The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 22, 2001, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Robert A. Pool, Vice Chairman; Debbie Stivender; Jennifer Hill; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager; Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; 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
It was the consensus of the Board to address Tabs 2 and 3, under the County Manager's Departmental Business, before the Rezoning cases were heard.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following request:
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Building Department/Growth Management
Request from Growth Management for approval and execution of a Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Oakmont Land Development, LLC, relating to the issuance of six building permits in the Oakmont at Silver Lake subdivision, prior to the acceptance and recordation of the final plat - Commission District 1.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the Transportation Disadvantaged Plan was submitted to the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board, for approval, on Monday, May 21, 2001.
Commr. Stivender, Liaison Commissioner on the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board, informed the Board that the plan was approved, however, some minor changes needed to be made to it. She stated that, due to the fact that it is a working document, those changes can easily be made. She stated that the plan needed to be submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation as soon as possible.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of the Lake County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan for FY 2001-2003.
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS/GRANTS/PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend the Trip and Equipment Grant Agreement, AJ922, which he noted would reduce the amount of the grant. He stated that the County's match, which is $15,623.00, is being reduced to $10,512.00, because the State's funds have been reduced from $140,000.00 to $94,000.00.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of the amended Trip and Equipment Grant Agreement, AJ922, between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
REZONING
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board, stating that there were two changes to the Rezoning Agenda. She stated that Rezoning Case No. CUP01/4/3-2, Andy and Joni Hansen, a request for a Conditional Use Permit in A (Agriculture), to construct a boat ramp and dock for skiing purposes, had been withdrawn and that Rezoning Case No. CUP01/3/2-4, Florida Recycling Services, Inc., Don Codding, Steven J. Richey, PA, a request for a CUP amendment to existing CUP Nos. 186-4 and 340-4 for sand, clay, and clean fill material (borrow pit), with C&D materials disposed, as part of the project operation and reclamation plan, requested a 30 day continuance, until the Board Meeting of June 26, 2001.
The Chairman opened the public hearing for Rezoning Case No. CUP01/3/2-4.
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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30 day continuance for Rezoning Case No. CUP01/3/2-4, Florida Recycling Services, Inc., Don Codding, Steven J. Richey, PA.,Tracking No. 27-01-CUP/AMD, until the Board Meeting of June 26, 2001, as requested by the applicant.
PETITION NO. PH35-01-4 - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING ORDINANCE
NO. 1997-61 - CITY OF EUSTIS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that the City of Eustis owns a 312 acre parcel of property in east Lake County, which they have an ordinance on, that they would like to add a wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, percolation ponds, and an effluent and reuse disposal operation as a permitted use to the existing approved uses. She stated that there have been no concerns noted about the parcel since 1982, since the City of Eustis has owned it and used it as a spray field. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved it, as well, with the condition that the City of Eustis shall be responsible for the operation. She stated that they will pull all the Department of Environmental Protection permits and, when they come to the County for construction permits and go through the DRS review, staff will look at setbacks and other environmental issues.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Alton Roane, Director of Development Services, City of Eustis, addressed the Board, stating that he was present to answer any questions they may have regarding this request. He stated that county staff had done its usual excellent job of analysis and presentation of the proposed project.
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. Stivender, 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. 2001-78 - City of Eustis, Rezoning Case No. PH35-01-4, Tracking No. 82-01-CFD/AMD, a request for an amendment to existing Ordinance No. 1997-61, to include a wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, percolation ponds, and an effluent and reuse disposal operation as a permitted use to the existing approved uses.
PETITION NO. MSP01/5/1-3 - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING MSP417E-3 - THOMPSON S. BAKER, II/STEVEN J. RICHEY, ESQUIRE
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for an MSP for Florida Rock Industries - Astatula Sand Mine. She stated that the sand mine has been in Astatula since the 1970s and they now want to add 7.5 acres to their current MSP. She stated that they have met all of the County's requirements, therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.
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.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the stock pile that has been on the site for the past 20 to 30 years would be removed.
Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant has been working on removing it.
It was noted that the stock pile has been the only complaint that the County has received about this company.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the applicant would still be adhering to the County's mining regulations, as far as the reclamation process is concerned, since the County is deleting Item D. from the Ordinance, which states, "Before an operating permit is issued, the applicant or operator shall provide proof of financial responsibility and shall file with the Board of County Commissioners a compliance and reclamation guarantee to ensure that the mine is developed, operated, and reclaimed in conformance with the Lake County Land Development Regulations, the approved mining site plan, and the operating permit."
Ms. Farrell stated that the Reclamation Plan and Operating Permit will still have to meet current codes.
Commr. Hill questioned, in the event the applicant decides to sell the property in question before the reclamation process is completed, whether the new owners would be required to adhere to the Ordinance, or whether they will have to file a new proof of financial responsibility.
Ms. Farrell stated that they would have to follow the mining and operating permit, much like subdivision or site plans are handled, which runs with the land.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that said requirements are in the Code; therefore, it was duplication to have them in this site plan. He noted that the applicant will have to meet those requirements.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-79 - Thompson S. Baker, II/Florida Rock Industries/Steven J. Richey, Esquire, Rezoning Case No. MSP01/5/1-3,Tracking No. 86-01-MSP, a request for an amendment to existing MSP417E-3, to add 7.5 acres zoned Heavy Industrial to the project area for future mining and excavation.
