The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, 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; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Robert A. Pool; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
There were no changes to the Agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works/Resolutions
Roads-County and State/Subdivisions
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release the $262,870.50 Letter of Credit, for Performance; accept a Letter of Credit, for Maintenance, in the amount of $27,660.00; execute a Developer's Agreement, for Maintenance of Improvements, between Lake County and Joel H. Sharp, Jr. and Winifred J. Sharp; and execute Resolution No. 2000-166, accepting Cross Country Boulevard (5-8778), in the Oaks at Lake Dorr Subdivision, which consists of 20 lots, into the County Road Maintenance System - Commission District 5.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Public Works/Resolutions
Roads-County and State/Subdivisions
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release the $684,730.00 Letter of Credit, for Performance; accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of $93,421.00; execute a Developer's Agreement, for Maintenance of Improvements, between Lake County and The Greater Construction Corporation; and execute Resolution No. 2000-167, accepting the following roads, in the Orange Tree Phase 1 Subdivision, into the County Road Maintenance System: Holly Grove Boulevard "Part" (2-0259), Long Leaf Pine Street "Part" (2-0259A), Magnolia Hill Street "Part"(2-0259B), Palmetto Hill Street (2-0260), Sand Pine Street
(2-0260A), and Dogwood Hill Street (2-0260B). The subdivision is formerly known as Holly Hill Phase 1 and consists of 96 lots - Commission District 2.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Accounts Allowed/Budgets/Budget Transfers/Facilities and Capital Improvements
Request from Fiscal and Administrative Services for approval of budget transfer, in the amount of $298,341.00, from Special Reserve - Sales Tax Capital Projects, to Sales Tax Capital Projects - Facilities and Capital Improvements, Machinery and Equipment. Telephone switch upgrades are needed for the Administration Building and Judicial Center.
Accounts Allowed/Administration Building/Judicial Center
Facilities and Capital Improvements
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval to upgrade the telephone switch in the Judicial Center and Administration Building, in the amount of $298,341.00.
PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS - VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 935 - NELSON D. AND JOYCE A. KIRK - LADY LAKE
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a utility easement recorded in the Orange Blossom Gardens Subdivision, in Section 6, Township 18S, Range 24E, in the Lady Lake area - Commission District 5. He stated that it involved the encroachment of an enclosure in the back yard of the applicant's home and requested approval to have said easement vacated.
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.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson , seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2000-168 - Vacation Petition No. 935, by Nelson D. and Joyce A. Kirk, to vacate a utility easement recorded in the Orange Blossom Gardens Subdivision, in Section 6, Township 18S, Range 24E, in the Lady Lake area - Commission District 5.
PETITION NO. 936 - RANDY TAYLOR - CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a utility easement recorded in the plat of Eagleridge Phase II, in Section 23, Township 24, Range 26, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2. He stated that it involved the encroachment of the applicant's home onto an easement and requested approval to vacate the easement.
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.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No.2000-169 - Vacation Petition No. 936, by Randy Taylor, to vacate a utility easement recorded in the Plat of Eagleridge Phase II, Section 23, Township 24, Range 26, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2.
PETITION NO. 938 - ANTONE AND CARRIE DAVIS - CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a drainage easement recorded in the Plat of Montclair, Phase I, in south Lake County, in Sections 1 and 2, Township 23S, Range 25E, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2. He stated that it involves a recently approved subdivision and a canal that runs from Crescent Lake into Lake Minnehaha. He stated that it is a pristine area considered important to the State; therefore, staff felt it was necessary to recommend denial of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, addressed the Board stating that he was representing the applicants, Antone and Carrie Davis. He stated that they disagreed with staff's recommendation, at which time he called Mr. Davis to the podium for questioning.
Mr. Antone Davis, Applicant, addressed the Board and answered questions from Mr. Crawford regarding this request. He reviewed a Boundary Survey Map (Applicant's Exhibit A) indicating his property and the proposed pool and screened-in area that he plans to have built, should this request be approved, which was submitted, for the record. He stated that the home was an existing home that he and his wife purchased approximately one year ago and clarified the fact that he had not made any changes to the grade of the property, or the stormwater system currently on the site, since purchasing the home. He stated that he had two children - a three year old daughter and a two year old son, who are very allergic to bug bites, particularly mosquitos, and that he wanted to have a pool and screened-in area built to protect them, at which time he submitted, for the record, a letter (Applicant's Exhibit B) from Dr. Ginny L. Guyton, Windermere Pediatrics, documenting the fact that his children are plagued by mosquito bites which frequently become infected and that she feels they would medically benefit from an enclosed outdoor area versus the open air. He submitted, for the record, a letter (Applicant's Exhibit C) from the St. Johns River Water Management District, stating that an inspection of his property was conducted and it was determined that construction of the pool would be a non-substantive change to the permit and would not have an additional impact on the protected area in question, because of the house-pad fill that was placed by the developer during construction of the house and that such fill is allowable under the conditions of the permit.
Mr. Crawford submitted, for the record, various pictures (15) of Mr. Davis' home and children (Applicant's Exhibit D) showing the protected wetlands area, as well as mosquito bites on his children, which had become infected. He also submitted, for the record, letters (Applicant's Exhibit E) from Mr. Davis' neighbors, stating that they had no objection to Mr. Davis installing a pool and enclosure on his property; a plat (Applicant's Exhibit F) of Mr. Davis' subdivision, indicating the proximity of said neighbors to Mr. Davis' residence; a diagnosis (Applicant's Exhibit G) from a doctor in Tennessee, which Mr. and Mrs. Davis had taken their daughter to for bug bites she received while visiting family there, indicating that said bites had become infected; and a plat (Applicant's Exhibit H) of Mr. Davis' home, indicating that he would be willing to tilt the pool deck toward his home, rather than toward the drainage easement; that he would gutter the screen enclosure, to direct runoff away from the drainage easement; and that he would install a retention area on one or both sides of his house, to treat any additional runoff which may be generated. He read into the record the contents of a memorandum (Applicant's Exhibit I), dated July 20, 2000, from Ms. Shelley Judy Cunningham, Right-of-Way Agent, Public Works Department, to Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, which he noted was staff's response to Mr. Davis' application, and submitted same, for the record. He stated that the applicant feels he has done everything he can to comply with the recommendations of staff and noted that the St. Johns River Water Management District has stated there would be no additional impact on the protected wetlands area, therefore, requested the Board to approve the request.
Commr. Swartz clarified the fact that the rear most 30 feet of the lot in question, which the St. Johns River Water Management District stated must contain a natural vegetative buffer, was not included in the request.
Mr. Crawford stated that said area would stay in its natural state.
Commr. Swartz noted that the memorandum from staff pointed out the fact that the St. Johns River Water Management District indicated there may be a requirement for increasing the compensating storage, because of the loss of storage that will be created by the proposed pool and enclosure, and questioned whether the applicant would be willing to have, as part of the vacation, an absolute requirement that a review be done and, if any compensating storage is required, that it would have to be provided, whether it is provided on Mr. Davis' lot or some other lot.
Mr. Crawford stated that the applicant would agree to an inspection by both the County and the St. Johns River Water Management District and supply whatever compensating storage might be necessary.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Resolution
No. 2000-170 - Vacation Petition No. 938, by Antone and Carrie Davis, to vacate a drainage easement recorded in the Plat of Montclair, Phase I, in South Lake County, Sections 1 and 2, Township 23S, Range 25E, in the Clermont area - Commission District 2, subject to staff's recommendations and compensation for the loss of storage.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board stating that Mr. John Silcox, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/8/5-2, Tab 6 on the Zoning Agenda, had requested a 30 day postponement, to allow him to amend his original request and work with staff regarding his property located in the Montverde area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that neither the applicant nor the applicant's representative was present at this meeting.
No one was present in opposition to the request for postponement.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30 day postponement for John Silcox, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/8/5-2,Tracking No. 64-00-CUP, as requested by the applicant.
Ms. Farrell informed the Board that Mr. Blaine Haskin, J & J Groves, Inc., Anytime Septic, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/9/4-2, Tab 9 on the Zoning Agenda, had requested a postponement, as well, to allow him to put together some data and analyses pertaining to his request and to obtain some legal and professional assistance. She submitted a letter and plat of the property in question from Mr. Haskin, requesting the postponement, for the record.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The Applicant, Mr. Blaine Haskin, addressed the Board stating that he was requesting a postponement, because his professional counsel could not be available until next month.
Mr. Carl Fimmano, Mr. Ralph Suggs, and Ms. Audrey Wendt, residents of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that they felt the case should be heard this date, therefore, requested the Board to deny the request for postponement.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied a request for postponement for Mr. Blaine Haskin, J & J Groves, Inc., Anytime Septic, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/9/4-2, Tab 9 on the Zoning Agenda. It was noted that the case would be heard at its scheduled time.
Ms. Farrell informed the Board that she did not have a request for postponement, in writing, for Rezoning Case No. PH7A-00-3, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson/Cecelia Bonifay, Sugarloaf Mountain, Tab 10 on the Zoning Agenda, however, noted that the applicant was present in the audience and she had been informed that a postponement would be requested.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, addressed the Board stating that she had not submitted a written request for postponement of this case, because she had come before the Board at their last meeting asking that a request for continuance be placed on that Agenda, so that notice could be provided to people who had planned to attend this meeting that her client had asked for a continuance and, if the request was granted, they would know not to attend the meeting. She requested a 60 day postponement of this case, due to the unavailability of certain witnesses that she feels would be critical to her presentation. She stated that there are only two legal standards that have to be met, being (1) proof of excusable delay in commencing the development, and (2) the vested rights status of the project.
It was clarified that the request for postponement was not for an extension of the project, but for a continuance of the hearing, for a period of 60 days.
Mr. Egor Emery, Mr. Alan Oyler, Ms. Ruth Russell Gray, Ms. Barbara Turcyn, Mr. Bob Resetar, Ms. Mary Parrish, Ms. Linda Bissonnette, and Mr. Keith Farner, residents of the area in question, addressed the Board stating they were opposed to the postponement and noted the reasons for their opposition.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Pool stated that he hoped the property owners realized that they might win the war today, but that the battle was not won. He stated that he did not and would not support the numbers that were originally approved for the proposed development, nor would he support a continuance to hear those numbers, but that he would like to see a solution to the situation, being a development plan that the property owners and the Board of County Commissioners can agree to. He stated that he shared the concerns of the property owners in the area in question, however, felt that, if Ms. Bonifay could come up with an idea, before the deadline date of December 18, 2000, to continue this hearing with lower densities and other opportunities, it might be something that they might want to listen to.
Ms. Bonifay stated that there were a number of options that could be explored, but that the developer was definitely willing to look at a reduction in density. She stated that the applicant would use the next 60 days to work with the property owners, to try to allay their concerns. She stated that there is going to be development on the property eventually and they would rather have something that the community embraces, which is the idea of the developer and his team, as well as her clients.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board needed to remember that the postponement was for a request to extend the existing Development Order, consisting of approximately 2,300 houses, for another five years.
Commr. Pool disagreed, stating that the postponement was for 60 days, not five years.
Commr. Swartz stated that he has had 12 years of dealing with Ms. Bonifay, ten of which have been involved with this case. He stated that, if the applicant is granted the extension, the DRI will be in place for another five years, just as it has been hanging over Lake County for the last seven years. He stated that, if the applicant does not get the extension, the DRI will be history and the applicant would have to go back through an extensive process to get the DRI back on the ground again. He stated that he was sure there was no coincidence that he and Commr. Gerber would not be on the Board in 60 days, because they did not seek re-election. He stated that, if Ms. Bonifay really needed to obtain a postponement, because of the unavailability of her witnesses, the appropriate time to request it would have been at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. He stated that he felt there was no justification in her statement that her expert witnesses could not be present, noting that she has known for months what the public hearing date was going to be. He stated that there are other consultants that could have come, to speak on behalf of her clients, so he felt that excuse was totally unacceptable. He stated that it was time for the Board to hear the case.
