerned about devaluation of his property and had some concerns about safety, as well, with regard to the proposed location of the tower.
Ms. Kathleen Mahon, a resident in the area of the proposed tower, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that the property owners had to hire an attorney to fight for what is rightfully theirs. She stated that the property owners had been misled to believe that the tower would not affect their property values, in fact, had been led to believe that it would increase their property values. She stated that she was a realtor in Lake County and wanted to inform the property owners that the tower would affect property values. She stated that she was very concerned about her community and its property values. She stated that the property owners do not want the tower to be located at the proposed site and would continue to fight it. She suggested that AT&T look for another site and requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Robert Gucene, a local property owner, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He discussed an incident that occurred in Mt. Dora where a home was greatly depreciated, due to a 30 foot tall water storage tank that was installed on a hill behind the home. He stated that he was concerned that the same thing will happen to his home, if the proposed tower is approved.
Mr. Bruce Carpenter, President, Lake Dora Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that his association was concerned that the tower would negatively affect the value of their homes, which he noted is one of the largest investments that most of them have, therefore, they do not want to see that happen. He asked the Board to deny the request.
Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board stating that the fact that the industrial uses to the north and the residential uses to the south have co-existed is due to two factors, being (1) the fact that there is a berm and existing vegetation that has buffered the two uses, enabling them to co-exist, and the fact that the uses are not intense uses, and (2) the height of the buildings are such that the industrial uses are not seen from the residential areas. She displayed and submitted, for the record, several (8) pictures (Opposition's Exhibit C) of some of the homes in the Mission Village of Mt. Dora subdivision that will be adversely affected by the tower. Two of the pictures show the tower superimposed behind one of the homes in the subdivision, to indicate where the tower would be constructed.
Ms. Campione stated that cellular towers are a necessity and she was not present to argue the benefits of cellular communication, but she feels that there are lots of locations in the County that could accommodate the needs of AT&T. She urged the Board to deny the request, based on the fact that staff reviewed the area and does not feel that the tower is a compatible use for the existing residential area and could have negative impacts on the property values in the area. She submitted, for the record, a diagram (Opposition's Exhibit D) that she had received in a communications tower application case for the Eustis area, noting that it was an example of some existing towers that are not very far from the property in question. She stated that there are a lot of towers in Lake County and noted that a lot of jurisdictions are requiring that users co-locate on one tower, so that there will not be a proliferation of towers in any particular area, to the extent that it would be detrimental to that area. She noted, for the record, that her clients have stated that the distance between their property lines and the boundary line of the proposed tower is 200 to 300 feet. She then answered questions from the Board regarding the case.
Mr. King, the Applicant, reappeared before the Board stating that he would like to clarify, for the record, that the distance from the proposed tower to the property line separating the industrial uses from the residential area is 368 feet.
Mr. Sabert Howell, a resident of Mission Village of Mt. Dora and the individual who superimposed a tower onto the picture of his home, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he sketched his opinion of how a 220 foot high tower would look. He then answered questions from Mr. King, with regard to how he established the location of the tower, as well as its height. He noted, for the record, that he had spoken with the telecommunications engineer at SECO and was informed that AT&T did not have to get off their tower and that the tower would not be coming down, as indicated by Mr. King, during his presentation.
Mr. Richardson, Planner III, Growth Management Services, reappeared before the Board and clarified for Mr. King the fact that, during his testimony, he referred to the height of the tower as being 220 feet, however, acknowledged the fact that the applicant's application had been amended, since the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, to a 200 foot monopole, which he noted had been agreed to by the applicant and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. King, the Applicant, reappeared before the Board stating that he felt it was important for the Board to keep in mind that the proposed use has no industrial characteristics, however, it involves a major industrial park with substantial undeveloped lands and, as that park develops in the future, the potential of having uses that have more obnoxious impacts to the existing adjacent residential area is a high probability. He stated that the photograph that shows the tower superimposed at 220 feet is not to scale. He stated that it should have been prepared by a professional engineer or surveyor. He stated that AT&T receives numerous complaints about the quality of the system from the County's residents and it is that type of input that drives the need to build additional facilities.
Mr. King stated that, with regard to the site selection process, the location must satisfy radio frequency needs, one must have a willing landlord, which he noted is more difficult than one might think to obtain, and one must comply with government regulations. He stated that AT&T has met those three criteria, with the proposed site. He requested the Board to evaluate all the testimony given this date and try to balance the industry's needs with the evidence that was presented.
Commr. Gerber questioned whether the tower could be co-located with the 180 foot tower that currently exists on the property.
Mr. King stated that that tower comes through the existing roof of the structure, so it would not be possible to rebuild it, and the guide tower is not strong enough to accommodate AT&T's additional antennas; therefore, that would not be an option.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the proposed tower could be located closer to Old Hwy. 441.
Mr. King stated that it could possibly be relocated north of the proposed site, near an existing road, within the park.
There was a concern as to whether the case would have to be readvertised, if the tower were relocated to another site within the industrial park.
Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management Services, informed the Board that the applicant had provided the County with the deed for the entire property; therefore, the request would not have to be readvertised.
Commr. Swartz stated that Mr. King had stated, during his presentation, that SECO had advised AT&T that their tower would no longer be available to them and questioned whether Mr. King had anything in writing to that effect.