PETITION NO. PH25-01-4 - A +RMRP TO CFD - DEWEY AND SHIRLEY WILKEY
ROBERT MOORE
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Moose Lodge in the Astor area, located on 7.8 acres, off CR 455, in a rural area. She stated that staff was recommending approval, noting that they see it as a community use, to serve existing needs. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval. She stated that there were some general conditions to the request, contained in the Board's backup material, as well as in the Ordinance. She noted that there were two letters of support 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. Cadwell, 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. 2001-80 - Dewey and Shirley Wilkey/Robert Moore, Rezoning Case No. PH25-01-4, Tracking No. 74-01-CFD, a request for rezoning from A + RMRP to CFD, for construction of a Moose Lodge and accessory uses related thereto.
PETITION NO. CUP01/5/1-3 - CUP IN A - RHONDA VEGA
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture), for a 30 stall kennel for dogs, on approximately 32 acres in the Yalaha area. She stated that the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) allows up to 19 dogs, without a CUP. She stated that there will be some traffic generated from the applicant's customers entering and exiting the establishment. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however, noted that the structure, as the Ordinance reads, will be required to be soundproofed. She stated that there was some discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting about whether the building needed to be air conditioned, or whether some other type of system could be utilized, however, noted that staff was not concerned about the type of system that will be utilized, as long as the building is soundproofed. She state that the Planning and Zoning Commission amended the Ordinance, to provide for 44 adult dogs and 12 dogs under the age of six months. She stated that the operating hours are addressed in the Ordinance, as well as the maximum building square footage. She stated that staff does not anticipate any issues with this request, therefore, they are recommending approval of it.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt, and Eidson, addressed the Board, representing the applicant, stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission gave this request a unanimous recommendation of approval, based on the Staff Report, which states that the request is consistent and compatible with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, for a total of 44 adult dogs and 12 puppies that belong to the applicants, Mr. Larry Carson and Ms. Rhonda Vega. She stated that she felt there was some misunderstanding, with regard to some letters that the Board received about the request, noting that the applicants breed only their own dogs (Jack Russell Terriers). She stated that the request is for a kennel only, which she noted will take all types of dogs, not just Jack Russell Terriers, and all the applicants will be doing will be feeding and exercising the dogs. She stated that the applicants do not have a problem with the Ordinance, as proposed.
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. Stivender, 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. 2001-81 - Rhonda Vega/Larry Carson/Terry Holihen, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, PA, Rezoning Case No. CUP01/5/1-3, Tracking No. 84-01-CUP, a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture), for a 30 stall boarding kennel for dogs, with a condition that the facility be fully enclosed, for the purpose of noise control, within a building not to exceed a maximum of 3,500 square feet.
PETITION NO. CUP01/5/2-2 - CUP IN A - WILLIAM H. TEAL, TEAL & SONS, INC.
JEFF YOUNG, SPRINT PCS
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 A (Agriculture), for a 152 foot monopole tower, on a 20 acre parcel, in the south Lake County area. She stated that the tower will be located centrally on the parcel in question. She stated that it meets the County's separation standards, setback standards, and all other standards related to towers; therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request. She stated that there was no opposition to the request. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, with the change that no landscaping be required and that the lighting requirements only meet those as required by the Federal Aviation Authority, which she noted staff can live with.
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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-82 - William H. Teal/ Teal & Sons, Inc./Jeff Young, Sprint PCS, Rezoning Case No. CUP01/5/2-2, Tracking No. 81-01-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture), for placement of a 152 foot monopole tower, with equipment shelter and ancillary facilities.
PETITION NO. PH19-01-2 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE NO.90-88 - CANIN ASSOCIATES/JPC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend a PUD Ordinance, to reflect a 10 foot rear yard setback, in lieu of a 25 foot setback. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there was some discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as to why the County would amend only a certain number of lots; however, they approved the request, by a 9-1 vote.
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.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County had granted any variances on the setback for the existing houses in the development.
Ms. Farrell stated that the County had not, noting that, with a PUD Ordinance, one cannot take cases individually to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Jim Hall, representing Canin Associates, the applicant, addressed the Board and answered questions regarding those individuals who have already had pools constructed on their properties, using existing setbacks. He stated that the reason for the reduced setbacks is to allow pools with screened enclosures behind the homes. He stated that they were going to have to apply for the reduced setback for each and every lot; therefore, they felt it was more prudent to bring the matter to the Board's attention and let the Board make a decision regarding it, rather than doing it on a case-by-case basis.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-83 - JPC Development/Arrowhead Canin Associates, Rezoning Case No. PH19-01-2, Tracking No. 30-01-PUD/AMD, a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance No. 90-88, to amend the setbacks within the development from 25 feet to 10 feet, to allow residents to construct swimming pools and enclosures.