Commr. Cadwell suggested postponing the case for 30 days, rather than 60 days, noting that Commrs. Swartz and Gerber would still be on the Board and would be able to hear the case and act upon it.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was concerned about the fact that the Board was not treating the cases before them equally, noting that approximately 20 minutes earlier the Board told another applicant, Mr. Blaine Haskin, that they would not grant him a postponement, and his plea was also that his witnesses could not be present at this meeting. She questioned how the Board could tell Ms. Bonifay that they would grant her request for postponement, because her expert witnesses could not be present, yet tell Mr. Haskin that they would not grant his postponement, for the very same reason.
Commr. Hanson stated that her concern was that a resolution be found to the problem. She stated that she agreed that the Sugarloaf Mountain densities were too high, however, noted that the project will move forward, regardless of the Board's vote this date; therefore, if a resolution could be found that the residents could live with, at a lower density, that would be good. She stated that the applicant might bring something back to the Board that is better than what is on the table at the present time and Commrs. Swartz and Gerber would still be on the Board to vote on it.
Commr. Pool stated that each case stands on its own merit, noting that what the Board does with one case has no bearing on what it does with another.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the DRI is changed, it will have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is in place today, which is one unit per five acres, and the developer would only be able to build 286 houses and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial, which is all that the County's Comprehensive Plan would allow. He stated that that is not why the applicant is present this date, they are present to get the current plan approved and extend it for another five years, which would be a total of 12 years.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that any amendment to the DRI would have to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, however, noted that, when one substantially modifies a DRI, they can also consider Comprehensive Plan amendments at the same time.
Commr. Swartz stated that there cannot be a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 60 days. He stated that, good or bad, if the DRI is not extended, Mr. Reaves will look somewhere else to put his money, noting that he will not put it in 286 units, with 5,000 square feet of commercial, on top of Sugarloaf Mountain. He asked the Board to hear the case this date, noting that there was no justification for anything otherwise and no valid reason to believe that in 30 or 60 days the DRI was going to change and become consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied a request for a 60 day postponement for Rezoning Case
No. PH 7A-00-3, Cecelia Bonifay/Sugarloaf Mountain, Tracking No. 73-00-PUD/AMD.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PETITION NO. PH41-00-4 - R-6 TO R-1 - LOTTIE B. DYSON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involved a couple of family tracts that had been combined for the purpose of non-intensive agriculture. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that it was a good fit for the area. She stated that there were no letters of opposition on file.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant or 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.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-89 - William and Lottie B. Dyson, Rezoning Case
No. PH41-00-4, Tracking No. 64-00-Z, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential).
PETITION NO. 39-00-3 - A TO CP - D. PATRICE SELLERS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a small parcel of property with a single family structure on it from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial), for a home occupation. She stated that staff was recommending approval, noting that they found the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. She stated that there was one letter of opposition on file, addressing a concern about citrus trees, however, noted that staff had no concerns regarding the matter. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, as well.
Commr. Swartz noted some concerns he had regarding the issue of traffic and questioned whether the County could limit the request to a very low commercial use, so that it would not generate much traffic. He stated that he felt traffic in and out of the applicant's property was going to be a real problem.
Ms. Farrell interjected that Public Works did not indicate any concern about the matter. She stated that the Ordinance states the existing residence shall retain a residential appearance and that expansion or modification of the residence shall be allowed only to comply with public safety regulations.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant or 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.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-90 - D. Patrice Sellers, Rezoning Case No. PH39-00-3, Tracking No. 67-00-CP, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial), to use an existing residence as a professional office, with direction to staff that, as they go through the site plan review process, they be very careful in reviewing the transportation issues.
PETITION NO.CUP00/9/1-5 - CUP FOR OUTDOOR OBEDIENCE TRAINING
EDUCATION FACILITY - LAKE EUSTIS KENNEL CLUB, INC./DIANE KEEDY
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for an outdoor obedience training and education facility. She stated that the applicant would like to hold one weekly event, with some limitations, and four annual events. She stated that staff could not find a level of comfort to recommend approval of the request, therefore, were recommending denial. She stated that one of their main concerns is the fact that the facility is located on a non-county maintained dirt road. She stated that they also have some concerns about the possibility of a high level of traffic traveling Anderson Lane. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staff, noting that they added as one of the Conditions of the Ordinance that the number of dogs and cars permitted on the site at any one time be limited to 10. She stated that they also removed the requirement from Public Works that Anderson Lane be paved, as part of the site plan approval. She submitted, for the record, a digital photograph (County Exhibit A) of the entrance to the property in question.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bob Spector, Applicant, representing the Lake Eustis Kennel Club, addressed the Board stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request with the following items remaining in the Ordinance: Item No. 2.C.3.- In no event shall any training sessions or AKC certification trials take place after 7:00 p.m.; Item No.2.C.4.-The number of dogs permitted on site at any one time shall be limited to ten (10); and Item No. 2.C.5.-The number of cars permitted on site at any one time shall be limited to ten (10). He stated that, with regard to Item No.2.C.3., training sessions or AKC certification trials are held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; therefore, if the sessions have to be limited to 7:00 p.m., nobody will show up. He stated that, with regard to Item No. 2.C.4., if all the members of the Lake Eustis Kennel Club were to show up on the weekend for a "dog" day, there would be approximately 18 cars and 30 dogs. He stated that, with regard to Item No. 2.C.5., once a week or twice a month there will be training sessions for the public, at no charge, and then four times per year - two in the Fall and two in the Spring - there will be other events that are required by the American Kennel Club, which would generate more people.
Ms. Diane Keedy, President, Lake Eustis Kennel Club, addressed the Board stating that they are a not-for-profit corporation with the State of Florida. She stated that the basic reason for purchasing the parcel in question is that, as a licensee of the American Kennel Club, they are required every year to do a certain number of community service type events, in order to keep their accreditation, and it is very difficult in Lake County to find places where such events can be held. She stated that she feels the limited use of the property would not generate any more traffic than what someone who might live on the road would generate, by having friends come by. She stated that she hoped the Board would allow the Lake Eustis Kennel Club to do something positive for the community.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2000-91 - Lake Eustis Kennel Club/Diane Keedy, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/9/1-5, Tracking No. 69-00-CUP, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an outdoor obedience training/education facility, with a stipulation that only four annual meetings be held, with up to 30 dogs/30 vehicles, and that the once a week training sessions be held during daylight hours only and be limited to 10 dogs/10 vehicles. PETITION NO. CUP00/9/2-5 - CUP IN RA - RONALD AND ROBIN BUSH
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in RA (Ranchette), for a small family owned greenhouse nursery. She stated that the property in question is in a very rural area where there are a lot of agricultural activities. She stated that the subdivision involved, which consists of mobile homes and single family homes, is platted into five plus or minus acre tracts. She stated that staff was very concerned that the request would not fit into the neighborhood and that there would be opposition from the applicant's neighbors, but that has not been the case. She stated that staff recommended denial of the request, because they felt it was not a good use in a residential zoning; however, they learned at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that there would only be one delivery truck coming in and out of the subdivision occasionally. She stated that there were no real concerns from Public Works, other than the fact that Louise Road and Freeman Drive, which were recently paved, were for residential use. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request, by a 6-3 vote. She submitted, for the record, a Memorandum (County Exhibit A), dated August 15, 2000, that Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works, had written to her noting some concerns he had regarding truck traffic on Louise Road and Freeman Drive, along with several digital photographs of said roads and the area in question; and a plat (County Exhibit B) of the property in question, indicating the zoning classifications in the area.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that the subdivision in question was platted by his wife's family, however, noted that they no longer own property within the subdivision. He stated that they do own property just north of the subdivision, through a trust, but that said property was not close enough to the property in question to have an affect on it. He stated that he would be voting on the matter, but wanted to disclose said information, for the record.
Mr. Ronald Bush, Applicant, addressed the Board and described the nature and size of the nursery that he plans to operate. He stated that he plans to grow light foliage, in 4" to 6" pots, and that he plans to construct three (3) 20' x 110' buildings to start and three (3) additional buildings of the same size in the future.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to see the issue of truck traffic addressed in the CUP.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff could add a condition to the Ordinance, under Transportation, that an annual inspection of the roads in the area be conducted by Public Works.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2000-92 - Ronald and Robin Bush, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/9/2-5,Tracking No. 70-00-CUP, a request for a CUP in RA (Ranchette), to allow for a home-based greenhouse nursery operation to consist of three (3) 20' x 110' nursery buildings and three (3) additional buildings of the same size in the future, with a stipulation that the Public Works staff conduct an annual inspection of the roads in the area, particularly Louise Road and Freeman Drive, with regard to the issue of truck traffic and its impact on said roads.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool questioned whether the applicant realized, if the County finds there is a problem with truck traffic, he will have to deal with it.
The applicant indicated that he understood.
Commr. Swartz suggested that Public Works not only conduct annual inspections of the roads in question, but that they make recommendations to the Board regarding same, as well.
Commr. Hanson agreed to include that as part of the motion.
Commr. Pool seconded the amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION NO. PH38-00-2 - A TO CFD - SOUTHPOINTE BAPTIST CHURCH
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a 40 acre parcel of property in the Leesburg area, on Hwy. 27, from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a variety of uses, to be used as a retreat for ministers and pastors to get away for some rest and relaxation. She stated that staff had a lot of concerns about this request, therefore, had recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they approve the church and what is typically considered as church uses, but that they deny the cottages, the conference center, motel rooms, meeting rooms, golf course, etc., because they were concerned about commercial locational criteria and trips generated, however, noted that staff had met with Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, who is representing Southpointe Baptist Church, over the last one and a half months and had worked out some of the technicalities involved with the request. She stated that the Public Works Department performed a traffic analysis and, based on the fact that some of the things are going to be phased in, they do not have any concerns about the trips. She reviewed what the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, contained on Pages 1 and 2 of the Ordinance, which is for the rear 20 acres of the property to include a retreat center comprised of 20-25 cottages, ranging in size from 970 square feet to 1,500 square feet, a conference center building with 30-35 motel rooms, meeting rooms, offices, cafeteria, Olympic size pool, miniature golf course and a ropes course. She stated that, since the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, staff added a maximum cap of 150 people for the conference center and noted that the applicant was going to build 10 guest rooms, rather than 30-35 motel rooms.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission's motion being amended, with regard to the maximum cap of 150 people for the conference center and the fact that 10 guest rooms will be built, rather than 35 motel rooms, as alluded to. She submitted, for the record, a Memorandum (County Exhibit A), dated September 25, 2000, that Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works, had written to her regarding a traffic analysis that was conducted by the Public Works Department, indicating that, with a projected build-out date of 2004, the site in question would not adversely or significantly impact U.S. 27 - that it would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service C.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that the applicant agrees with staff's recommendation and would not be opposed to putting a caveat in the Ordinance stating that the uses are to be church related only, since staff has some apprehension about the applicant possibly selling the back 20 acres, in the future, for a commercial endeavor, which he noted is not the applicant's intention at all.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, representing a property owner /developer immediately north of the property in question, addressed the Board stating that his client worked with the church on cross-access and buffering issues and supports the request.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2000-93 - Southpointe Baptist Church, Rezoning Case No. PH38-00-2, Tracking No. 66-00-CFD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a multi-purpose facility to include a gymnasium, ampitheatre, sanctuary, multi-use area, cottages, nursery, pre-school, Olympic size pool, miniature golf course, a ropes course, cafeteria, conference building, and accessory uses related thereto, subject to the amendments brought forward by the applicant, limiting the site to church activities only.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that this case brings up the issue that the County still has not addressed, of being able to locate facilities in the rural areas of the County that do not meet the commercial locational criteria, but that will allow some uses, appreciation, and study of those areas and the environment. She stated that there are some facilities in the County that have already been approved, but there is no criteria to allow additional ones. She stated that there are a lot of areas in the County that are environmentally sensitive and protected that should be available for the public to enjoy. She questioned Ms. Farrell as to whether the County was moving forward with that issue, noting that it has been mentioned several times.