Mr. King stated that he did not have anything in writing to present to the Board this date, however, would testify that his statement was fact. He further stated that, should the Board desire AT&T to relocate on the proposed site, they would not have a problem doing so and amending their site plan.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated, for the record, that he wanted to disclose the fact that he had received campaign contributions by a party to this rezoning request and that he had received one during this election campaign; however, when he realized that this case involved a rezoning, he returned the contribution. He stated that, even though many of the rezoning cases that come before the Board are difficult to decide, it would have no bearing on his ability to make a decision regarding this case.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about those property owners that would be affected, if the applicant were to move the site.
Commr. Good stated that he was not for moving the site, noting that there may be restrictions with regard to the tower being near the roadway and other things that have not been examined, so he felt the Board should look at the case, as it is before them this date.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he usually looks at areas to see what was in place first; however, when one talks about a 200 foot structure, then it becomes a different ballgame.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about the proliferation of towers in the County and feels the County needs to find more objective criteria regarding towers, so that individuals will have a better idea of where a tower is going to be considered. He stated that he agreed with staff's recommendation of denial, for the reasons given.
Commr. Good suggested that staff also look at some engineering criteria for co-locating towers, whenever possible, and have that direction in writing. He suggested that it be brought back to the Board at a later date.
Commr. Swartz questioned why the existing 180 foot tower could not be replaced with the proposed tower and utilized not only for AT&T's purposes, but for Mr. Smith's purposes, as well. He stated that he felt that might be another solution, noting that it would move the tower further away from the residences and would be more aesthetically pleasing than the tower that currently exists.
Commr. Hanson indicated that she felt the request should be denied, without prejudice.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was also concerned about the proliferation of towers in the County and hoped that, through this Board's actions and the difficulties that AT&T and other providers are experiencing throughout the State, in citing the towers, the advancement in technology will be such that the County will not have towers located all over the County. She stated that she feels they are an eyesore and would not want one near her home. She stated that she would be voting to deny the request.
Mr. Smith, President, Triangle Industrial Park, asked that he be allowed to reappear before the Board, noting that he felt he had a solution to the problem.
The Chairman reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Smith reappeared before the Board stating that there is an existing guide tower located on the top of one of the buildings in the industrial park; however, he would be willing to move the site from the proposed location to a location approximately 200 feet north of the site. He stated that he would remove his tower from the building and install his antennas on At&T's tower, thus eliminating a tower that is not that pleasing and installing a tower that he could utilize.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Gerber stated that she would feel more comfortable with a staff review of the exact location and what it is the applicant is planning to do. She noted that the Board would be denying the request, without prejudice, which would give the applicant the opportunity to come back before the Board and would give staff the chance to further investigate the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied, without prejudice, a request for a CUP in LM (Light Industrial), for the placement of a 200 foot high self-supporting telecommunications tower.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PETITION NO. MSP96/7/1-2 - MINING SITE PLAN IN A - FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES - TURNPIKE SOUTH SAND MINE - HAROLD AND MICHAEL BARR
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board that, should either party wish to have witnesses sworn in, they should note that fact at this time.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the Applicant, stated that he would like to have everybody involved with this case sworn in.
At this time, the following staff members were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter: Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management Services; Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planner III, Growth Management Services; Mr. Don Griffey, Engineering Division Director, Public Services; Mr. Walter Wood, Water Resources Branch Supervisor, Growth Management Services; and Mr. Allen Hewitt, Water Resources Specialist II, Growth Management Services.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant was Florida Rock Industries and the case involves 344 acres in the south Lake County area, off Villa City Road. She stated that the application originally came to the attention of staff in May of 1996; however, they received additional technical information from the applicant in August of 1996 and have been working closely with the applicant since May. She stated that staff was recommending approval, based on the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission did an excellent job, as far as their inquiries and concerns, and noted that she and her staff were present to address all those concerns.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the Applicant, appeared before the Board stating that the Board had been provided with a site plan application (contained in a large white binder), which he noted was the basis of the application and would make for ease of information. He stated that he had just been provided with a pack of letters that he had not been provided with prior to this meeting and wanted to note, for the record, that he had not had a chance to go through said letters and discern if new issues were being raised that were not raised by previous correspondence that he had been provided with and information that was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. He stated that, should the Board decide to look at said letters and new information is raised from them and the individuals raising those concerns are not present at this meeting, he would like to reserve the right to request a delay in this hearing, until such time as he could answer those questions.
Mr. Richey stated that this project goes back 18 months and that he would be going through the entire process, with regard to prior Comprehensive Plan amendments, which had to do with the Bradshaw tract, of which part of this property was zoned Suburban, however, the Board chose not to allow it to remain Suburban, based on the applicant's reapplication and rezoning it back to Rural. He stated that the applicant filed a mining site plan application and will be going through the process. He stated that he went through the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes and tried to address the concerns that were raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission, so that the applicant would not have to end up having to do rebuttal, based on something that was already raised at said meeting.
Mr. Michael O'Berry, Environmental Mining Coordinator, Florida Rock Industries, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He answered questions from Mr. Richey as to his position with Florida Rock Industries; what his company encompasses; the company's 1995 Annual Report (submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit A); the fact that Florida Rock Industries has a reputation in the area for its environmental work, at which time he noted that they are members of the Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council (submitted, for the record, Wildlife Habitat Council Calendar, as Applicant's Exhibit B, to show their participation in said organization).