PETITION NO. PH28-01-2 - A + CUP NO. 95/11/1-2 TO CP - MASCOT INVESTMENTS, INC./JIMMY CRAWFORD/GRAY HARRIS, ROBINSON, HOVIS, BOYETTE & CRAWFORD, PA
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from Mascot Investments, Inc., which has an existing CUP on agriculturally zoned property that was granted in 1996 for drying and baling of agricultural products, to amend the CUP to CP (Planned Commercial), to allow wholesale warehouses for storage and shipping of surplus hotel/motel equipment. She stated that the request involves an 8.5 acre parcel on SR 50, in the Mascotte area. She stated that the site could not meet the County's commercial locational criteria, or its Comprehensive Plan policies to rezone it to an industrial use. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, with some limitations as to the use, noting that they are recommending that the total uses be limited to 5,000 square feet of commercial retail, wholesale storage use of the remaining 7,000 square feet of the existing building, and that landscaping be required, when triggered by the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. She stated that the request would be a change of use; therefore, the landscaping requirements would have to be met, should the Board approve the request. She stated that the request is not a neighborhood convenience need, noting that staff did not see it as a truly industrial use and central water and sewer is not available at the site; therefore, they could not recommend approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray, Harris, Robinson, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, representing the applicant, addressed the Board, stating that they had before them the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of May 2, 2001, in which this case was addressed, at which time he highlighted various portions of said Minutes. He stated that staff was not recommending approval for two reasons, being: (1) they do not think it is appropriate as a new industrial use, because there is no water and sewer connection to the site; and (2) it does not meet commercial locational criteria. He stated that the site is adjacent to a municipality, but it is only point to point, which he noted some people believe does not support annexation. He stated that the site could be found as a neighborhood activity center. He stated that it is located 1/4 mile from Tuscanooga Road, which is still classified as a local road, although it should be classified as a collector road. He stated that, if the road were reclassified, the applicant would meet the criteria. He stated that the site could also be called a neighborhood convenience center, which allows for up to 5,000 square feet of retail, which is all the applicant is asking for. He stated that the applicant deals with hotel/motel equipment resale, which they purchase from Disney World and resale to hotels, condos, residents in the area, etc. He stated that the applicant saw a need for limited commercial resale of used furniture, equipment, etc., in that area, therefore, is asking to be able to cordon off up to 5,000 square feet of the warehouse to house said items. He stated that the building was originally a berry drying facility, where berries were cooked, dried, and baled, which he noted generated more noise, odors, and traffic than what the requested use will generate. He stated that the building will sit vacant, unless the applicant is allowed to do something with it. He reviewed various county policies and objectives that support the request, at which time he noted that the facility is located on a 10 acre parcel, the road fronting the facility is classified as level of service B, and there is more than adequate water and sewer facilities to service the parcel.
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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-84 - Mascot Investments, Inc., Jimmy Crawford, Esquire,
Rezoning Case No. PH28-01-2, Tracking No. 76-01-CP, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) + CUP95/11/1-2 to CP (Planned Commercial), to allow wholesale warehouses for storage and shipping of surplus hotel/motel equipment.
PETITION NO. PH31-01-2 - R-6 TO MP WITH LM USES - J. R. DEAL, JR.
EVELYN KILGORE
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately two acres in the Groveland area, in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, from R-6 (Urban Residential) to MP (Planned Industrial), with LM (Light Industrial) uses, for the purpose of storing vehicles utilized by the applicant's business. She stated that staff is concerned about introducing a non-residential use in a residential area that is currently zoned R-6 and is part of a residential plat. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request, as well, noting the same concerns. She stated that, although there are some industrial uses in the area, the property in question is the last parcel in a residential plat. She stated that staff is concerned about the issue of traffic; the fact that the property is not served by central water and sewer; and the fact that it is located in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern; therefore, they could not recommend approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
The applicant was not present in the audience.
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. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied Rezoning Case No. PH31-01-2, J. R. Deal, Jr./Evelyn Kilgore, Tracking No. 79-01-MP, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to MP (Planned Industrial), with LM (Light Industrial) uses.
PETITION NO. PH30-01-4 - A TO MP - ROGER REHFELDT AND MICHAEL DAY
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to MP (Planned Industrial) approximately two acres off SR 46, in the Sorrento area, for the purpose of expanding an existing use. She stated that the facility will be used for the storage of construction materials and for a water retention area. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, however, noted that they have added a condition that the storage piles not exceed 10 feet in height.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
The applicant or the applicant's representative was present in the audience.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2001-85 - Roger Rehfeldt and Michael Day, Rezoning Case No. PH30-01-4, Tracking No. 79-01-MP, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to MP (Planned Industrial), to allow for parking of equipment, storing of material, and a water retention area.
PETITION NO. PH29-01-2 - A TO MP - JOAN E. WASMUTH/ANDRE BIEWEND, RESIDEV
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone 22 acres located adjacent to the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park to MP (Planned Industrial), to also be used as an industrial park. She stated that central water and sewer is available to the site and noted that the request is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Ordinance, contained in the Board's backup material, lists all the uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however, noted that the general retail indicated in the Ordinance is not general retail to have something like a Wal-Mart constructed on the site, but general retail for something like a convenience store, limited to 5,000 square feet. She stated that the only change that will be made in the Ordinance is on Page 2, noting that staff will be deleting "towers and equipment", due to the fact that it is felt neither the applicant nor the County would probably ever erect a tower on the parcel, with it containing only one acre lots. She stated that the development shall be subject to the amended version of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, with the exception of setbacks, noting that staff was just advised this date that the applicant cannot meet the large setbacks that are found in the amended version of the Covenants. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicant would have access to Independence Boulevard and was informed that they would, through an easement approved by the Board. He then questioned whether that fact would be taken into consideration, when the applicant goes through site plan approval.
Ms. Farrell stated that it would, noting that anything that is used to service the employees of Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park will be internal to the proposed industrial park.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the proposed industrial park would trigger any traffic requirements that the County has for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
Mr. Bruce Redus, Economic Development Director for Lake County, addressed the Board, in response to Commr. Cadwell's question regarding the traffic issue, stating that the applicant will have to meet all the County's requirements regarding same.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Industrial Development Authority had discussed design standards and questioned whether there had been any sort of agreement, where the design standards for the proposed industrial park will be compatible with what is currently in the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park.