Ms. Farrell stated that, as far as looking at recreational opportunities that are quasi-commercial, it is in the EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report), however, noted that the County is currently doing it on a case-by-case basis. She stated that staff has been looking at recreational criteria statewide, but has not yet found any to copy, because all the counties contacted are doing it on a case-by-case basis, as well.
Commr. Swartz addressed some concerns he had about the commercial locational criteria and the fact that he did not feel a CFD classification should be considered for this case.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m., to allow the Commissioners to attend a pre-scheduled function.
PETITION NO. PH40-00-2 - A TO CFD - DONALD AND ELIZABETH HUNTINGTON/KEITH AND REBECCA HUNTINGTON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request involving approximately 52 acres in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. She stated that the applicants' request is to take a non-conforming existing land use and expand it, to add hangers and primitive cabins, within an existing airport property. She stated that the request went through the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations process and staff was recommending denial to construct the hangers and primitive cabins, but, were recommending approval to rezone the property to CFD (Community Facility District), in order to give it a correct zoning for the existing uses on the site. She stated that the applicants are proposing to use individual wells and septic tanks for the cabins. She stated that staff was concerned about the fact that the site contains a substantial amount of wetlands and is an environmentally sensitive piece of property, therefore, were unable to support any expansion of the site. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission also had difficulties with this case and voted for denial, by a 4-4 vote. She stated that there was one letter and one petition containing 36 signatures on file, in opposition to the request.
Commr. Hanson stated that this brings up the issue that she discussed earlier with Ms. Farrell, noting that the County needs the criteria she alluded to.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, representing the applicants, addressed the Board stating that this was a request to rezone an existing grass strip runway airport in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, south of Hwy. 50, in Lake County, to make it consistent with the current zoning, because the applicants want to do some improvements at the airport. He referred to a similar case that was brought before the Board several months ago that was approved and noted that he did not see a great difference between this case and that case. He emphasized the fact that the applicants were not asking to expand the existing airport, they were asking for approval to build T-hangers, but no more than the number that has historically been used at the airport, that currently protect the planes that are housed there. He stated that they were asking for consistent zoning and two (2) cabins, one of which will replace a mobile home currently on the site that is deteriorating. He stated that the cabins will be utilized only by people flying in and out of the airport. He stated that some of the neighbors in the area have expressed various concerns, which the applicants have tried to allay, however, some of those concerns were not resolved and will have to be resolved by the Board.
Mr. Crawford referred to a request that had recently come before the Board, for the Groveland Airport, which received a positive staff recommendation, along with a 9-0 approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as a 5-0 approval from the Board. He stated that, due to the fact that this request was so similar to the Groveland Airport request, he was surprised to find that it received a staff recommendation of denial. He stated that staff recommended denial for two reasons, being (1) that they do not see enough of a public use, and (2) they do not feel the applicants can meet the wetlands setbacks. He stated that the site plan the applicants submitted was a conceptual site plan that goes with a CFD zoning, however, noted that the applicants still have to go through a full site plan review and have to meet the wetland setbacks for every structure that is on the site. He stated that the applicants stipulated to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they would meet those setbacks, even though they have the right to ask for a variance from the setbacks.
Mr. Don Huntington, Applicant, addressed the Board and answered questions from Mr. Crawford regarding this request, noting that he resides at the airport, where he operates an airport salvage business. He reviewed an aerial (contained in the Board's backup material) of the property in question, noting that he exists under a CP zoning and a business license issued by the County. He stated that he purchased the property in the 1980s, which has been used for fire patrol, crop dusting, and rented space for aircraft and aircraft maintenance. He noted that the Sheriff's Department uses the airport on occasion, as well as medivac helicopters.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, submitted a letter (Applicant's Exhibit A), for the record, from Mr. Clair Klinger, Klinger Aero, the original owner of the airport, indicating that it was started in 1965; why it was started; that it was used for fire patrol, searching for missing children, drowning victims, and missing animals and vehicles; and that at times up to 40 aircraft were based at the airport waiting for maintenance or repairs. He continued questioning Mr. Huntington about the request, at which time he noted that 24 aircraft currently rent space at the airport. He submitted a list of said aircraft (Applicant's Exhibit B), for the record.
Mr. Stephen Lee, the owner of property adjacent to the property in question, addressed the Board in opposition to the request, as well as one of his neighbors, who also owns property adjacent to the subject property. He stated that he had been asked to be the spokesman for several people who had signed a petition in opposition to the request, contained in the Board's backup material. He stated that the applicants purchased the property in question this year with full knowledge of the zoning that existed on the parcel. He stated that he questioned whether the airport should be considered under a CFD zoning classification, noting that it meets the criteria because of a definition, being that the grass airstrip is less than 4,000 feet. He stated that, given the number of aircraft the proposed additions can accommodate, it appears the request is not to meet the needs of the community, but the financial goals of the applicants. He stated that he and his neighbors are concerned about a CFD approval, because they feel it could open the door for future hangers and future expansion of the airport, even though the applicants have indicated they do not intend to expand it.
Mr. Lee stated that the original application requested approval for cabins to be constructed at the airport, for rental purposes, however, questioned why the County would approve rental units for a small airstrip in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. He referred to a petition that had been submitted to the County (contained in the Board's backup material), prior to this meeting, noting that the people who signed the petition live adjacent to, or in close proximity to, the property in question and have already experienced an unsatisfactory level of noise pollution, resulting from frequent take-offs and landings of an amateur pilot. He stated that the airstrip is not radio controlled; therefore, the residents are concerned about safety, if there is an increase in usage. He submitted, for the record, a letter (Opposition's Exhibit A) from Mr. Marty Folk, Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, confirming that whooping cranes have been frequenting the property in question; two (2) photographs of the airport, along with a receipt for same (Opposition's Exhibit B), showing a total of nine (9) aircraft being housed at the airport, disputing the claim that 24 aircraft are housed there; and a packet (Opposition's Exhibit C), containing information about the Klinger Aero Airport and the Sheets Airport, also located in the Groveland area; information regarding a typical Cessna 150, such as the amount of feet needed for take-offs and landings; the Notice of Public Hearing for the Groveland Airport before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; property record cards for property owners in close proximity to the Groveland Airport who were notified of the proposed zoning change; a plat map indicating properties that have been sold in close proximity to the Klinger Airport (airport in question); a plat map designating the residential properties near the airport; and several documents regarding noise levels, which he reviewed with the Board. He requested the Board to take into consideration the facts that he presented, when making their decision about this request.
Ms. Sylvia Hylton, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request. She discussed the issue of noise and questioned what control an airport has over an airplane while it is in the air, noting that she recently had an airplane dive bomb her home, cut the engine, start it up again, etc., which she found to be very annoying. She addressed the issue of the primitive cabins that are being requested to be constructed on the site, noting that to her a primitive cabin was a cabin with no water, lights, sewer, etc.; however, she understood the cabins in question were going to be like vacation villas.
Mr. Earl Leftwich, a property owner in the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request. He presented the Board with a letter (previously submitted by Mr. Stephen Lee) from Mr. Marty Folk, Wildlife Biologist, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, confirming that whooping cranes have been frequenting the property in question. He stated that he did not like the idea of the noise that is generated by aircraft taking off and landing at the airport; however, he cared a lot about the animals and wildlife in the area.
Mr. Crawford readdressed the Board stating that the applicants did not find out about the whooping cranes until the morning of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, which shocked him, noting that none had ever been seen in the area prior to said meeting. He stated that some were introduced in south Lake County recently; however, it was not publicized, because the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission did not want it publicized. He submitted, for the record, a petition (Applicant's Exhibit C) containing 100 signatures in support of the Klinger Airport and the applicant's ability to construct hangar buildings and two cabins on the site; a letter (Applicant's Exhibit D) from Frank and Sherrie Horn, who operate a crop dusting service in the area in question, in support of the request, which he read into the record; a letter (Applicant's Exhibit E) from Mr. Keith Klinger, Mr. Klinger's son, the former owner of the airport in question, in support of the request, indicating how long the airport has been in operation and what type of activities are conducted there; a list, with accompanying letters, (Applicant's Exhibit F) of residents in the area (19) who had decided to have their names removed from the petition that they had previously signed opposing the airport, because they had been given wrong information (list submitted earlier by Mr. Stephen Lee); a map (Applicant's Exhibit G) of the southeast quadrant of Lake County, with the property owners who support the airport being highlighted; a letter (Applicant's Exhibit H) from Mr. Knut Kjenslie, the owner of Seminole-Lake Gliderport, stating that the Klinger Airport has been the only airport in South Lake County for private airplanes for more than 35 years and that he supports the request; and a photocopy of a photograph (Applicant's Exhibit I) that was taken at night of the airport runway, showing the runway lights, which it was noted are automatically set to come on at 8:00 p.m. and go off at 12:00 midnight.
Mr. Crawford stated that he would hate for staff or the Board to say they no longer feel that private airports should be zoned CFD, because that is the only vehicle the owners of such airports have to bring their requests before the Board for approval. He clarified the fact that the airport and cabins in question are only to be used by people utilizing the airport and that said people can only land there with permission. He stated that the applicants are trying to be good neighbors and are not trying to expand the airport. He stated that the airport is an allowed use in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and noted that the applicants will stipulate to no variances for wetland setbacks; whatever lighting requirements the Board feels is necessary; there will be no helicopter training on site; the hangars will be single plane T-hangars, with a capacity of no more than 40; and the applicants will stipulate to all the recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, on their 4-4 deadlock vote.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve Ordinance No. 2000-94 - Donald and Elizabeth Huntington/Keith and Rebecca Huntington,
Rezoning Case No. PH40-00-2, Tracking No. 68-00-CFD, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to construct three (3) hangar structures and two (2) primitive cabins within the existing airport facility, with a stipulation that the applicants not exceed 28 hangers and 2 cabins, one of which is to replace the mobile home that is currently on the site.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the airport probably started out as a crop dusting service in the late 1960s, when there was significantly more agriculture in the County, and got grandfathered in to the point where it is now. He stated that the request is not a CFD, according to the County's code. He stated that he could accept staff's recommendation, approving for it to go from an approved use in agriculture to a CFD, but he could not support expanding the airport, which he feels the applicants are getting ready to do, and allow it to have additional hangars, as well as the primitive cabins. He stated that he was opposed to the expansion, based on several of the County's comprehensive plan policies, which he reviewed with the Board.
Commr. Hanson stated that the applicants would not be increasing the number of septic tanks above what could be allowed on the site, which is five (5), and be conforming and that she felt the recommendation of reducing the T-hangars to 28 would house the aircraft that is currently utilizing the facility. She stated that she did not see the request as expanding the operation, noting that putting in two cabins, rather than one, merely adds an enhancement or benefit to those that are already using it, but not necessarily an expansion.
Commr. Pool stated that Mr. Crawford made it clear that the Board had recently approved, by a unanimous vote, a very similar request and noted that the applicants will have to meet every wetlands setback required in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. He stated that they will have to meet all criteria set forth, therefore, he would support the request.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "No".
PETITION NO. CUP00/9/3-4 - CUP FOR HORSE BOARDING/TRAINING FACILITY DAVID AND KATHRYN SCHWALB/LOCH EDEN EQUESTRIAN CENTER
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to place an equestrian center on 15 acres in the Eustis area, off Hwy. 44, in the Rural land use category. She stated that the Staff Report contained an error, noting that it indicated there was one letter of opposition on file, however, that was incorrect, there were two letters of support on file. She stated that staff conditioned the Ordinance and was recommending approval of the request, as conditioned. She stated that the applicants would have to pull building permits for all their proposed structures, based on the fact that there will be training on the site. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote. She submitted, for the record, a plat (County Exhibit A) of the property in question.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant 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.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2000-95 - Loch Eden Equestrian Center, David and Kathryn Schwalb, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/9/3-4, Tracking No. 71-00-CUP, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a horse boarding and training facility.