Mr. Richey questioned Mr. O'Berry further regarding the fact that Florida Rock Industries has been operating in Lake County since the 1960s; the fact that the parcel of property in question is made up of two parcels, one called the Innovation Design Tract and the other called the Bar Tract, and the fact that his company plans to mine them and that they consist of approximately 344 acres total, with approximately 200 acres of actual acreage being mined, depending on the quality of the sand, as the site is developed; what type of operation would be utilized to mine said parcels; how long it will take to mine them; the size and type of berm that will surround the mining sites; the hours of operation; how his company will handle the issue of trucks transporting materials, traveling to and departing from the mines; the fact that his company plans to make some entrance improvements (drawing of same submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit C) that will preclude having the truck traffic coming out of the mine site and turning to the right, in addition to other signage and conditions that have been included in the plan; the fact that his company has agreed to certain conditions (submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit D), with regard to customer trucks, such as the fact that they shall prohibit customer's trucks transporting materials traveling to and departing from the mine from traveling CR 565, south of the mine, through posting of signs on the property and enforcement of said signs.
Mr. Richey continued to question Mr. O'Berry regarding the fact that his company has a sand mine permitted to the north of the proposed site, called Turnpike North MSP - Bridges Road, and the fact that surrounding neighbors had some concern about said mine operating at the same time that the proposed mine will be operated (statement addressing concerns submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit E), noting that it may be 10 years or more before his company gets around to mining said site; how his company will handle the issue of noise generated from the mining site (video indicating noise levels generated from various locations in and around his company's current facilities and operation submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit F); and how his company would buffer the proposed mining sites, in order to get enough vegetative screen to visually screen the site from normal observation, to alleviate concerns regarding same from the residents of the Royal Highlands Development and the Woodland Heritage Development (aerial submitted, for the record, showing the proposed mining sites, as well as the two developments alluded to, as Applicant's Exhibit G).
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing various property owners in the vicinity of the property in question who are in opposition to the request, appeared before the Board and questioned Mr. O'Berry about the transporting of materials from the two proposed sites and how it would be transported; whether he had worked out an agreement with the County, as far as a right-of-way utilization permit was concerned, or whether he had obtained same; the fact that his company would not need any right-of-way, or deeded access, for the property that is situated between the two mining sites; the fact that his company's intention is to keep all their activities within the public right-of-way that currently exists; how his company would handle the loading of materials into the trucks transporting said materials and the hours that they will be allowed to load said materials; the traffic signs alluded to earlier and how any violations would be handled; the fact that his company might have some overlap during the waning stages of the Astatula Mine, before the Turnpike North Mine is initiated, in order to maintain a smooth flow of business from one location to the other and what the projected life of the Astatula Mine expansion would be; when his company expected to actually start mining the Turnpike North Mine and its projected life span (predict 19 years); and whether anyone with his company had been in contact with any of the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Richey excused Mr. O'Berry, however, reserved the right to recall him for further questioning, if needed.
Ms. Cheryl Ellinor, Environmental Scientist, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She answered questions from Mr. Richey about her occupation, education, and experience as an Environmental Scientist; whether she had testified as an expert witness in the past, regarding matters such as the one before the Board this date; what she did in assessing the parcels in question (Innovation Design Tract and the Bar Tract), and what she found on said sites (the potential for three listed plant species and 10 listed wildlife species, however, gopher tortoises were the only species that were identified in the upland areas); what the plan was, with regard to relocating the gopher tortoises; what was being done, with regard to setbacks and buffering, as it pertains to wetlands found on the site; the fact that she had a photograph (submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit H) of a typical 5 to 7 year old pine tree, the kind that might be planted on the berm alluded to earlier, showing its size and height; and the fact that she had conducted a "line of sight view" (sketches submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit I and Applicant's Exhibit J) between the proposed sites and the surrounding developments.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:45 p.m.
PETITION NO. MSP96/7/1-2 - MINING SITE PLAN IN A - FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES - TURNPIKE SOUTH SAND MINE - HAROLD AND MICHAEL BARR (CONT'D.)
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Principal, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
The Chairman noted, for the record, that Mr. Beliveau would be accepted as an expert witness in land planning.
Mr. Beliveau was questioned by Mr. Richey as to his education and background, with regard to land planning, involving everything from airport management to public housing to land use, zoning, and all other aspects of comprehensive planning, as well as the fact that he had been involved in preliminary traffic analysis on several applications that have come before the Board and the fact that he performs preliminary traffic analysis in coordination with other professionals in the field, usually staff from local governments; the fact that he has been qualified as an expert in comprehensive planning, which includes evaluating the traffic analysis held in comprehensive plans; the fact that he has testified as an expert witness numerous times before this date, with regard to comprehensive planning and traffic analysis, as it relates to the comprehensive planning process and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Beliveau further regarding the fact that he had evaluated the proposed sites, as far as comprehensive planning is concerned (submitted, for the record, a three page handout containing a copy of Future Land Use Map 1-7 - General Minerals and Mining Operations, dated 1989; an excerpt from the Conservation Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, regarding Mining Operations; and a copy of Mining Operations Map 7-16, dated 1989, as Applicant's Exhibit K), and that the area in question has had sand mining in its past and was identified as such in the County's Comprehensive Plan; the fact that he had done a traffic analysis (submitted, for the record, three page handout containing Turnpike South Sand Plant Link Analysis table; map of traffic routes that will be used by the Florida Rock Industries Turnpike South Sand Plant; and Fuel Tax Revenue Information, with regard to the Turnpike South Plant, as Applicant's Exhibit L), based on Concurrency requirements and level of service that is adopted for the County's road system, and that Villa City Road is identified as a minor collector road that the County has adopted as level of service "B", as its maximum capacity; the fact that Florida Rock Industries does not violate any level of service criteria that has been established on any of the roads in question; the fact that there will be revenue (estimated to be $226,875 annually) coming to Lake County from the fuel tax generated by Florida Rock Industries' trucks; and the fact that the entryway to the plant can be designed to force the trucks to head north on Villa City Road, as alluded to earlier.
Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Beliveau about when Mining Site No. 59, indicated on Applicant's Exhibit K (Map 1-7), was ongoing and when it actually stopped production; whether he was actually involved in the Bradshaw Land Use Plan Amendment; the issue of timeliness, with regard to the property in question; the preliminary traffic analysis that he conducted for the applicant; whether he had ever worked on any other cases, where safety was an issue; whether he was familiar with the LUFNET planning process, and whether he was involved in any of the meetings that took place, with regard to the area in question.
Mr. Richey interjected that he objected to the LUFNET process being a part of this meeting, because it has never been before the Board and to his knowledge was not part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, LDRs, or anything else. He stated that, if that issue was going to be raised, the Board needed to be prepared to go through the entire LUFNET process. He stated that, if discussion continued regarding the matter, he was going to have to ask for the opportunity to rebut it at this meeting.
Ms. Campione stated that the whole area in question has been in somewhat of a state of flux, as to where it was going from a development standpoint, and that the LUFNET process is a process that, while it has not come before the Board, is something that is out there and is a possibility in the future for purposes of planning the overall direction of the future of the area in question.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board understands that said area is in a state of flux, therefore, requested Ms. Campione to move on to her next question.
Commr. Gerber interjected that the Board has earmarked $3,000 toward the LUFNET process and that it would be coming up again, if not in what the people coming before the Board have to say this date, certainly in the Board's comments.
Mr. Richey reappeared before the Board and stated that he was informed, during the first LUFNET public hearing, that the process of LUFNET would not be used by the Board in prejudging anything, until such time as it is acted upon by the people who participated in the process. He stated that, to have it come before the Board prematurely, before anything has been set in stone, and have a public hearing on it and have it influence the Board's decision, regarding this case, is contrary to what those individuals who represent property owners in the area were told. He questioned Mr. Beliveau further regarding this case, with regard to trip generations on Villa City Road and the results of the study that was conducted regarding same.
Mr. Robert A. Kirkner, a hydrogeologist and President of Water and Earth Sciences, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding his education; experience; what projects he has participated in; whether he has ever been qualified as an expert witness in his related area; whether he had evaluated the sites in question, and what he found in doing so; whether he had evaluated the County's water recharge maps (copy of map submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit M) that are available for the tracts in question (found that there would be no significant impacts to the Palatlakaha River, or to the lakes in the area in question, from the proposed mining operation); whether he had ever done consumptive use permitting before, how it works, and what the County can anticipate being a condition of the Consumptive Use Permit on the mining operation; and the fact that, if the mining operation were to have an adverse effect on adjacent wells, the applicant would not be permitted for a CUP.
It was noted that the criteria required for obtaining a Consumptive Use Permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District is (1) that fees must be reasonable and beneficial; (2) it must be in the public interest; and (3) it cannot cause adverse impacts to existing legal users of water.
Mr. Kirkner was questioned by Commr. Good regarding language contained on Page 19 of the Mining Site Plan Application for the Turnpike South Sand Plant, with regard to the head difference that exists between the highest points of the water table and the potentiometric level of the Floridan aquifer, as well as the issue of a possible corresponding decrease in recharge to the Floridan aquifer (contained in the large white binder, which is part of the Board's backup material.
Mr. Richey reviewed two charts showing borings and questioned Mr. Kirkner regarding same.
Mr. Steve Adams, Principal Biologist and Principal, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding his education; experience; whether he had ever testified as an expert witness in reclamation plans, prior to this meeting; whether he was involved in the development of the reclamation plan that is the subject of the request before the Board this date, and what will be left, after the site in question is reclaimed (37 acres of open water, of which five and a half of those acres will be planted as wetlands, with the remaining acres being upland areas); the chart presented to the Board as Applicant's Exhibit I; and whether he had discovered, during his two years of being involved with a monitoring process of wetlands located next to some mines in south Lake County, any adverse effects on adjacent lakes and wetlands by the operations being proposed this date.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the County had a list of all the mines in the County, if they were in existence at the time that the new mining ordinance came into effect.
Mr. Walter Wood, Geologist, Lake County Water Quality Services, appeared before the Board stating that the County had prepared a list, prior to the mining ordinance activities; however, he had not been asked to research it and identify the mines in question, for this meeting. He noted that it had been four to five years since he had looked at said list.
Mr. Allen Hewitt, Lake County Water Quality Services, appeared before the Board and informed them that the County has a list of the mines that came into existence in 1990, when the County passed a new ordinance for mining standards; however, he did not recall there being a mine in the area of Villa City Road that was vested. He noted that he has been with the County since 1992 and that he used to do the inspections on said mines.
Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Wood about his length of service with the County; what his particular job is with the County; his experience; whether he had been involved with any situations where there were mining spills or accidents that effected adjacent waterways or wetlands; how many had occurred, that he was aware of, since he has been in Lake County (two since he has been in the County and two prior to his arrival); whether they occurred before or after the mining ordinance was enacted (one before and one after); and what impacts said incidents had on either wetlands or adjoining waterways.
Mr. Wood then answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding said matters.
Mr. Franklin Reaves, a resident of Astatula, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He responded to an earlier question by Commr. Swartz regarding mining spills that effected adjacent waterways or wetlands, noting that he has lived in Lake County all his life and could testify that the Astatula Sand Mine broke its barrier on three separate occasions and flowed into Little Lake Harris. He showed a video (submitted, for the record, as Opposition's Exhibit A) that he had taken of the area around the proposed sand mines, to show what the residents of that area would be faced with, should the Board approve this request. He stated that there are two sand mines within two miles of each other, three sand mines within ten miles, and, if one was to include the Green Swamp Sand Mine, it would amount to four sand mines within fifteen miles of each other, just for Florida Rock Industries. He stated that there are other companies in the County that have sand mines, as well, which he noted. He stated that, should the Board approve this request, it will affect the property values and the quality of the lakes in the area, therefore, asked them to deny the request. He displayed two drawings (submitted, for the record, as Opposition's Exhibits B and C) that he had prepared showing his home in correlation with the sand mine before and after it has been mined.
Ms. Ruth Stokes, President of the Villa City Homeowners Association, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was representing approximately 120 individuals of the Association and that they would like to go on record as opposing a sand mine in their neighborhood, noting that the health, safety, and welfare of the residents were their primary concern. She stated that they are not against industry or growth and development, however, they are against mining sand in residential communities. She further stated that Villa City is an area of historical significance, which she elaborated on, and noted that the residents have worked very hard to preserve the dignity and beauty of their area and requested the Board to join them in their quest, by denying the request before them.
Mr. Lon Hutchcroft, a resident of the Moon Lake area, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, as requested by Ms. Campione, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he had moved to Lake County from Covina, California and related an incident that occurred in his neighborhood there, similar to the one being proposed, and how it effected the neighborhood. He stated that, in moving to the County in 1988, he and his family were delighted to see the endangered species that existed around his neighborhood and is concerned that they will have to be disrupted and relocated, should this request be approved. He stated that he did not feel anything could come out of a sand mine that the County's taxpayers could be proud of.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
PETITION NO. MSP96/7/1-2 - MINING SITE PLAN IN A - FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES - TURNPIKE SOUTH SAND MINE - HAROLD AND MICHAEL BARR (CONT'D.)
Ms. Tess Hutchcroft, the daughter of Mr. Lon Hutchcroft, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of the children of Villa City, noting that the sand mine will affect the children of Villa City, as well as the adults. She stated that they like to bicycle and rollerblade on Villa City Road, as well as fish and swim in the lakes along the road, and that the trucks traveling to and from the sand mines, at all hours of the day, would prohibit them from doing that any longer, due to safety hazards. She further stated that the sand mines would destroy the beauty and peace of their community.
Ms. Melissa Puskas, a resident of Villa City, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was concerned about her safety, in driving to and from work, but was mostly concerned about the safety of the children and the school buses that use Villa City Road. She stated that the road is a poorly designed road and that the speed limit ranges from 35 mph to 55 mph. She stated that, to allow the sand trucks to utilize the road, the County would be creating an unsafe environment for the residents in the area. She further elaborated on the matter, stating that the Board has an obligation to the residents to promote their health, safety, and welfare. She requested the Board to consider the impact that this request would have on their community and their children.
Mr. Robert Lyles, a resident of Villa City, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was a real estate agent in the Villa City area, which he noted has a unique lifestyle, different than any other part of the County, and that the proposed sand mine is effecting sales in the area. He stated that, as a real estate agent, he has to disclose any adverse effects to the property in the area and, when prospective buyers are informed that a sand mine has been proposed for the area, he has yet to get a contract. He urged the Board to reconsider permitting a sand mine in such a unique residential area.
Mr. Andy Hansen, a resident of Moon Lake and the owner/operator of The Benzel Skiing Center, in Groveland, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He read a statement into the record, with regard to the effect that the sand mine will have on his business and some concerns that he has over the water tables. He questioned whether something could be put into the CUP to guarantee that Florida Rock Industries will take responsibility, if the water tables of the lakes go down less than what is recommended by the County. He showed a video (submitted, for the record, as Opposition's Exhibit D) about skiing, noting that his business is to train water skiers from all over the world. He stated that the International Water Skiing Federation teams come to Lake County to train and have commented about the peacefulness, quietness, and serenity of the area. He stated that the proposed sand mine will blemish the natural beauty of the area, create undue hardship, threaten the safety of the children, and hinder the overall welfare of the community. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Gene Brown, a member of the LUFNET committee, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he had been designated by said committee to appear before the Board, on their behalf, in opposition to the request.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the Applicant, objected to Mr. Brown coming before the Board to discuss the LUFNET issue, noting that, if the Board were going to get involved in a discussion about LUFNET and have a detailed explanation about what it may or may not provide, he should be allowed to present evidence regarding the matter, before the Board votes on the request before them.