Mr. Redus stated that the applicant will be required to maintain architectural compatibility with the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park, in that no metal buildings will be allowed in the proposed industrial park, and their landscaping requirements will fall under the same site plan as the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park.
Commr. Stivender stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that an archaeological survey be conducted on the property and questioned whether it had been done.
Ms. Farrell stated that it was struck from the Ordinance, however, noted that an archaeological survey has been a requirement for all the County's lots in the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park.
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. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2001-86 - Joan E. Wasmuth/Andre Biewend, RESIDEV, Rezoning Case No. PH29-01-2, Tracking No. 77-01-MP, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to MP (Planned Industrial), to allow for all the uses permitted in the planned industrial district.
PETITION NO. PH32-01-4 - R-1 TO PUD - RALPH KEELER, JR.
GLADYS FORTNER
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone approximately 21 acres from R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development),for the construction and development of a single family residential subdivision. She stated that the property is a former citrus grove, located in an Urban Expansion area of Eustis, on the corner of Waycross Avenue and Abrams Road, which allows for up to four units per acre. She stated that staff was recommending denial of the request, if the applicant uses septic tanks, however, have recommended approval of the plan, as presented, if the applicant chooses to go with central sewer and water. She stated that the County received a letter from the City of Eustis (County Exhibit A) stating that the City has the water capacity and the availability to serve the Lake Joanna Reserve property on both Waycross Avenue and Abrams Road and that sewer service can be provided from the developer's lift stations to a city connector 3,000 feet south, by way of a city easement in the 44 Gables development, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that staff and the applicant spent a great deal of time on this case trying to come up with a proposal that could be approved and staff is comfortable with the layout, as it exists today, provided it is on central services, noting that it meets the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Farrell stated that there has been some discussion regarding the size of the lake front lakes, however, noted that, when staff looks at the request from north to south, they do not look at the lot sizes across the lake, or get into the marketability of certain lake front lots, but the general density of the area. She stated that, if one looks at the area from north to south, they will see that there are some larger lots to the north, however, as one gets closer to Hwy. 441 and the intersection, where there are a lot of urban services, the lots get smaller. She stated that the applicant has a new plan to present to the Board, which she noted staff just received yesterday. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, with septic tanks rather than central water and sewer, by a 4-3 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that each of the Commissioners had spoken with both Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, and Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, prior to this meeting.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, addressed the Board, representing the applicant, stating that the applicant has the property in question under contract with Ms. Gladys Fortner, the owner of the property, and is proposing a small infill development on Lake Joanna.
Mr. Ralph "Bud" Keeler, Jr., the applicant and developer of the proposed project, addressed the Board, upon Ms. Bonifay's request, indicating that he has been involved with the property in question for approximately three years, in actively pursuing development approvals. He outlined what approaches he had taken over the years, with regard to this request, noting that this was the fourth time that he has tried to get the proposed development approved. He stated that he had originally applied for a PUD with the County, in the Spring of 2000, for 65 lots on approximately 26 acres, with central water and sewer; however, since the original PUD, had reduced the density from 2.6 units per acre to 2.4 units, on 20 acres. He noted that he withdrew said request at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, due to the fact that he was given the impression that he should pursue going into the City of Eustis with the development He stated that, since the development was going to be urban infill, they felt that would probably be a better route to take. He stated that he filed an application with the City of Eustis for a density of four units per acre, hoping that the City would approve three units per acre, with central water and sewer, on 25 acres; however, the City did not accept the proposal. He addressed questions from Ms. Bonifay about the densities of some developments that have been approved by the City of Eustis for the area in question since that time, such as Country Club Ridge, with 1.47 units per acre; Arbor Hills I and II, with 2.91 units per acre; and Ridgeview, with 2.9 units per acre.
Ms. Bonifay entered into the record a plat (Applicant's Exhibit A) showing the R-1 zoning of Lake Joanna Shores subdivision and a plat (Applicant's Exhibit B) showing the surrounding RR zoning of Country Club Ridge subdivision, noting that there is not a standard of one unit per acre consistently around Lake Joanna. She addressed the issue of open space and the requirements for same, noting that approximately five acres of the proposed 20 plus acre development is open space. She continued to question Mr. Keeler about the proposed development, at which time he reviewed a chart (Lake Joanna Area - Residential Analysis) that had been prepared, indicating densities for the various developments around Lake Joanna, which was submitted, for the record, as Applicant's Exhibit C. He stated that he had found errors in said chart, which he reviewed with the Board. He clarified the fact that none of the developments were PUDs; that they were all straight zonings; that there was no requirement in any of the straight zoning categories for the provision of open space; that it was correct to say that only in a PUD would the applicant be required by the County to automatically give up open space off the top, before he would begin to look at laying out the lots; that the largest development around Lake Joanna is Park Place, which consists of approximately 220 units; the fact that he had received the current Staff Report, indicating that the County had changed the minimum lot sizes; the fact that prior to his having seen the current Staff Report that he had instructed his engineer to go back and look at new lot sizes for his development, at which time the Preliminary Development Plan for Lake Joanna Reserve PUD (Applicant's Exhibit D) was reviewed and submitted, for the record.