PETITION NO. CUP00/9/4-2 - CUP IN A - J & J GROVES, INC./BLAINE HASKIN
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the applicant wants to screen, process, and use Class B lime stabilized domestic septage for land application on approximately 135 acres in the Okahumpka area. She stated that there were some concerns noted at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, as to what a septage spread was, as opposed to solid waste. She stated that the Water Quality Department staff looked at the request and recommended approval, due to the fact that they did not see the use as an obnoxious one. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however, noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied it, by an 8-1 vote. She stated that there were eight (8) letters and petitions with 600 plus signatures on file, in opposition to the request, contained in the Board's backup material.
Mr. Blaine Haskin, J & J Groves, Inc., Applicant, addressed the Board stating that he had a video that he would like for them to review, that explained what type of operation he was requesting them to approve. He stated that it was not a sludge or sewer treatment plant, it involved a process that changes septage into a fertilizer type nutrient that is good for property and he felt the public would accept it, once they realized what type of operation was involved, at which time the video that he alluded to was shown to the Board.
Mr. Haskin addressed various concerns residents in the area had, being: (1) traffic, which he felt would not be substantial, as the operation would be limited to three trucks per day; (2) odor, which would not be an issue, because lime is used in the process and would mask any odor that may be generated by the operation; (3) runoff, which would not be a threat, because the septage is absorbed into the soil; and (4) monitoring wells, which would be installed to protect the environment. He submitted the video (Applicant's Exhibit A), for the record.
Ms. Audrey Wendt, representing the Royal Highlands Property Owners Association, addressed the Board stating that she had submitted to the County a petition (contained in the Board's backup material) with approximately 500 names of residents in her community that were opposed to the request. She stated that she contacted the City of Leesburg's waste treatment plant, to see if they would accept Mr. Haskin's trucks at their plant and was informed that they would not. She noted a concern that she and the residents had about the septage seeping into the Floridan Aquifer and polluting their safe drinking water. She requested the Board to not compromise the quality of their drinking water and deny the request.
Mr. Bill Summerlock, President, The Plantation at Leesburg Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that The Plantation currently consists of approximately 1,550 homes; however, they plan to expand to 3,000 homes, upon completion. He stated that The Plantation is located across the Turnpike from Mr. Haskin's proposed operation, which is less than 2,000 feet from existing homes. He stated that staff indicated they had received petitions containing approximately 600 signatures, in opposition to this request, however, noted that the petitions actually contained 1,440 signatures and that he had approximately 100 additional signatures to present to the Board his date, bringing the total to 1,540. He submitted, for the record, a copy of said petitions (Opposition's Exhibit A) containing the 1,540 signatures he alluded to. He stated that they feel the operation will devalue their properties; there is a reasonable possibility that fowl odors will exist sometime during the process; they are concerned about it being a breeding ground for flies or other insects; the negative impact on the environment; and the fact that the location is not the right one for this type of operation. He requested the Board to consider said concerns and deny the request.
Mr. Donald McIntosh, Donald W. McIntosh & Associates, the professional engineering consultants for The Plantation at Leesburg, addressed the Board stating that there are some serious contentions, as to the representations made about the long-term relative safety of land application, proximate to the resources that are associated with The Plantation. He reminded the Board that there are 12 conditions of the Development Order approval that were negotiated, through a rather lengthy process, as part of the Development of Regional Impact (DRI), that contain provisions for the protection of the resources that are significant in this area, including the Palatlakaha River. He stated that the wetlands from that system, which discharge water directly into the Palatlakaha River are within 1,500 feet of the proposed site. He stated that, try as one might, there is no way that someone can guarantee that long-term saturation of the soil will not lead to the discharge of matter into that system that will be a detrimental impact to it and, therefore, a concern for the applicant, who is by permit responsible for the long-term maintenance and condition of the wetlands. He addressed some concerns he had about the video, dealing with odor and viral removal, and noted that the distance from the site in question to the Palatlakaha River was less than the 3,000 feet alluded to earlier, in fact, probably less than 2,000 feet from contributing wetlands. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Ms. Joyce Bono, Treasurer, The Plantation at Leesburg Homeowners Association, addressed the Board and questioned what materials the tanks are made of, what their life span is, and whether there were any measures in place, should the tanks ever develop a leak. She stated that, according to the video, Health and Rehabilitative Services is responsible for the inspections in Hillsborough County and questioned whether that would be the same case in this county and, if so, how often inspections would be conducted, and how many inspectors the County has. She stated that she did not feel the concern about water quality could be addressed properly, noting that in heavy rains, there is always runoff. She stated that the residents of The Plantation do not feel that the site in question is the proper place for this type of operation and requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Carl Fimmano, Vice President, The Plantation at Leesburg Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that the residents of The Plantation are concerned about the economics of the situation, noting that an application is scheduled to come before the Board for additional urban expansion to be considered for The Plantation at Leesburg, which calls for no more urban sprawl, other than what was already in the DRI. He stated that it will bring $500,000 of taxation into the County coffers, versus perhaps a couple of thousand dollars of taxation from the proposed operation, to be located across the Turnpike from The Plantation. He noted that the residents are already concerned about the incinerator that is located not too far from The Plantation. He requested the Board to listen to the thousands of residents who voiced their concern, by signing the petition that was presented to the Board and to the Planning and Zoning Commission, alluded to earlier.
Mr. Neville Sankey, a property owner across the street from the property in question, addressed the Board stating that his property line was less than 100 feet from the property in question and that said property was up hill from his property. He stated that the area where the septage would be sprayed was less than 500 feet from his well. He stated that he searched long and hard to find a place to live and that he has put a lot of money into his property, therefore, was asking the Board, for his family and future residents in the area, to reject the proposal, noting that he felt it was the wrong plan, the wrong time, and the wrong place.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, addressed the Board stating that she was representing the Battaglias and Bahia Groves, who own property immediately adjacent to the property in question. She stated that her clients do not feel the proposed operation will be in their long-term best interest. She stated that they have been in the citrus business for a number of years in Lake County, however, can no longer be in that type of business and feel that, while the proposed location has been presented as a barrier to The Plantation, it locks them in and could totally preclude any future development of their property. She asked the Board to look at the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, noting that she enumerated a number of comprehensive plan policies that she felt were not met by the proposed project and requested the Board to deny the application.
Ms. Sandy Zimmerman, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board stating that she was concerned about runoff from the property in question onto her property. She stated that she was retired and very concerned about her property values, noting that it is all she has. She stated that she did not want to live less than 1,000 feet from Mr. Haskin's spray field.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing Dr. James P. Gill, who owns property on C.R. 33, across from the property in question, as well as Pringle Development, who is developing several communities in the area in question, addressed the Board stating that the Staff Report indicates that the agricultural integrity of the area will be protected by allowing the application of sludge, or septage, onto the property in question. He stated that, within a five mile radius of the site, there are approximately 15,000 rooftops that have been approved and are in the process of being built. He stated that the proposed project is located on a hill between two of the County's most sensitive environmental areas, the Dilly Marsh and the Palatlakaha River. He stated that he has been involved with this kind of use before, therefore, reviewed said cases and found that they involved much larger parcels of property than the one in question. He stated that he could not find a permit for this kind of disposal, which is Class B, on this kind of site, nor could he find one contiguous to the kind of wetlands and sensitive environmental systems that are contiguous to the site in question. He stated that the people who live upriver from the site have a right to be concerned. He stated that his clients own the Dilly Marsh and are concerned about the integrity and protection of it. He stated that the operation is the wrong use, in the wrong place, and the fact that staff is going to allow septic to be sprayed on the property is inappropriate, because of the 15,000 rooftops that have already been approved in the area. He stated that he did not feel the County had a need for this type of use in the area in question, when the County already has several thousand acres set aside for said use, in rural areas. He stated that it is on the tip of an urban expansion area, even though it is rural today. He requested the Board to not allow said use, in the area in question, on the size of property in question, contiguous to the Dilly Marsh and the Palatlakaha River.
Mr. Ralph Suggs, the owner of a parcel of property located approximately 1,000 feet from the subject property, which he noted he plans to construct a home on in the near future, addressed the Board stating that he was representing the Hammock Grove Homeowners Association, who objects to the proposed request. He stated that the residents are concerned about a possible odor problem, as well as a health hazard that they feel the operation may create. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Paul Murphy, a resident of The Plantation at Leesburg, addressed the Board stating that he lives a few miles south of the incinerator located in Okahumpka and that he has noticed, during times of temperature aversions, where the cold air is over the hot air and there is a south wind, they smell a distinct odor of burning trash and now they are concerned about the odor that may be generated from this operation. He stated that the operation will be located across the turnpike, approximately 200 yards from some new up-scale homes that have been planned for The Plantation and, if the operation begins to smell, it would be a very unacceptable area to live in. He requested the Board to consider said facts, when they make their decision about this request.
Mr. Haskin, Applicant, reappeared before the Board and addressed the concerns that were brought to their attention. He stated that the city sewer system is not as good for the environment as the process in question, noting that a 25 year study was conducted and it was found that this process is the best way to get rid of septage. He stated that it has been cleaned up and is now good for the environment, therefore, asked the Board to base their decision on that fact.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny a request by Mr. Blaine Haskin/J & J Groves, Inc./Anytime Septic, Rezoning Case No. CUP00/9/4-2, Tracking No.
72-00-CUP, for a CUP in A (Agriculture), to screen, process, and use Class B lime stabilized domestic septage for land application in the Okahumpka area.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she believes the process is good for the environment, if treated right, and is the truest since of recycling.
Commr. Swartz stated that Mr. Haskin does perform a service and Lake County is required to find and provide places for the proper disposal of septage. He stated that the County has, over the years, tried to find sites for the disposal of septic system effluent. He stated that the County needs to ensure that it has places to dispose of septage for on-site systems in the County, however, it does not want to be a dumping place for other counties, which is always a concern. He stated that he felt the property in question was too close to what has developed as an urban area. He referred to Policies 1-1.3, which deals with impacts from adjacent development;1-1.6(e), which is a requirement to ensure compatibility; and 1-11.18, which is a requirement that the County provide protection for environmentally sensitive resources. He stated that he would vote for denial of the request.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to deny the request, which was unanimously approved, by a 5-0 vote.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 4:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PETITION NO. LPA00/8/1-2 - AMENDMENT TO CHANGE RURAL AND SUBURBAN TO URBAN EXPANSION - LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LLC/THE PLANTATION AT LEESBURG
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a transmittal hearing for the Lakewood Development Corporation for The Plantation at Leesburg. She stated that they want to add 208 acres to an existing Development of Regional Impact (DRI), at Hwys. 27 and 33, south of Leesburg. She stated that they were not adding any units, they were just adding additional property to the already approved DRI. She stated that, in reviewing Rule 9J5, staff found that it was not urban sprawl, therefore, were recommending approval. She stated that the existing factors supporting the amendment were contained on Page 2 of the Staff Report. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by an 8-0 vote. She stated that there was no opposition to the request.
Ms. Miranda Fitzgerald, Attorney, Loundes, Drosdick, Kantor & Reed, in Orlando, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that there are 160 acres of approved residential use property within this project that the applicant could develop at the intensity that they have been approved for; however, the market has changed somewhat and the idea now is to allow units to be spread apart. She stated that approximately 500 units will be constructed on the 208 acres being requested this date. She stated that one of the reasons for the comprehensive plan change is that, when one looks at the current land use map, the land use designations do not reflect the uses that are currently on the property today. She stated that it should be urban expansion; however, it is sort of a patchwork quilt. She stated that they are decreasing, somewhat, the amount of commercial within the project and have met with the homeowners of The Plantation of Leesburg regarding the matter and feel they have their support. She stated that the Board will have an opportunity to review the PUD change and the DRI amendment associated with this request. She requested the Board to approve the request, noting that it was purely a transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Mr. John Percy, Planner, Lakewood Development Corporation, addressed the Board and reviewed the Preliminary Development Plan for The Plantation at Leesburg, pointing out the 208 acres being requested to be approved this date and discussed what types of uses are planned for said property.