It was noted that Mr. Brown was a resident of Villa City; therefore, he was requested to address only his concerns, as a resident of the area, about the proposed sand mine.
Mr. Brown stated that the proposed sand mine would effect his family deeply, noting that it would be detrimental to the property values, would be a distraction to the natural beauty of the area, is an inferior, very poor use of the property, and is inconsistent with what the County is wanting to do, in managing growth. He stated that there are a lot of environmental and health concerns, with regard to the mine, and that it failed to meet any of the LUFNET criteria. He stated that it would add no positive attribute to the Villa City area.
Mr. Harold Kyle, a resident of the Villa City area, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He responded to some comments that he stated Mr. Richey, the attorney representing Florida Rock Industries, had made to the Villa City Homeowners Association, during a meeting that was held to discuss concerns that the residents had about the proposed sand mine. He stated that one of the considerations for granting the permit is need and he did not see a need for the sand mine, at this point in time. He discussed a concern he had about the mining of the Barr property and the fact that the sand would be transported, by pipeline, along a right-of-way that is shared by the Lake County Water Authority, to monitor flood control. He stated that it is an issue that is unresolved and needs to be, before approval is granted.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the trustees of the Ginkel Trust, property owners immediately south of the industrial property and adjacent to the site in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that the Ginkel family has been in the citrus business in Lake County for some time and is concerned about the future use of their property, should they lose their citrus to another freeze. She stated that they feel the most consistent use would be with what is already in the area, which is low density residential. She expressed her clients' concerns about their property value decreasing and their citrus trucks being allowed to continue to use the roads in the area. She stated that they would hope no action of the Board would limit their trucks from entering and exiting their property, so that they could get their fruit to market.
Ms. Bonifay noted that her clients would like the assurance that, if the Board were to approve this request, all the conditions volunteered by Florida Rock Industries would be incorporated into the ordinance, as well as the additional things that Florida Rock Industries committed to do, this date, in terms of a much heavier buffer of trees, increasing the size of those buffers, limiting their truck traffic from traveling north on Villa City Road, and a number of other things that they put into the record, in their willingness to comply with local, state, or federal permitting requirements. She stated that her clients do not feel that groundwater is going to be a problem for them, due to the fact that the applicant will have to go through a stringent permitting process.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, while she was present to register her client's opposition to this request, she would like to note, for the record, that the County could avoid pitting industry against residential development by having land use plans that have certain kinds of zoning classifications. She stated that other counties have managed to have such classifications. She stated that, if the County's rural areas just served rural and agricultural uses, as opposed to residential, the Board could avoid these kinds of meetings and conflicts.
Mr. Rick McEvers, a resident of Villa City, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that, if the proposed sand mine is approved, his home will be approximately one and a half miles from it. He stated that he and his family enjoy the wildlife in the area and feel that the sand mine will be detrimental to them. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Nevin Thompson, a resident of Villa City, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that Villa City was an historical area and that approval of the mine would be a stake in the heart of Villa City, killing 100 years of developing history. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. James Herschel, a resident of Royal Highlands, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he felt it was not unreasonable to expect the County's Planning and Zoning Commission to act professionally in their land use approvals, by protecting the property rights of neighboring residents, by ensuring that adjacent tracts of land have compatible land uses. He stated that the surrounding property was down zoned and felt that it was done for the benefit of Florida Rock Industries, to the irreversible detriment of the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Herschel stated that he had mailed the Board Office a letter, dated September 9, 1996, listing several objections to the request before them. He stated that all the objections in the letter are still valid and urged the Board to take them under consideration. He addressed additional items that he had failed to address in his letter and noted that the sand mine is going to affect approximately 3,000 residents in the Royal Highlands subdivision alone, by the time the development is completed. He urged the Board to take a stand for responsible and professional land use implementation and deny the request.
Ms. Audrey Adams, a resident of Royal Highlands, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she and her husband are retirees and moved to Royal Highlands to enjoy a quiet, peaceful retirement and will not be able to move again. She stated that they have invested the rest of their lives in Lake County and want to be here. She read a statement (submitted, for the record, as Opposition's Exhibit E) into the Minutes, in which she addressed several concerns she has about the sand mine, being safety, with regard to truck traffic generated from the mine and deterioration of the roads, from the trucks utilizing them; blowing sand and its effect on health; noise generated from the mine; property values plummeting; and deteriorating neighborhoods, rather than upscale communities. She stated that she hoped the Board would consider carefully their responsibility to the people of Lake County, as well as the importance of the environment.
Ms. Campione reappeared before the Board and gave her closing statement, stating that the property in question and the surrounding area has been the subject of considerable discussion over the last year or so. She stated that there have been pending Comprehensive Plan amendments for approximately five years, with regard to the site in question, as well as the Pringle and Bradshaw properties to the north. She stated that they all started out together, in search of one common goal - to acquire a higher density, for development purposes; however, the Department of Community Affairs was not comfortable with that. She stated that settlements were discussed and trips made to Tallahassee, surrounding the land use amendments, and, at some point in time, there was a breakdown and some homeowners got what they wanted and others were left behind, to have the lower densities. She stated that it appears the properties in question were part of those left behind.
Ms. Campione informed the Board that the attorney for Pringle Development was also representing Florida Rock Industries, which she found odd, therefore, suggested that there might be something more going on than meets the eye - if anything, there is a lot of uncertainty and questions about what direction land use should be going in this particular area. She stated that the concerns expressed this date were real and urged the Board to bear in mind that the residents were the ones that would have to live with the burden, as opposed to the Applicant and the property owner. She requested the Board to deny this request.