Mr. Keeler stated that the new and modified site plan complies with the changes requested by staff, noting that he had created an open space easement on the lake front lots of 50 feet, by adding 50 feet of lake front property to the existing lots and moving the street landward. He stated that the setbacks from the lake will be computed from the setback of that 50 foot line, so there will be a 100 foot setback from the lake. He stated that they also increased the interior lots, by putting the open space in the center and removing the northern buffer, which was not considered to be attractive or acceptable to some members, and they added approximately 20 feet to the depth of those lots, to meet staff's recommendations. He stated that the overall density around the lake is 1.50 units per acre, for a total of six lake front lots.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, addressed the Board and questioned Mr. Keeler about various aspects of his presentation, at which time she noted that the proposed development would be within 1,000 feet of what is considered to be a natural reserve, the Hidden Waters Reserve. She stated that it was discussed that there needed to be some additional environmental impact studies performed and questioned whether the applicant had conducted said studies. She stated that Mr. Keeler had stated that he maximized the density of the proposed development, with the intention of compromising with the City of Eustis, however, noted that she had with her a certified copy of the Minutes from that City Commission Meeting and that Mr. Keeler did not put forth a compromise from the original plan that was submitted to the City.
Mr. Keeler stated that he presented the City with the original plan.
Ms. Campione clarified that Mr. Keeler did not offer a compromise in the density of the lot sizes, during the course of the meeting before the Eustis City Commission, and that he had stated the City Commission denied his application, without comment, however, noted that it states in the Minutes that there was a motion by Commr. Royal to deny the Ordinance, which was seconded by Commr. Smith, for the following reasons: (1) increased traffic; (2) high density; (3) lack of open space; (4) violation of rural residential guidelines; (5) the need to protect the remaining pristine lakes; (6) that the development was not consistent with the adjacent properties; (7) negative traffic impact; and (8) high density. She stated that the City Commission stated they would like to see the applicant start over and come back with a more palatable offer and that Commr. Benson stated he felt the plan was not good, due to high density. Mr. Keeler stated that no density was mentioned at that time and noted that he had no idea what was going to be presented by the opposition at said meeting. He stated that, as far as he was concerned, the City of Eustis gave him no guidance about the proposed development. He stated that they asked Ms. Campione what she would accept and she informed them that she felt two dwelling units per acre would be acceptable.
Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Keeler about the fact that he had stated there were three subdivisions that he looked at, with densities of 2.9 units per acre; whether said subdivisions were on Lake Joanna, or whether they abutted Lake Joanna; whether said subdivisions discharge stormwater into Lake Joanna; whether he had evaluated the cost of putting in septic tanks versus central water and sewer; and whether he was still in partnership with Mr. Huffstetler, at which time she submitted, for the record, the Minutes of the Eustis Commission Meeting (Opposition's Exhibit A), dated October 21, 1999.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.
PETITION NO. PH32-01-4 - R-1 TO PUD - RALPH KEELER, JR.
GLADYS FORTNER (CONT'D.)
Mr. Nicholas Andreyev, Andreyev Engineering, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, and answered questions regarding this request, with regard to the fact that he was retained to do an analysis of the soils on the proposed 25 acre development, which is now down to approximately 20 acres; the fact that the primary purpose of said study was to look at whether septic tanks would be suitable at the site; that the site was found to be high and dry; that it rises quickly away from the lake; that the borings were drilled to 10 feet and no water table was found anywhere within the septic tank areas at that depth; and the fact that, based on what the State's criteria is, the site is well suited for septic tanks.
Ms. Bonifay asked that any exhibits she presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, on behalf of the applicant, become a part of the record for this hearing, as well as Mr. Andreyev's report about the analysis of the soils.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Andreyev about when he did the soil borings on the site in question; the fact that there is a minimum setback from the lake, as required by the State, and the reason for said setback is because no treated water is allowed to be directly discharged into any surface water bodies; the fact that there is a state regulation that requires that there be a minimum one-half acre lot, when a well and septic tank will be placed on it, to separate the well and the septic tank, in order to prevent people from drawing their drinking water from the area where the septic tank will be located; the fact that he had not studied the ground water flow patterns of the site in question, nor the ground water flow patterns around Lake Joanna; and the fact that there is a state law that septic tanks be cleaned out periodically, but that no record is kept as to whether homeowners are cleaning out their septic tanks or not.
Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Bonifay, and answered questions regarding the fact that he was a member of the original project team that worked on the PUD, which was known as Stonegate at the time, and that, since that time, he has continued to provide the applicant with engineering services; the fact that one of the areas of inquiry that he looked at, in formulating the design, was the provision of utilities to the site; the fact that the major utilities that were looked at were water and sewer; that he had relied on the County's LDRs to tell him what to do with the sewer component and that, based on their analysis at that time, determined that sewer was not available within 1,000 feet, as specified in the LDRs and in Comprehensive Plan Policies 1-1.6A and 1-1.6B (Applicant's Exhibit E), which were submitted, for the record; the fact that there are distance requirements for determining availability of central water and sewer, as indicated in Section 6.12.01 of the County's LDRs (Applicant's Exhibit F), which was submitted, for the record; that, in making determinations of said availability, staff has a form that was sent to the City of Eustis (Applicant's Exhibit G) that is used to track said LDRs, to demonstrate when services are and are not available, which was submitted, for the record, indicating that central sewer was not available from the City of Eustis within 1,000 feet of the property in question, but that central water was available within 300 feet of said property; that said form was also sent to the City of Mt. Dora (Applicant's Exhibit H), which was submitted, for the record, indicating that central sewer was not available from the City of Mt. Dora within 1,000 feet of the property and that central water was not available within 300 feet of the property; that this is the standard procedure that Lake County has used in all its projects to determine the availability of utilities to the surrounding municipalities, or to a private utility provider; that, once a determination was made that the soils were suitable for septic tanks and information was received from the municipalities involved as to what was available, with regard to central water and sewer, he did his own analysis as to how far away the closest utilities were to the proposed project and determined that it was over 2,000 feet for central sewer; what analysis he had looked at, in determining that this development would function correctly and how it relates to the other developments that are located around Lake Joanna, at which time he reviewed a map (Applicant's Exhibit I) indicating areas that are currently served by septic tanks (highlighted in pink) along the lake and an area that is currently located in the City of Eustis (highlighted in yellow) and is served by septic tanks, which was submitted, for the record; that he had done an analysis of the soil types around Lake Joanna, to try to determine what is physically happening in the area of the proposed project, at which time he reviewed a Septic Tank Suitability and Analyses Map (Applicant's Exhibit J) of said property, indicating in red the soil types that are currently in place that have severe limitations, with the exception of the subject site, which is also in red, to make it stand out; indicating in gray those areas that are not classified, because they are fill materials that were more than likely dredged out of the lake and put in place to accommodate single family building construction; and indicating in green those areas that have no limitations to septic tank use, which is the category where the project in question falls, which was submitted, for the record, at which time it was noted that said analyses reinforced his determination that the area in question was an appropriate area for septic tanks and was, in fact, much more suitable than other areas that have been on septic tanks for some time on Lake Joanna; that he had acquired from the County's Water Resource Division data for the past couple of years of Lake Joanna water quality information that he compared with some data that was collected in 1983 and that he had not seen any significant trends in water quality changes, based on said comparison; that it has been determined that only six lake front lots in the proposed development would have septic tanks, at which time he displayed and submitted, for the record, the Preliminary Development Plan for the Lake Joanna Reserve PUD (Applicant's Exhibit K), indicating said lots, as well as the dedicated open space areas, noting that the applicant is going to impose a setback of 150 feet from the lakeshore, for the construction and operation of the septic tanks for the six lots, as well as revise the internal lot setup to provide a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet, while still maintaining the open space at 25.5%, which will be used for stormwater management, passive recreational uses, and xeroscaping.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether xeroscaping could be internalized within the lots, as part of the association's agreement.
Mr. Wicks stated that the applicant would not have a problem with incorporating xeroscaping throughout the entire project and noted that the applicant would be self-imposing the criteria in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern regulations, relative to the pumping, inspection, and maintenance of the septic tank systems on a five year basis; that the applicant would also be self-imposing the Outstanding Florida Waters criteria on the development, as the stormwater runoff for the project is designed; that the project would have no impact on the Hidden Waters Reserve; and that, based on updated information received from the City of Eustis, their estimate to provide central sewer to the site, both internally and off-site, is approximately $197,000.00.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Wicks about the fact that in 1987/88 he worked for the Friends of Lake Joanna, in determining the suitability for septic tanks for the Gables 44 development, and that he was hired by the Friends of Lake Joanna, during the time that Park Place was going through its review, in 1988, to look at stormwater issues in the Park Place subdivision. She submitted, for the record, a letter (Opposition's Exhibit B) from Mr. Don Griffey, Griffey Engineering, Inc., who did the design for the off-line stormwater management system for Park Place, in which he states, "The stormwater management system should be designed as an off-line system, including the lakeside swale. This standard is required for systems discharging to receiving water bodies designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Designing the system for off-line treatment would provide a higher measure of protection by eliminating the "pond flushing" effect that can occur during an extreme rainfall event." She questioned whether Mr. Wicks was aware that most of the lots in the Ridgeview and Arbor Hills subdivisions were over 10,800 square feet and on septic tanks; however, the proposed project contains a lot of lots that are 8,000 square feet.
Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Wicks about the fact that he had stated he was going to have an enhanced shoreline buffer, which she applauded him for, noting that she felt it was an excellent idea; that he had stated it would be a dedicated open space; and what types of restrictions he would agree to impose, with regard to the placement of chemicals, pesticides, etc., within the open space buffer.
Mr. Wicks stated that, as far as best management practices was concerned, the applicant would follow whatever is recommended by staff. He stated that there is no significant shoreline vegetation, except for some invasive species; therefore, the applicant would like to have it landscaped, as part of the project's xeroscape operation. He stated that the drainage swale would meander somewhere within the 50 foot setback from the lake and would be placed where it matches existing contour, so that a lot of grading will not have to be done.
Ms. Campione confirmed with Mr. Wicks that he agreed that the property in question is within an approved sewer service area, being the City of Eustis sewer service area, at which time she referred to Policy 1-1.6B, noting that it states the following: "With respect to water and sewer service in the Urban, Urban Expansion, and Ridge land use categories, if a public system is available, the development shall be required to connect to the system. If the development lies within the franchise area of an existing private system, the development shall be required to connect to the private system. If a system is not available, the interim system needs to meet the established urban level of service standard. Further, the system shall be designed so that when a regional system is available, the development shall be required to connect to the regional system. If the development provides its own interim system, the system shall be adequately monitored by the County and the owner shall provide assurances that it is financially able to operate and maintain the system." She questioned whether said language referred to a package plan.
Mr. Wicks stated that he did not know, noting that he did not think the level of service of the interim system has ever been defined in the LDRs or the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he has done a number of these projects in the Urban and Urban Expansion land use categories and this issue did not come up. He stated that the applicant just wants to be treated fairly, with regard to the proposed project, like everybody else has been treated.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and questioned when Mr. Wicks had done his last revision to the site plan and was informed that it was within the last two days, prior to this meeting. She stated that she would like for the record to reflect her objection to the letter from Mr. Don Griffey, submitted as evidence by Ms. Campione, noting that she did not have an opportunity to question him, as well as the fact that said letter was dated May 17, 2001; therefore, she did not know what design he was looking at, when he wrote the letter.