Mr. Donald McIntosh, Donald W. McIntosh & Associates, the professional engineering consultants for The Plantation at Leesburg, addressed the Board and answered a question Commr. Swartz had as to what is currently located on the west side of the Palatlakaha River and the existing development. He stated that approximately 350 to 400 single family units have been planned for said area, of which about 70% have been constructed. He stated that the rest of the lots are improved and some of the houses are currently under construction.
Commr. Swartz noted a concern he had about some of the houses being constructed within the 100 year flood plain and questioned why the applicant needed another 208 acres to build the same number of dwelling units that were scheduled for the previous 1,500 acres.
Mr. McIntosh stated that, in the original DRI, several parcels were to be built out at 18 units to the acre, which were multi-family sites; however, the market has dictated that more expensive homes be built in that area. He stated that, should the Board choose not to approve the amendment, the applicant could continue and execute the plan with higher densities.
Ms. Fitzgerald submitted, for the record, two Preliminary Development Plans (Applicant's Exhibit A), one in color and one in black and white; and an Environmental Assessment of the Gray Property (Applicant's Exhibit B), which was prepared for The Plantation at Leesburg, by LPG Environmental & Permitting Services, Inc.
Mr. Carl Fimmano, Vice President, The Plantation at Leesburg Homeowners Association, addressed the Board stating that the residents of The Plantation were thoroughly briefed about the proposed expansion and they support it, noting that they feel it will enhance their community.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the transmittal of LPA00/8/1-2, Tracking No. 74-00-LPA, Lakewood Development Corporation/The Plantation at Leesburg, a land use plan amendment to change from the current land use designation of Rural and Suburban to Urban Expansion, to bring a partially constructed DRI into Comprehensive Plan consistency and to add additional lands (208 acres), to expand the same DRI, to the State, with a second public hearing to be held at a later date. The proposed additional units of the related DRI change would not exceed the current residential unit limit of the current DRI.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt this case was a classic example of urban sprawl. He stated that, if the applicant was asking for more land and more density, he would be more inclined to vote for it, because that would not be urban sprawl. He stated that he felt the request was inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and was an example of why there are conflicting land use patterns all over Lake County. He stated that he would not vote in favor of the request.
Commr. Gerber stated that what is on the ground at the present time is not rural anymore and it was important to her to make the map reflect what is on the ground. She stated that she was going to support the request.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would have to go back to staff's recommendation and to the previous case, where all five commissioners argued that the area in question was a residential area and no longer rural.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
PETITION NO. PH7A-00-3 - AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER - AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON/CECELIA BONIFAY
SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to establish new commencement and build-out dates for the Sugarloaf Mountain Development Order. She stated that, on Page 26 of the Development Order, under Section V - Duration of Development Order, it spells out the time limitations, noting that it reads as follows: In the event the developer fails to demonstrate reliance on the development order by having substantially proceeded with the development approved herein within five years of the effective date of the development order, then development approval shall terminate. She stated that it also includes the County's finding of excusable delay, noting that it reads: The above time limitations may be extended on Lake County's finding of excusable delay, in any proposed development activity, consistent with the substantial deviation provisions of subsection 380.06(19)(m), Florida Statutes.
Ms. Farrell stated that, with regard to another DRI amendment that has been referenced by the applicant in public hearings, there was an application made for a DRI to extend termination dates in 1999, which is located in the urban expansion land use category and is substantially near completion. She stated that staff erred in that application and has made it very clear that they failed to meet the County's responsibilities, when that application came through. She stated that, unfortunately, staff has not had that much experience with DRIs and are normally convinced that they have some kind of extra immunity, or protection, as they come through the County's local process, however, noted that that is not the case. She stated that what the Florida Statutes indicate is, because they are DRIs, they are subject to more scrutiny, due to their regional impacts. She stated that the arbitrator's order is referenced several times and is contained in the Board's backup material, as well as what the applicant needed to do to keep everything they had been granted, all the commitments on their part, the State's part, and the County's part, as well as some provisions for downzoning. She stated that, on Page 26 of the Development Order, it provides local government the opportunity to downzone the property, if it is found that substantial changes in the conditions underlying the approval of the Development Order have occurred, or that the Development Order was based on substantially inaccurate information provided by the developer, or that the change is clearly established by Lake County to be essential to the public health, safety or welfare. She stated that, although there are several commitments, there are two parts of the Development Order that provides Lake County an opportunity to amend, deny, or approve the Development Order, or to go back and take a look at what was done in the past.
Ms. Farrell stated that Chapters 125 and 163 of the Florida Statutes grant local governments broad authority, noting that Section 125 tells the County that it needs to prepare and enforce a Comprehensive Plan for the development of the County, and that Section 163 references the legal status of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that, whether the issue be that of timing, density, or intensity, it has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that some comments were made that the County had no case law to lean on, however, noted that staff found case law (County Exhibit A) that upholds the County's position that any request for a Development of Regional Impact, whether substantial or non-substantial, needs to be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the precondition that any amendments to the Development Order must comply with the County's local law and ordinances was not expressly waived or modified by the PUD document, nor the DRI Development Order. She stated that the requested change requires a modification of that development order. She stated that the DRI review process does not replace the County's local procedures, noting that the process demands additional review.
Ms. Farrell stated that the request is a non-substantial amendment, which was sent to the Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs. She stated that correspondence started in January of this year; however, it was not until late June that the Regional Planning Council came to the final conclusion that it was non-substantial. She stated that staff was not asserting that additional regional review was necessary, however, reiterated the fact that all development orders and actions taken by local government after plan adoption must be consistent with the plan, to include amendments to the original order. She stated that the proposed change is a deviation in the carrying out of a condition or commitment. She stated that the request is to extend the project's date for five years, less one day. She stated that it is a non-substantial amendment, per the Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs. She stated that, with regard to the issue of excusable delay, the applicant did not document any justification, as they came through the process, even though on Pages 26 and 27 of their own development order, it tells them that they need to do it. She stated that, in the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact Annual Report of December 18, 1998 - December 18, 1999 (County Exhibit B) that was submitted to the County, it shows they have not moved forward and even started any of their obligations, which she elaborated on. She submitted said report, for the record. She stated that their own planning consultant reminded them and the County that their five year period to demonstrate substantial development will expire December 18, 2000, so there was no surprise on anybody's part that this date was coming. She stated that the project has not proceeded in good faith, has not commenced, and is not continuing. She stated that, if one were to look at the Development Order and the work that would have had to have been started to meet the deadline date, the applicant would have had to have generated at least 5% of the first phase of the development, or about 40 homes, therefore, would have had to have started about two years ago to have rooftops on the ground today. She reiterated the fact that, whether this project was started in January of this year, or in June, the applicant has not moved forward in good faith. She stated that it was indicated in the applicant's annual report that they had contacted Lake County, with regard to their capital improvements plan; therefore, she checked with Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements; Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director, Fiscal and Administrative Services; Ms. Kathy McDonald, Public Works; and Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works, and their responses (County Exhibit C), via e-mail, were that they had not had any contact with the applicant, regarding said matter. She stated that this project does not involve a delay, but a lack of even starting.
Ms. Farrell referred to Policy 1-1.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, noting that, with regard to the rural classification, it states that the primary functions of the rural area, as designated on the Future Land Use Map, shall be to allow for the continuation of existing agricultural uses, maintain open space, and protect native habitats. She stated that residential development in the rural area shall have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres. She submitted, for the record, various (6) pictures (County Exhibit D) depicting the rural nature of the Sugarloaf Mountain area. She stated that the property lies within the rural and suburban future land use designations and the density of a development in the area designated as suburban, but which is unable to meet the criteria of this policy, shall be limited to one unit per five acres. She stated that, under the current designations, approximately 286 dwellings could be developed on the parcel in question. She stated that additional policies have been added, with regard to land use density and intensity, directing growth in the suburban land use designation. She stated that the development fails to meet the timeliness test in the Comprehensive Plan for increased density and, if the multi part test cannot be met, the density is limited to one unit per five acres. She stated that the project, as it sits, has no functional relationship to any other land uses needed to support the predominant residential use and there is a lack of balance between employment opportunities and the proposed residential units. She stated that the project is located in a rural community, with no "urban area" in close proximity. She stated that the cities of Montverde and Astatula cannot be considered urban, thus the lack of functional and proximate relationship to supporting land uses. She stated that, although the Development Order includes some services for the residential component, it lacks a full array of urban services. She stated that Objective 1-1B of the County's Comprehensive Plan states that the County will reinforce positive rural lifestyles and shall institute policies and programs designed to reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle presently enjoyed by those living in the rural areas of the County, at which time she submitted, for the record, 13 pictures (County Exhibit E) depicting the rural lifestyle that has been established in the Sugarloaf Mountain area. She stated that protecting and preserving the lifestyle of rural areas is a local issue and it is the local government that considers the project's impact, as well as its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Farrell stated that the development patterns, or the character of the area, is what has really changed since 1989, noting that the original PUD was approved in 1991. She stated that, in 1990, the area surrounding the project was large vacant tracts of land, at which time she submitted, for the record, four (4) aerials (County Exhibit F) that were taken in 1990, depicting said tracts of land, which she noted were considered prime speculative development property in Lake County and in other counties, throughout the State of Florida. She stated that, when the applicants came to the County, they might have been able to convince staff that this was going to be a future hub and a big urban area; however, it has not developed as such. She stated that, subsequent to that, the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan that shows a rural land use designation in the area in question, so it has not been the direction of this Board that that area be an urban area, or that it be developed as such. She stated that it has developed as a rural neighborhood, with low density, and is characterized by social economic and institutional activities, largely based on agricultural pursuits. She stated that there have been numerous lot splits and plats approved in the area in question, at which time she submitted, for the record, a listing (County Exhibit G) of all the lots that have been approved in the section surrounding the property in question, which totals approximately 200. She stated that the list consists of lot splits that have been approved since 1989 and does not reflect existing lots of record or lots left by default, after the lot splits.
Ms. Farrell stated that the urban interface of 2,259 dwelling units and 175 multi-family units would be incompatible with adjacent and adjoining land uses. She stated that it is not a logical extension of an intensive land use or existing urban core and will allow urban development in a rural setting at a substantial distance from existing urban areas. She stated that the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD is approximately 10 to 12 miles from the City of Clermont and with few exceptions, neither the Statues nor the Comprehensive Plan grants an unfettered right to introduce an inconsistent and/or incompatible land use into the community. She stated that, when an amendment to a DRI is proposed, whether substantial or non-substantial, the amendment must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff has not been able to find this request consistent with it. She stated that the only amendments afforded the development are those bringing it to one unit per five acres, making it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the 1991 PUD was inconsistent with the 1977 plan and the Sugarloaf project was inconsistent with the 1991, 1993, and 1995 plans. She stated that the Development Order prescribes specific approvals, with specific obligations, to include proceeding with the development. She stated that the project has not met the requirement of demonstrating "substantial development". She stated that the applicant has not moved forward and is not going to meet their deadline date of December 18, 2000. She stated that there have been changes in the area, such as the development patterns presented to the Board this date, and there has been a great public investment in Lake Apopka.