Ms. Carol Wolf, a resident of Woodland Heritage, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that the President of the Woodland Heritage Homeowners Association had mailed the Board a letter indicating the residents position, with regard to this request, and just wanted to verbalize their concerns. She requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Ray Keirns, a resident of Woodland Heritage, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He addressed a concern about safety, with regard to the number of vehicles that pass his development and the possibility of the sand trucks traveling the road possibly causing people to get killed, especially during foggy mornings.
Mr. John Snoles, a resident of Woodland Heritage, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he moved from Orange County, to come to a nice place to live, and requested the Board to vote against the sand mine and leave the beautiful hills in the area for the people living there to enjoy.
Ms. Irma McMillan, appeared before the Board, in opposition to this request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that someone earlier had questioned whether the County was going to become a county of telecommunication towers and she was now questioning whether the County was going to become a county of sand mines. She urged the Board to think about the future of the young people, who are raising families in the County.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, reappeared before the Board and commended those individuals who were in opposition to this request for being so courteous. He stated that the ultimate decision would be up to the Board, however, whether they voted for or against the mine, it would mean that the process works. He responded to a comment made by Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing various homeowners in opposition to this request, during her closing statement, that there might be something more going on than meets the eye, with regard to the fact that he was representing Pringle Development, as well as Florida Rock Industries. He stated that he took exception to the remark, at which time he discussed what had transpired, over the years, with regard to the property in question, as well as surrounding properties. He stated that nothing was hidden, everything was done out in the open, and his clients were back today.
Mr. Richey stated that he represents Pringle Development and that Mr. Pringle had met with the principles of Florida Rock Industries, to go over the mining site plan, as presented to the Board, with all the conditions that were before them this date. He stated that Mr. Pringle authorized him to represent Florida Rock Industries, because it was his opinion, as the developer of Royal Highlands, that it would not cause him any adverse consequences. He then addressed various comments that were made regarding the issues of traffic; expansion of the Astatula sand mine operation; noise generated from the sand mine facilities; permitting; LUFNET; an issue regarding a 20 foot easement (submitted, for the record, a handout containing a copy of a Resolution authorizing the use of said easement, dated February 19, 1970, as Applicant's Exhibit N), located between the two parcels in question; and an issue regarding the acquifer.
Mr. Richey stated that his client dealt with every concern and incompatibility and did away with any undue adversity that may have been presented; therefore, he felt the Board should approve this request. He noted that it was only the first step. He stated that, no matter how the Board voted this date, they needed to reevaluate how the County handles the issue of mines, to prevent somebody else from having to spend the money that his client had spent, only to discover that the request may not be compatible. He stated that it is not fair to neighboring communities and is not fair to clients. He urged the Board to approve this request, because his client relied on the Comprehensive Plan, county staff, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, in its recommendation to the Board this date.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Good stated that, as he looked at this project, he saw a historically and culturally significant community being effected by a project that was not going to be the best situation for the community. He stated that he felt there were some transportation concerns and some road and engineering designs still unanswered and that, when he looked at all the factors involved, felt that any action he would take would be binding future Boards to a situation that was not an optimal one. He stated that he would not be supporting the request.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to dispel the feeling that the County needs to do something to the mining ordinance, or to the County's land use plan, because something has broken down in the system. He stated that he felt the mining ordinance was a good ordinance; however, he did not feel that it did enough to ensure that the old mines that came under its purview had to meet high enough standards. He stated that he felt the system was working, that it was not breaking down at all. He stated that he felt what the Board was seeing this date was that it was, in fact, incompatible. He stated that, even though staff recommended approval of the request, the proposed conditional use may, even as conditioned, have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties.
Commr. Swartz referred to Policy 1-1.3 of the Land Use Element - MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, which he read into the record, and noted that several developments are located around the property in question and the County has a requirement, in its Comprehensive Plan, that it shall protect those residential areas from encroachment of incompatible, non-residential development. He stated that he felt this request would be incompatible, non-residential development. He referred to Policy 1-1.6(d) of the Land Use Element - GUIDELINES TO MAINTAIN THE VIABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, which he read into the record, and noted that the County has an obligation to look at existing and proposed developments. He stated that there are existing and proposed developments that will be quite significant.
Commr. Swartz referred to REGULATIONS TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY, noting that the Comprehensive Plan requires the County to implement, develop, and adopt regulations to ensure compatibility of the use of areas and properties including, but not limited to, traffic circulation, air quality, odor quality, noise control, lighting and aesthetics. He stated that, ultimately, it comes down to whether or not it is going to be compatible. He referred to Policy 1-1(b).1 - REINFORCE POSITIVE RURAL LIFESTYLES, which he read into the record. He stated that he felt a mine was an industrial type of activity and that it is incompatible with the residential development that this Board, as well as previous Boards, has allowed to occur. He stated that he found it incredible that the Board would even consider approving a project that might not even start operating for ten, fifteen, or twenty years, given the fact that the County's Comprehensive Plan is only in effect for fifteen years. He stated that, to approve something that far ahead, when the Board sees that there are already inconsistent and incompatible uses, would not be wise; therefore, he would not vote to approve this request.