Mr. Allan Hewitt, Director, Lake County Water Resource Management Division, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and answered questions regarding the fact that he had reviewed the Staff Report for the project; that his department recommended, in light of the project's proximity to Lake Joanna, the density of the project, and its proximity to the City of Eustis' sewer system, that it should be on central sewer; that, in the Staff Report, he referred to the provisions of Policy 1-1.6A and 1-1.6B of the Comprehensive Plan; that he would agree that the project is located within an approved sewer service area, therefore, should be connected to a public sewer system; that he would agree that there is language in Policy 1-1.6B that states that the connection would be conditioned on the availability of said sewer system; that, if a public system is available, the development shall be required to connect; that 1,000 feet is the general rule for availability; that, in his judgment, the language contained in Policy 1-1.6B, with regard to an interim system, is referring to a package treatment plant, or some sort of consolidated type plant, as opposed to individual septic tanks; and that, if a developer is not willing to do that, then his alternative would be to get to a public sewer connection point.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Hewitt about the issue of availability to a public sewer system and whether the County has developed a form to determine availability, to which he responded that the Water Resource Management staff does not determine availability, that said determination comes from the Zoning Department. She questioned whether the Planning and Zoning Department makes determinations about availability, without any consultation with the Water Resources Department, and was informed that staff from both departments work on the plan together, in a joint effort. She questioned him further about distance requirements for hooking up to central water and sewer, being 300 feet for water and 1,000 feet for sewer; interim systems; where levels of service are found in the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of water and sewer services; and whether it was true that it depended on what his department wanted to recommend for a particular property.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Hewitt as to what other property that is centrally situated was he aware of, where the County made someone extend over the 1,000 feet, or made them put in a package treatment plant, to which he responded that he was aware of two such projects in the County. She questioned him regarding the fact that package treatment plants are generally not well regarded in the industry, to which he responded that that may have been true 10 to 15 years ago; however, with state of the art treatment systems available today, a package treatment plant is better than septic tanks. She questioned whether Lake County was actively encouraging the proliferation of package treatment plants, to which he responded that it was not and had not encouraged them.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Hewitt as to whether the fact that the County was not encouraging package treatment plants was due to the fact that the optimal situation would be for the developer to connect to the public sewer system, to which he responded that that was correct. He stated that the County would encourage them, if the ability to connect to a pubic sewer system was not there.
Mr. Keith Shamrock, father of Ms. Campione and a local developer/real estate broker, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, stating that he was familiar with the Lake Joanna area, noting that Park Place was his development, as well as Ridgeview and Cherry Tree, and that he was currently building homes in the Remington Club subdivision, on Abrams Road; that when he was in the process of building Park Place subdivision, the applicant opposed it; that he was not opposing this project, because the applicant opposed his project in 1988 ; that Park Place is on central water and sewer, even though he was not required, at the time that he built Park Place, to put it on central water and sewer; that septic tanks were never an issue; that from the initial plans of Park Place it was determined that it would be best for the community to go on central water and sewer; that the lot sizes of Park Place range from approximately 10,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet, with the average lot size being 14,000 square feet; that the average size of the lots on the lake are approximately one acre; that he was surprised to hear the applicant say that whether a subdivision is on central sewer or septic tanks is not a factor to a potential buyer, noting that there are two things that are asked by potential buyers that he has dealt with, being what type of school system is available and whether the subdivision is on septic tanks or central sewer; that he can ask more for a lot that is on central sewer, as opposed to a lot that is on septic tanks; that the lots in Remington Club range in size from 55 to 75 feet in width; that the subdivision in question is probably going to have all front entry garages, rather than a mix of side entry and front entry, due to the width of the lots and the fact that the septic tanks will have to be placed in the front yard, in case the development ever has central sewer available to it, at a later date, which would cost less to make the transition; that the Lake Joanna area has a particular character to it that the residents would like to retain; that, based on the design of the proposed development, it will be a detriment to shoreline values; that the average home price on the lake is approximately $400,000 to $500,000; that the size of the lots on the lake are larger closer to the lake; that the rest of the subdivision, in addition to the lake front lots, also impact the values around the lake; that Park Place has open space components, being a kiddy park, an open park area, a boat landing and dock, facilities for people to picnic, entrance ways, and water retention areas; that Park Place was not a PUD, so it was not required that open space be included in the development; and that Park Place only contains 213 lots, rather than 220 lots, as indicated by the applicant.
Ms. Campione displayed and submitted a plat (Opposition's Exhibit C) of the proposed development, showing the proposed setbacks and the fact that the majority of the homes have front entry garages, rather than a mix of front entry and side entry. She then read into the record a statement from a letter (Opposition's Exhibit D )she had received from the applicant and his wife, dated November 9, 1987, in which they stated that, as homeowners on Lake Joanna, they feared that the density that was being proposed for Park Place would pollute the lake, as it was very shallow, and that said development was not in keeping with what was in the area, which she submitted, for the record.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Shamrock about whether he would categorize the proposed development as infill, to which he responded that he would, to some degree, out to Hwy. 44B; whether he would treat infill any differently than if he were a pioneer, going into the area for the first time, to which he responded that he would look at sewer and water as a must, because he has seen the value of sewer and water over the past 20 years; whether there was any reason why the City of Eustis has not required it, or come to the County and forced connections, when almost everything around Lake Joanna has been developed on water and septic, to which he stated that that was a good question, but he could not read the minds of the City of Eustis; the fact that he felt the most recent design was an approved design, over the original one, with the larger lake front lots; the fact that he would look differently at providing 50 lots with septic tanks, as opposed to 213 lots with septic tanks; whether there were any other reasons for Park Place not being on septic tanks, other than the fact that he felt it would be a good selling point for it to be on central water and sewer, such as soil constraints or other limitations, to which he responded that Ms. Bonifay was his attorney at that time and there was never any discussion about the development being on septic tanks.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:15 p.m.