Ms. Farrell reiterated the fact that Page 26 of the Development Order affords local government the ability to consider the general welfare of its residents. She submitted, for the record, over 1,200 letters of opposition (County Exhibit H) the County received regarding this case. She stated that the motion for approval of this request failed, by a 3-5 vote, at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. She noted that the Board's backup material contained letters from Ms. Nancy Fullerton, President, Save Our Lakes Committee; the Department of Community Affairs; and the Central Florida Regional Planning Council, regarding this request, as well as a copy of the County's Notice of Public Hearing to Abutting Property Owners, for those property owners living within 500 feet of the proposed property, for their perusal. She submitted, for the record, two additional aerials (County Exhibit I), one pieced together and a photo copy of the pieced together aerial, which show some of the lot splits and single family homes in the area in question, as well as the definition for "General Welfare" (County Exhibit J), which she read into the record. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request and noted that the Public Works Department has some concerns regarding the transportation requirements.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and questioned Ms. Farrell about the Staff Report, contained in the Board's backup material, noting that it had been changed from the one that she had received earlier, less than one week before the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Farrell stated that said changes were underlined in the Staff Report, as follows: On Page 4 - The proposed change is a deviation in the carrying out of a condition or commitment; on Page 6 - Page 26 and 27 of the Development Agreement (ORB 1414 Page 048, 049) includes clear language regarding the developers commitments; and on Page 10 - Since 1989 numerous 5 acre tracts and plats have been approved. She stated that she considered them to be non-substantial changes, however, noted that it would depend on which side of the fence one sat on.
Ms. Bonifay continued to question Ms. Farrell about her presentation and this case, at which time she submitted, for the record, the following exhibits: a letter (Applicant's Exhibit A) from her to Ms. Farrell, dated June 26, 2000, in response to a letter she had received from Ms. Farrell, dated June 15, 2000, regarding the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI and the fact that she did not agree with the County's determination that the extension of the buildout date for the DRI was subject to a full public hearing process, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs); a copy of the Notice of a Proposed Non-Substantial Change to a Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, for Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact (Applicant's Exhibit B) that was filed by the applicant, dated January 19, 2000; a letter from Mr. Mike McDaniel, Growth Management Administrator, Department of Community Affairs, dated February 29, 2000 (Applicant's Exhibit C) to Ms. Farrell, finding the request a non-substantial change; a letter (Applicant's Exhibit D) from Ms. Sandra Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, dated April 25, 2000, to Ms. Farrell, finding the request a non-substantial application, requiring no public hearing (read into the record); a letter (Applicant's Exhibit E) from Mr. Eric Marks, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, dated June 16, 2000, to Mr. Fred Milch, Section Chief, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, regarding dates, for clarification purposes; a letter (Applicant's Exhibit F) from Ms. Sandra Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, dated June 22, 2000, to Ms. Farrell, in response to Mr. Marks' letter of June 16, 2000; the Arbitrator's Order (Applicant's Exhibit G), dated October 16, 1995, regarding A Development Order Issued by Lake County Approving the Sugarloaf Development of Regional Impact - DOAH Case No. 95-0890DRI - FLWAC Case No. APP-94-92; and Ordinance No. 9-91 (Applicant's Exhibit H), dated February 19, 1991, the underlying PUD.
Ms. Bonifay informed the Board that the request before them was a pretty basic request, noting that there have been a number of extensions of less than five years requested for DRIs, over the period of time that DRIs have been in existence, and she found it interesting that there is no case law regarding it, which she noted is probably due to the fact that it is usually such a straightforward proposition. She referred to the Pennbrooke DRI and questioned why, when it was heard, not one question was asked of that particular applicant, to demonstrate excusable delay, or any reason as to why they needed an extension of four years and 363 days. She stated that she felt the fact that these things have happened in the past was important, as well as the fact that staff may have given conflicting information. She stated that the application in question has been pending since January of this year. She stated that staff knew it was determined to be non-substantial by the State and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the only reason they did anything was because of repeated calls from her questioning why the case had not been put on a Board Agenda, the status of the application, and why it had not been acted upon.
Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, a letter (Applicant's Exhibit I), dated June 15, 2000, from Ms. Farrell to the applicant, advising that because DRIs were originally PUDs and PUDs had to go through a public hearing process, the applicant would have to start a new 90 day process, knowing that the Development Order would expire in December of this year. She stated that there was no mention of Section 14.06.00 of the LDRs (Applicant's Exhibit J) that is now being used, which she noted has been in the County's Comprehensive Plan for at least eight or nine years, that governs the review and approval of DRIs, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that staff is now saying that it did not have anything to do with the fact that it was a PUD. She stated that staff has totally reversed their position since June of this year and there is now a new set of rules. She submitted, for the record, Minutes of the July 26, 1994 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting (Applicant's Exhibit K); and Minutes of the November 15, 1994 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting (Applicant's Exhibit L), which she stated dealt with amendments to existing DRIs that were located in rural areas that were inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, yet staff did not cite Section 14.06.00 of the LDRs, or tell the applicants that they would have to start over, or that any amendment to a DRI that was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan meant that it was divested and would lose its vested rights, nor did they cite any of the inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan, as Ms. Farrell has done this date. She stated that they were, in fact, approved by the Board. She submitted, for the record, two exhibits dealing with the Gatwick II PUD, one being Page 34 of the May 23, 2000 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting (Applicant's Exhibit M); and the other being Page 41 (Applicant's Exhibit N) of the same Minutes.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, if this request is denied, she would question why the County has selected this particular DRI to reinterpret its own rules. She submitted, for the record, a letter (Applicant's Exhibit O) from Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Richey & Crawford, dated May 18, 1999; and a letter (Applicant's Exhibit P) from Mr. Steven J. Richey, Attorney, dated October 19, 1999, addressing the issue of a question that was raised about Pennbrooke Fairways having to go through a public hearing process and the fact that the attorneys had written that it was subject to Chapter 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, which deals with substantial and non-substantial amendments and the fact that a public hearing was not required. She stated that the Statutes state, if the local government does not request a public hearing within 45 days of receipt of the notice, then they cannot ask for one and that would be the situation in this case. She submitted a copy of the Agenda Item Cover Sheet (Applicant's Exhibit Q) requesting an extension of the build-out date for Pennbrooke Fairways from October 8, 2000 to October 1, 2005, which she noted called for none of the criteria that the applicant was being held to this date. She stated that the developments she alluded to were treated as vested developments. She stated that the Agenda Item indicated that, due to changing conditions, the developer of Pennbrooke Fairways would not have their development completed on time and should be given a non-substantial amendment and approval. She submitted, for the record, Page 16 of the Minutes of the March 21, 2000 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting (Applicant's Exhibit R), noting the Board did not discuss or ask staff why the request for an extension was being requested or what they had done to show excusable delay. She stated that the Board approved to extend the build-out date for Pennbrooke Fairways PUD/DRI from October 8,2000 to October 1, 2005, a time period of four years and 365 days. She pointed out the fact that the case was not a District Court of Appeals case, it was not a Supreme Court case, it was a Final Order of an Administrative Hearing officer, which was later vacated by the First District Court of Appeals.
Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, a Recommended Order (Applicant's Exhibit S) from the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, regarding the case of the Edgewater Beach Owners Association vs. Walton County, Florida, Grand Dunes, Ltd., and KPM, Ltd. Company; as well as the Final Order (Applicant's Exhibit T) regarding said case. She stated that she felt what the County was trying to do was backdoor the DRI under the pretext of going through the public hearing process, with regard to the non-compliance issue, to try to do exactly what the Development Order says one cannot do, for a period of twenty-one (21) years, which she feels is to prevent the exact thing that is going on today. She stated that what the County would be continuing, by approving this request, would be the same vested development rights that the applicant had when the process was started on January 19, 2000. She stated that that is all that is being requested and she feels that is what a court will determine.
Ms. Bonifay referred to the 1,200 letters that the County received in opposition to this request, stating that she had compiled a demographics summary (Applicant's Exhibit U) for said letters and found that a total of 843 letters were submitted to the County at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, of which 23 were from the surrounding property area, 819 were from outside the area in question, including out of state, and one was received indicating no address; that 306 were submitted to the County on September 18, 2000, by Mr. Steven Hage, of which 36 were from the surrounding property area, 263 were from outside the area, including out of state, and 7 were received indicating no address. She stated that they found only 59 property owners actually live in the area in question and that the letters of opposition were obtained at various triathlons, utilizing Sugarloaf Mountain as a bike route, and that many of the people were told that all the roads would be four-laned, that there would be no further biking, and that they would not have access to said road, thus the reason for their signing the petitions. She stated that they did not know anything about the development, the project, or what would be required, if the development went into place, therefore, requested the Board to give said letters little or no credence.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the reason there was no statement of excusable delay was due to the fact that the applicant was told to file an amendment to a PUD, which she noted has no build-out dates, or anything to do with this request. She submitted, for the record, the following exhibits: An excerpt from Chapter 380.06(19)(c) of the Florida Statutes (Applicant's Exhibit V); an excerpt from Chapter 380.06(19)(e) of the Florida Statutes (Applicant's Exhibit W); an excerpt from Chapter 380.06(19)()3 of the Florida Statutes (Applicant's Exhibit X); Section 14.04.00 of the Land Development Regulations (Applicant's Exhibit Y); and Section 14.01.04 of the Land Development Regulations (Applicant's Exhibit Z), dealing with the issue of development orders, in relation to PUDS. She stated that the two issues the Board needed to look at was that of vested rights, noting that this is a vested project and that a mere extension does nothing to make it inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it only extends the vesting, which is already in place, and the second issue being that of excusable delay. She submitted, for the record, Objective 1-12A of the Land Development Regulations (Applicant's Exhibit AA), dealing with the issue of vested rights
Mr. Steve Ruoff, Vice President, RealVest Partners, Inc., a market research and real estate company in Maitland, addressed the Board stating that he has been involved with the Sugarloaf Mountain property for a number of years, noting that his firm initially did the market research portion of the DRI and also marketed the property for approximately two years. He stated that they marketed the property to major developers around the country, focusing mainly on retirement community developers, given the property's location and rural road structure. He stated that most of the developers that looked at the property, including some local developers, were somewhat disturbed by the Development Order and the fact that it required, in later phasing, the four-laning of most of the roads surrounding the project. He stated that the reality of the matter is that the infrastructure requirements under the DRI, in the later phasing, require a tremendous financial commitment that he has seen few developments of such relatively small size have to endure. He stated that several major developers looked at the project, however, walked away from it, because of the development requirements and the uncomfortableness of moving ahead with a development in Lake County, at this point in time. He answered questions from Ms. Bonifay and the Board regarding this request, at which time he clarified the fact that he is a real estate broker and not a developer, builder, or mortgage financier.
At this time, Ms. Bonifay showed the Board a video of an interview that she had taped earlier in the day with Mr. Karick Price, one of the principals in this matter, noting that he was confined to a wheelchair with multiple sclerosis and would not be able to stay until such time as this case could be heard. Mr. Price indicated that the reason for his wanting to develop the property in question was due to the fact that it was no longer viable as a citrus grove, due to several freezes that the County has experienced over the years and his failing health, and it was a way for him to provide for his family's future, noting that he has sold all other properties that he owned and the property in question is the only property he has left.
Mr. Phillip Tatish, Attorney, representing Mr. Willoughby T. Cox, Jr., the owner of approximately 900 of the 1,400 acres that is known as Sugarloaf Mountain and the other principal in this case, addressed the Board stating that Mr. Cox is a licensed real estate broker, as well as an attorney and licensed mortgage broker. He stated that Mr. Cox has also experienced declining health over the past few years and he became involved with this case, on Mr. Cox's behalf, over two years ago, when he was named as one of the co-trustees of the trust that owns and manages the bulk of Mr. Cox's assets. He stated that the purpose of his being present at this meeting was to discuss the issue of excusable delay. He stated that it has been presented to the Board, from the outset, that the two principles involved in this process have, through the passage of time and the aging process, not been able to do the things that they envisioned doing, when they began the process in the late 1980s, and he found it offensive that the applicant has been accused of not proceeding in good faith. He stated that he was concerned about the presentation by staff of several reports and the fact that they have taken a position that is so clearly in opposition to the applicant. He stated that, under the equal protection laws and provisions of the Constitution, staff has a duty to inform the Board dispassionately, respectively, openly, clearly, and completely the issues that they should consider, so they do not make mistakes. He stated that they are usurping the responsibility of the Board, by making a foregone conclusion that the request is bad, without even giving the Board the opportunity to give consideration to the issue of excusable delay. He stated that nowhere in the Staff Report did they address excusable delay. He stated that it is the Board's responsibility to consider what is heard and whether or not they find it meets the standards that their common sense would tell them should be met.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt Mr. Tatish and Ms. Bonifay did staff a real disservice with their comments, noting that he felt what staff did was something that one seldom sees in government, which is admitting they made mistakes in the past, with regard to review of other DRIs, in particular Pennbrooke, and he applauded them for that. He stated that he also applauded them, with regard to this case, noting that it was an extremely difficult case for them to review.