Commr. Gerber stated that, after looking at staff's evaluation, she would not be voting in favor of this request, because she does not feel that it is consistent with the overall surrounding land uses, that she feels there will be potential conflicts, and that it is a detriment to the adjacent property owners.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would reiterate most of what was said and that she agreed with Commr. Swartz, in that the County has a good mining ordinance. She stated that the County has not faced these kinds of problems in the past, at least since she has been on the Board, however, noted that most of them have been in the proper location. She stated that she would have to go back to the County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan, before DCA mandated that the County change its Comprehensive Plan, and that, as she recalled, the County had the area around the employment center pretty much designated Urban Expansion, which ran from the old Monterey DRI down to Villa City. She stated that she felt the old Board was correct in their land use, because the County has now determined that the area around Hwys. 19 and 27 is going to be an urbanizing area.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel a sand mine was appropriate for the area in question. She stated that she felt, someday, that area would be a small city, noting that the County has already put the framework in place that is going to make that happen. She stated that she felt the problem was the land use map and she did not see that changing any time soon. She stated that the State has mandated what the County can put in the area in question, which is chicken farms, dairy farms, and sand mines.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel, with the evidence presented this date, that the site in question was appropriate for a sand mine.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request for approval of a mining site plan in A (Agriculture), for excavation as a sand mining operation, for Florida Rock Industries - Turnpike South Sand Mine.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
ADDENDUM NO. 1
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
STATE AGENCIES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval and execution of the Agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Pollutant Storage Tank System Compliance Verification Inspection Program, in order to verify monitoring and compliance with the requirements of the State Code; and request that this contract be advanced to Level II.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board, for informational purposes, that this agreement would not be a 12 month agreement, that it would only run through September 30, 1997.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY SERVICES/CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS
STATE AGENCIES
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that, when the State sent the County the AmeriCorps contract, in September of this year, the attachments had some inaccurate information and requirements. He stated that his office contacted the Governor's Commission and they agreed to change the attachments; however, he needed the Board's approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign them.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval of changes to the attachments to the AmeriCorps contract with the Florida Commission on Community Services, as noted.
COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS/LAW ENFORCEMENT/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, received some information from the Department of Justice on the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. He stated that the program would allow the Board, as the County agency, to receive $107,603.00 in federal funds, if $11,956.00 could be put up by the County as a cash match. He stated that his office had been in touch with the Sheriff's Office and that the Sheriff would like to use said funds to hire three additional officers, for one year. He stated that the grant funds could be expended over a two year period of time; however, the Board needed to realize that, if this was the option that they took, the additional three positions would be in the budget request for the upcoming year. He stated that there was another option, being that the Board has the latitude to select the program that they would like to channel said funds to and that there is a possibility the Lake County Probation Office could utilize the funds to implement a Domestic Violence Prevention Program, over a course of two years. He stated that it would entail two staff people - a Specialized Probation Officer and a Probation Clerk.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the County needed to get an application in, if they were interested in looking into this matter. She stated that it was a liberal type grant that could be utilized in several different areas. She apologized for it being brought to the Board at the last minute.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for authorization to apply for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds.
INFORMATION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/ZONING
The Board acknowledged issuance of the following vested rights determination:
87L-228, 87L-229, 88L-160, 88L-84 and 93L-063 - Vested Rights Issued August 20, 1996
Lake County determines certain vested rights associated with:
1. lots five (5) through fifteen (15) of Block 1 (87L-228), of Lakeview Park plat, Section 15, Township 17 South, Range 28 East;
2. lots nineteen (19) through twenty-four (24) of Block 21 (87L-229 and 88L-160), of Lakeview Park South plat, Section 15, Township 17 South, Range 28 East; and
3. lots five (5) through thirteen (13) of Block 30 (88L-94 and 93L-063), of Lakeview Park South plat, Section 15, Township 17 South, Range 28 East.
Lake County will not deny the owner of the subject property the right to develop lots five (5) through fifteen (15) of Block 1 of Lakeview Park plat, in accordance with 87L-228 (one (1) building permit for lots five (5) through nine (9), and one (1) building permit for lots ten (10) through fifteen (15), provided, at a minimum, one (1) building permit has been issued and physical development has commenced within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination.
Lake County will not deny the owner of the subject property the right to develop two (2) buildable lots in lots nineteen (19) through twenty-four (24) of Block 21 of Lakeview Park South plat, in accordance with 87L-229 and 88L-160 combined (one (1) building permit for lots nineteen (19) through twenty-one (21), and one (1) building permit for lots twenty- two (22) through twenty-four (24), provided, at a minimum, one (1) building permit has been issued and physical development has commenced within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination.
Lake County will not deny the owner of the subject property the right to develop two (2) buildable lots on lots five (5) through thirteen (13) of Block 30 of Lakeview Park South plat, in accordance with 88L-84 and 93L-063 combined (one (1) building permit for lots five (5) through eight (8), and one (1) building permit for lots nine (9) through thirteen (13), provided, at a minimum, one (1) building permit has been issued and physical development has commenced within three (3) years from the date of this vested rights determination. In addition, the property owner shall comply with minimum right- of-way standards and execute a legal document wherein the property owner agrees to be subject to a special assessment for road improvements and dedication of right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 27, 1996 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of September 5, 1996 (Special Meeting - Budget Hearing), as presented.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
_______________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/9-24-96/10-14-96/boardmin