Commr. Hanson questioned when staff determined that they had made a mistake, with regard to Pennbrooke, noting that she felt it was a very important mistake, regardless of whether staff admitted it or not, and very crucial to this case.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that it was determined while reviewing this request, noting that, because staff realized this case would be a difficult and important one for the Board, both he and Ms. Farrell were personally involved, perhaps more so than what they are normally involved. He stated that they determined that staff had made a mistake at or about the time that a letter was sent to Ms. Bonifay indicating that she needed to make the application, which was approximately in June of this year.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she would like for the record to reflect that there is a drop-dead date indicated in the Development Order and that the next sentence tells the applicant what to do to apply for an extension, if they do not meet that deadline date. She stated that she found it to be prejudicial that nothing has been put in the Development Order about common law vesting. She stated that the only determination that was put in the Development Order was statutory, which states that the applicant has to start development and continue in good faith, as if that were the only criteria the Board should be looking at, when the criteria is excusable delay, in terms of whether or not the applicant should get an extension, not whether or not they started. She stated that the applicant would not be present this date asking for an extension, had they commenced development. She stated that that question keeps being asked over and over and the answer is going to keep being "No", because the applicant would not need the extension, if they had done what was stipulated initially.
Mr. Steve Price, Attorney, son of Mr. Karick Price, one of the principals in this case, addressed the Board and answered questions from Ms. Bonifay about his father's health and the fact that he has assumed all responsibilities, with regard to the Sugarloaf Mountain property, on his father's behalf. He stated that he was present this date, because of his family's property rights, noting that, by virtue of their belief that they have common law vesting, the County's ability to find, or fail to find, excusable delay affects his family's property rights. He stated that his family has owned the property in question, which was citrus groves, for over 60 years and worked the groves, until they were groves no more. He stated that property rights may not mean a lot to some people, when it is not their property rights that are being affected, but it is his property rights that are being affected. He discussed the issue of excusable delay, noting that the County approved it and his family's property was deemed to be common law vested. He stated that most of the County employees that were involved with this case originally are no longer with the County, which has added to the difficulty of the case. He stated that he was not aware of any DRI that has the level of complexity that this case has and he felt that that should not be ignored. He stated that his family has tried to market the property and has failed; however, they now have the people, the team, and the resources to do it.
Mr. John Reaves, one of the principals in this case, addressed the Board stating that he began negotiations with the applicant approximately one year ago and was able to enter into a contract in late July, or early August, of this year. He stated that he began contacting local engineers, market analysts, biological engineers, etc., when the proposed development was put on the back burner. He stated that, in early September of this year, he went before the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this case, and has been waiting for this meeting, in order to proceed. He stated that the property in question is a beautiful piece of property and he envisions a first class development, with panoramic views of Lake Apopka. He stated that a tremendous team has been put together and is ready for action, pending approval of an extension by the Board. He answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Mr. Egor Emery, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that he is a bicyclist and motorcyclist and that a portion of his income comes from the bicycle and motorcycle industry, which uses the Sugarloaf Mountain area extensively. He stated that he is also a member of the Lake County Conservation Council and a citizen of Lake County, therefore, feels he has a vested interest in this project. He stated that the Board has a straightforward method to deal with the issue of density, which is to deny the extension, and that, by doing so, they can go back to the beginning of the process and look at this project within the realm of the Comprehensive Plan that is currently in place. He stated that they do not need to cut the densities in half, they need to look at what is on the ground today, which is 10%, not 50%. He stated that the Board has a unique opportunity to move forward in a positive way and he hoped they would do so. He discussed the issue of excusable delay and noted that, with regard to the issue of timeliness, the development fails to meet it. He stated that smart growth is what is needed in Lake County, not bad growth, and this project is an example of bad growth. He requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Alan Oyler, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and discussed the road improvements that will have to be done in the Sugarloaf Mountain area, per the Development Order, should this request be approved. He stated that said area is one of the most popular bicycling areas in Central Florida, noting that it is heavily used by recreational cyclists. He stated that the proposed development will create an increase in traffic volume on the roads, adding to the potential conflict between cyclists and motorists. He submitted a handout (Opposition's Exhibit A) that he had prepared, for the record, containing various letters, newspaper articles, charts, maps, and fact sheets, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that, contrary to what some might find hard to believe, the residents are not opposed to development, they are opposed to urban sprawl - growth that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and growth that places what amounts to a small municipality in the heart of a rural area. He stated that he would be addressing the request for an extension of the Development Order and, in doing so, would be covering a number of issues that the residents feel are important for the Board to consider. He stated that staff was recommending denial of the extension, while the Planning and Zoning Commission vote was split, by a 4-4 vote. He stated that the decision the Board makes regarding this request will have a profound impact on the Sugarloaf Mountain area, noting that it will determine the pattern of development that is going to occur in that area for years to come. He stated that the information before the Board was at least five years old; therefore, the citizens of Sugarloaf Mountain felt it was important to bring new light to what is going on, with regard to development in the area. He stated that, for the Board to be able to make an informed decision about the request, they needed current information.
Ms. Barbara Turcyn, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area for approximately 16 years, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and displayed an aerial (Opposition's Exhibit B) of the Sugarloaf Mountain area that was taken in 1987 and an aerial (Opposition's Exhibit C) that was taken in 1998, showing the increase in population on the mountain over the years. She stated that she updated the 1998 aerial to the year 2000, noting that she knows where all the houses in the area have been built since 1998. She submitted said aerials, for the record. She also submitted, for the record, three (3) pictures (Opposition's Exhibit D) showing one of the activities that the residents of Sugarloaf Mountain engage in, along with an article (Opposition's Exhibit E) from The Lake Sentinel, dated May 6, 1989, stating that Mr. Willoughby T. Cox, Jr., once a part-owner of the Lakeside Inn in Mt. Dora, had been buying parcel after parcel, over the span of a couple of years, because he predicted the area would be a PUD, with an 18 hole golf course, and expensive houses. She requested the Board to deny the extension and allow the DRI to die, noting that the application for the old plan would die with it and the current Comprehensive Plan would come into play. She stated that, for the Board to cast a vote to extend the DRI would be casting a vote against the County's current Comprehensive Plan. She submitted, for the record, a map (Opposition's Exhibit F) of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, indicating the Sugarloaf DRI, property that is owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District, residents and landowners opposed to the proposed development, those residents who are neutral or undecided, and those residents who are in favor of the development.
Mr. Oyler readdressed the Board stating that, as he was reviewing the DRI information, what kept coming up was the availability of services to the site in question, in particular, fire and emergency services and utility services. He stated that there were several questions in the ADA (Application for Development Approval) and the subsequent documents that went with it that, in his mind, were inadequately addressed and he feels are still inadequately addressed. He stated that he included in his handout a letter from Ms. Linda Maresca, Finance Director, Lake County Sheriff's Office, dated April 27, 1993; and from Mr. Craig Haun, Senior Director, Department of Fire and Emergency Services for Lake County, dated May 27, 1993, regarding the original ADA that was filed for the property in question. He stated that neither one of those agencies, at that time, was particularly thrilled about having the proposed development in a rural area of the County and, in fact, indicated that they were going to have difficulty in providing said services. He reviewed a fact sheet that he had prepared indicating anticipated response times for fire (10 minutes) and emergency services (15 minutes), as well as law enforcement (15 minutes), to the area in question. He submitted, for the record, a booklet (Opposition's Exhibit G) from the Lake County Sheriff's Office, containing information about an in-depth study (Lake County Sheriff's Office Staff Study Manpower Projection, Excluding Corrections) that the Sheriff's Office conducted to project manpower needs from October 1995 through the year 2009. He stated that the projected population of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, based on data contained within said study, will make it the seventh largest municipality in Lake County.
Mr. Oyler discussed the issue of water consumption by communities in the Lake County area, at which time he reviewed a fact sheet (Projected Water Demand for Sugarloaf Development) that he had included within his handout, indicating that 29,032 people can be served by the water demand predicted for the proposed development. He stated that, at a previous meeting, he had given a presentation about the Water 2020 Program, noting that the St. Johns River Water Management District has gone to a lot of time and expense to model what is going to occur in the Lake County area, as a result of the current projected water demands, at which time he submitted, for the record, the Water 2020 Work Group Area I Conceptual Water Supply Plan (Opposition's Exhibit H), by the St. Johns River Water Management District and CH2M HILL. He reviewed a Needs Analysis Table that had been prepared (included within his handout), indicating water supply needs for the various service areas within Lake County, however, noted that Sugarloaf was not included in said table. He stated that, at the demand that has been projected for the proposed development, it will use more water than has been projected for the entire City of Tavares, in the middle of a rural area.
Mr. Oyler stated that, in addition to water quantity concerns, there are major water quality concerns for the Sugarloaf Mountain area, at which time he submitted, for the record, a report titled "Monitoring Vadose-Zone Soil Water for Reducing Nitrogen Leaching on Golf Courses" (Opposition's Exhibit I), put out by the 2000 American Chemical Society; and a questionnaire titled "Reclaimed Wastewater Use in Ridge and Central Florida Chapters of the Florida Golf Course Superintents' Association" (Opposition's Exhibit J), that was used to poll 85 golf courses in the Central Florida area, regarding their management activities, with regard to reclaimed water irrigation rates for golf courses and groundwater contamination caused by nutrient levels being increased, as a result of the golf courses trying to maintain a good green turf. He stated that all the residents in the Sugarloaf Mountain area have shallow wells and are very concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination, as a result of golf course activities. He noted that the Development Order does address this particular issue, which he read into the Minutes. He stated that many people from all walks of life have expressed their support of the position of the residents of Sugarloaf Mountain.
Mr. Steve Hage, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that 843 letters were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 2000, requesting denial of this request; 306 additional letters were presented to them last week; and he had 175 more letters this date to add to that figure. He submitted said letters (Opposition's Exhibit H) to the Board, for the record. He stated that the letters were collected in good faith and noted that nothing had been stated out-of-fact. He stated that, in addition to support from the local residents, they also have the support of various committees in the community, which he listed. He stated that Sugarloaf Mountain is the trademark of Lake County, a spot that shows the rest of Florida and the nation what a pristine area it is and, with that, a lot of money has been spent attracting triathletes from all the world to this area, because of its fantastic training grounds and conditions. He noted that the British Olympic Triathlon Team trains in Lake County, in the Sugarloaf Mountain area. He stated that Lake County made a commitment to said athletes and asked the Board to not change it. He stated that Lake County attracted the U.S.A. National Triathlon Training Center to come to the County over other locations that they could have selected and they are currently investing millions of dollars in a state-of-the-art facility at South Lake Hospital, to continue their training facility. He stated that Central Florida is trying to attract the 2012 Summer Olympics and, when the Olympic Committee comes to evaluate the Central Florida area, they are going to look at the Sugarloaf Mountain area, where the Triathlon will occur, and, if they see major congestion, they will blow Lake County off, causing it to lose the Summer Olympics. He asked the Board to not ruin it for the athletes and residents of the Central Florida area. He stated that the residents are not against development, as long as it is consistent with the area. He stated that they were asking the Board to manage the growth and preserve the rights of the individuals that purchased property in the area for its peacefulness, tranquility, and natural beauty. He stated that they, too, have rights to their land. He asked the Board to consider the information being presented this date, to listen to those members of the public who have stated their cases, and vote with their conscience.
Mr. Bob Resetar, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that the residents of Sugarloaf Mountain fully understand the position of the developers, but, they do not agree with it. He stated that the residents have no animosity for them, their partners, or their legal counsel, they were just present to ask the Board to make a crucial decision for all the residents of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, noting that the Board's decision will affect the quality of life in their community and the value of their land. He asked the Board to deny the request.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 7:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PETITION NO. PH7A-00-3 - AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER - AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON/CECELIA BONIFAY
SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN (CONT'D.)
Ms. Patricia Burgos, Lake County Water Authority, addressed the Board stating that the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees met September 20, 2000 and, at that meeting, they voted to present to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 00-10 (Opposition's Exhibit L), in opposition to the requested time extension for the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact, which she read into the Minutes and presented to the Board, for the record.
Ms. Ann Wetstein Griffin, a water conservationist, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that she would like to speak against the extension of the DRI, the reason being that Lake County has a critical water supply crisis and it is a priority water resource caution area. She reviewed some statistics that she had prepared that she had obtained from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), to make the Board aware of the seriousness of the situation. She stated that the SJRWMD predicts that 693,000 acres of wetlands in their district will be impacted by groundwater withdrawals and that 108,000 acres will lose complete biological function, due to groundwater pumping. She stated that they reported that 700 of the wells in their district failed and the Associated Press reported that four million trees in Florida have been impacted by the drought, and the pumping out of the Floridan Aquifer is going to hurt the County's live oaks and cypress trees. She stated that the proposed development will have a huge groundwater withdrawal. She stated that, in Pasco County and in the Tampa Bay area, 35,000 acres of lakes, swamps, and marshes went dry and will not come back, due to groundwater withdrawal. She stated that the effects of such withdrawals may not be noticed until it is too late; therefore, she feels the Board should take the County's critical water supply crisis into consideration, when making their decision regarding this request.
Mr. Fred Sommer, CFT/Sommer Sports, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that each year thousands of athletes come to the Central Florida area to cycle and participate in events. He stated that the Sugarloaf Mountain area is the most cycled area in the entire State of Florida and is designated as one of the top areas in the country to cycle. He stated that the sport of Triathlon became an Olympic sport just a few weeks ago and the sports national governing body is moving from Colorado Springs to Clermont, to the U.S.A. Triathlon National Training Center. He stated that the reason they are moving to this area is so the Olympic team can train in the Clermont area - they can cycle in the Sugarloaf Mountain area, swim in the clean waters of Lake Minneola, run in the area's trail structures, etc. He stated that, if there is development in the Sugarloaf area of the density being proposed by the development in question, creating four-lane roads and the additional traffic, there is a very good chance that many of the events will disappear. He stated that, if Florida is awarded the bid for the 2012 Olympics, Clermont is going to be one of the hot spots for teams to come to, to train. He stated that teams from all over the world will be coming to Clermont and spending months and months, years in advance, getting used to the heat and humidity. He stated that they will be perfect role models for our children in the future. He stated that, to have Olympic caliber athletes training in the Central Florida area on a regular basis is going to be great; however, all of that could disappear, if this development is allowed to continue as planned.
Ms. Ruth Russell Gray, President, Lake County Conservation Council, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that the Lake County Conservation Council is against this development and has been opposed to it for 10 years, therefore, feels that the Board should not approve it. She stated that the Council was formed 30 years ago and has been fighting for a certain quality of life since then. She stated that they believe in the County's Comprehensive Plan, because they feel it creates certainty, stability, and consistency and should not be eroded, a little bit here and a little bit there. She stated that, if a mistake has been made by staff, with regard to a prior development, two wrongs do not make a right. She referred to Section 14.01.04 of the Land Development Regulations, stating that it states that once a Development Order is issued it cannot be changed, without first obtaining a modification of the Development Order, and it must be applied for in the same manner as the original Development Order. She stated that there is a doctrine in the law called "latches", which means that, if one sleeps on one's rights, they are not rewarded for it, they are penalized. She stated that the applicant is guilty of "latches"; therefore, the Board should decline their request for an extension.
Mr. Mark Venzke, a resident of the unincorporated area of Sumter County, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that he was the Editor and Administrator for PCD Publishing, a family-owned business, and that approximately 75% of their family's business activity and impact is in Lake County. He read a statement (Opposition's Exhibit M) into the record, indicating that he is a member of conservation organizations active in Lake County and support their position on this issue. He stated that he is a triathlete and regular participant/volunteer in the CFT/Sommer Sports triathlons that take place in Clermont, which he feels are great wholesome activities that the County should encourage, accommodate, and promote. He stated that participants come to the County from around the world and bring a substantial amount of business to the County. He stated that the triathlons are vulnerable to overall high-density and poorly balanced development in south Lake County, like the development in question, and an increase in traffic on the roads will make training for and participating in triathlons in the area more dangerous and the housing and commercial developments will make training for and participating in triathlons less enjoyable. He stated that, if the quality of the triathlons diminish, so will the number of their participants and the tremendous positive effect they have on Lake County. He urged the Board to reject the extension of the Development Order for the Sugarloaf Mountain project.
Ms. Kathy Widner, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board and asked them to hold the developers to the same standards that they hold individual builders to, noting that, when she obtained the permits to build her home, she had 12 months to do so and, if she had not completed it within that time frame, she would have had to obtain additional permits, therefore, requested the Board to deny the extension being requested by the applicant, for their short vision in thinking they were going to have something in less time than they could have it.
Mr. Ron Kurtz, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, stating that the Development Order states the Sugarloaf Mountain project shall not commence beyond Phase I into Phase II, when the service levels are below the minimum service level adopted in the applicable local government's comprehensive plan during peak hours and the project contributes, or is projected to contribute, within the next phase of traffic, 10% or greater to the Level of Service C volume of the roadway or intersection, as determined by the monitoring program set forth in the DRI. He stated that his road is already at Level of Service D, therefore, questioned why the developer would be allowed to start his project, until the roads in the area are widened and improved, which is estimated to cost approximately $27 million, with the developer's fair share being $102,000.00. He questioned when it was all going to end and where everybody was going to go.
Mr. Bob Smith, President, Lake County Voters League, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and asked the Board to not ignore laws for special interests. He addressed the issue of school impact fees on new residents, noting that one of these days everyone will recognize that the Board of County Commissioners has a far greater impact on schools than the Lake County School Board does. He stated that, if the Board does not assure scheduled growth, consistent with the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and if they do not establish annual limits on such growth, there will continue to be no reasonable projections of classroom requirements, location, or numbers, and disaster will follow. He stated that the School System sits on a ticking time bomb, at the present time, powered by unscheduled growth and fused by an unwillingness to tax sufficiently and fund growth impacts in a timely manner. He stated that the proposed development would only make explosions bigger and the fuse smaller. He asked the Board to not burden school systems with open-ended permits. He addressed the issue of increased traffic in the area and asked the Board to not add to delays and to risks to life the residents in the area now face on their roads. He addressed the issue of golf courses and the fact that he feels they are purely a commercial enterprise, noting that neighbors cannot wander through the greens, or hold neighborhood picnics on the fairways, and that the clubhouse, where sales and restaurant services are conducted, is a deception to benefit developers. He addressed the issue of impact fees and stated that the proposed development was out of place at the time that it was originally approved and is far more inappropriate to the location today. He stated that, not only would it have drastic adverse effects on the quality of life of its neighbors, but would badly affect the lives of many citizens, over a broad zone. He stated that its approval would establish a major precedent for overturning other expirations, where no comparable precedent exists. He stated that he hoped the Board would never get into the habit of changing the Comprehensive Plan to satisfy a particular developer's needs. He stated that he felt it was impossible to morally and legally do anything, but to allow the Development Order to expire, therefore, requested the Board to vote a final "No" to the request.
Mr. John Hall, a resident of the Sugarloaf Mountain area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition's Exhibit N) that he had prepared containing various reports, maps, charts, etc., with regard to the proposed development, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that, if the Board opened the door to the Sugarloaf Mountain development, it would be opening the door to any PUD that wants to come into the area after that and, eventually, there will be 30-40,000 people on the Sugarloaf Mountain ridge, one of the highest recharge areas in the entire Lake County area. He questioned what the County will do when the lakes in the area dry up even more than they are drying up now. He stated that it might not effect the residents for five years, but questioned what is going to happen down the road, for his children and their children. He urged the Board to consider that fact and say "No" to the proposed development.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board stating that they had heard a lot of information this date, some factual and some not, which she elaborated on. She stated that there were really only two issues, one being that of the vested rights of this particular development, noting that it is a common law vesting, which means that development does not have to commence, it never had to commence, and it did not have to continue in good faith. She stated that the vested rights were spelled out in the Development Order, which she noted was determined at the time of the approval that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, not because it actually was, but by virtue of its vested rights. She stated that all the applicant has asked for is a continuation of those vested rights, which is a determining factor. She stated that there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that was contained in the Staff Report that dealt with common law vesting. She stated that there was no mention of it in Chapter 163, which was overlooked, as part of the Staff Report, in fact, noted that staff did not look at it or take it into consideration, yet she feels it is the guts of this argument. She stated that those vested rights do not have an expiration. She stated that they do not quit, nor are they barred by "latches", as alluded to earlier.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the only thing the Board has to look at are the vested rights of this particular Development Order and excusable delay, which she feels was amply demonstrated by the testimony heard this date, due to the health concerns of both the principals in this matter and their inability to move forward themselves, specifically Mr. Cox, who was at one point the developer, and the fact that they asserted good faith efforts to find either a joint venture partner, or someone else to come in on this project. She stated that every other condition in the Development Order would have had to have been met, before the applicant could pull the first building permit, so to say that all they had to do was pull a building permit is ludicrous. She stated that she felt they had proven their case, in showing excusable delay and the fact that the project is vested, therefore, requested the Board to approve the extension, noting that they were the only things at issue. She submitted, for the record, a copy of Objective 1-12A (Applicant's Exhibit AA).
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Pool informed those present that he applauded their way of life and what they were trying to preserve at Sugarloaf Mountain. He stated that he felt mistakes had been made, but that he did not feel this would be the end of the problems involving the Sugarloaf Mountain development and that that was a point he wanted the residents to understand. He stated that something will happen on Sugarloaf Mountain, but to what extent and how much of it will develop, he did not know; however, he did not feel that Mr. Price and Ms. Bonifay were going to sit back and allow the applicant's vested rights to disappear. He stated that the residents may win this date, but he feels that in two months, six months, or a year, they may be faced with the very same problem again. He stated that the case would probably go to litigation. He stated that he could not support the continuation of the proposed densities, therefore, would vote to deny the request.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Swartz to deny the request for an extension of the Development Order for the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A./Cecelia Bonifay, Rezoning Case No. PH7A-00-3, Tracking No. 73-00-PUD/AMD.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that it was clear that the applicant had not proceeded with the development that was approved, yet the Development Order states that the applicant must have substantially proceeded with the development that was approved within a five year timeframe, despite their efforts to package, get investors, developers, etc., therefore, there was no excusable delay, which is the crux of the issue. He discussed the issue of downzoning, as well. He stated that he felt staff had done a good job and he appreciated the fact that they admitted they had made a mistake, with regard to Pennbrooke, and would not make that mistake again.
Commr. Hanson stated that the arbitrator found, in 1991, from his report, that the Planning and Zoning Commission, county staff, and the Board of County Commissioners all determined that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, at that time; however, there have been significant changes in the area since then. She stated that she felt it could be a good project and has given support for it, but feels that the densities are currently too high. She stated that the bottom line is that there has not been substantial proceeding on the project and on the development; therefore, she would also be voting to deny the request.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
______________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/9-26-2000/10-12-2000/boardmin