PETITION NO. PH32-01-4 - R-1 TO PUD - RALPH KEELER, JR.
GLADYS FORTNER (CONT'D.)
Mr. Joe Crumpton, a resident of Joanna Shores Plat, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and answered questions regarding this request. He stated that the residents of Lake Joanna Shores are not opposed to the land use request for homes; however, they are opposed to developing the property, as proposed. He stated that they feel leaving intact the R-1 zoning classification will have the least effect on the Lake Joanna community, as a whole. He stated that the residents were opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons: (1) the lack of water holding structures that prevent stormwater runoff from going into Lake Joanna; (2) the fact that the proposed containment structures address only the stormwater runoff from the upland portions of the project; (3) the fact that, other than a swale that is being proposed at the lake front, there is no real provision for treatment or containment of runoff from the lower portions of the project; (4) the fact that there is no way to prevent the buildup of nutrients and overflow from the holding basins from overflowing during extreme weather events; (5) the fact that increased nutrients and silt from storm and surface water runoff leaching from the properties near and adjacent to the lake are going to be a problem; and (6) the potential accumulative impact that the proposed project will have to the septic tanks that are currently around the lake and possibly the nearby Hidden Waters Reserve. He stated that he was an aquatic biologist and certified fishery scientist, with over 35 years of experience, and has written more than 100 technical, public, and scientific reports; has given input on impact studies; and, in his capacity as a fishery scientist, has testified in court hearings and has not only been recognized as a scientist, but as an expert. He stated that he has seen some subtle changes in Lake Joanna over the years, such as increased siltation; patches of bog moss that have formed in some of the muddier bottomed areas; shifts in aquatic vegetation; and a marked lake wide expansion of submerged aquatic vegetation communities. He further elaborated on the matter, noting that he wanted the Board to be aware of the fact that problems already exist in Lake Joanna that, at first glance, are not evident and that the proposed project will only add to and speed up degradation of the lake.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Crumpton about the fact that there are 101 lots in Joanna Shores Plat, located on 40.6 acres, which is double the density of the proposed development; that the overall density is listed at 2.49 units per acre, with five of the 101 lots being on the lake front, giving an acreage per lake front lot of approximately .61, whereas the density of the proposed development is approximately .50; that Joanna Shores Plat is located adjacent to a project that has central water and sewer; that all the residents of Joanna Shores Plat is on septic tanks; that the subdivision is located adjacent to, or within, 1,000 feet of a development that has central water and sewer; and that there has not been any analysis of the septic tanks in Joanna Shores Plat, with regard to what impact they are having on Lake Joanna.
Mr. Roy Baker, a resident of Eichelberger Estates, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, stating that one of the things that bothers him is the density that is present in the area of the proposed development. He stated that, with the growth and population that is booming in Lake County, he was sure the Board would expand the current zoning that is in place, which is one dwelling unit per acre, rather than making the area more dense. He stated that he has lived in Eichelberger Estates for the past 23 years and has probably spent more time in and on the lake than any other person present, noting that he water skis and has maintained a slalom course on Lake Joanna for years. He stated that, when he moved into the area, in the late 1970s, Lake Joanna was a sand bottom lake; however, today it has a muck bottom. He stated that his main concern is the quality of the lake, noting that there has been a drastic change in it over the years.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Baker about whether he had done any qualitative or quantitative studies on the water in Lake Joanna, to which he responded that he had not, however, noted that he has seen the water quality go from being able to see 20 feet into the water to only 8 to 10 feet today. She questioned whether his house was on central water and sewer and was told that he was on a well and septic tank. She questioned whether he had any special lake front protection, such as swales, holding areas, or special stormwater systems, and was informed that he did not.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and clarified with Mr. Baker that his subdivision has a common area that all the property owners have an interest in; that the average size of the lake front lots in his subdivision is 36,000 square feet; and that the density within the subdivision, off the lake, is approximately 1.7 dwelling units per acre
Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and answered questions regarding this request, noting that he had evaluated the land development patterns around Lake Joanna, at which time he referred to an aerial (Opposition's Exhibit E) that he had prepared showing said patterns, which he reviewed and submitted, for the record. He then referred to a handout (Lake Joanna Area - Residential Analysis) that he had prepared (previously submitted as evidence by the applicant) of properties around the lake and to the south of the lake, which was submitted, for the record, as Opposition's Exhibit F, indicating that the total number of lots in subdivisions or unplatted areas adjacent to Lake Joanna is 548; the total acreage amounts to 390.64 acres; the overall density is 1.40 dwelling units per acre; there are 108 lake front lots, totaling 164.45 acres; there is a density of 0.66 dwelling units per acre; the average lake front lot size is 1.52 acres; and the average square feet of the lake front lots is 66,328 square feet. He stated that he analyzed the subdivisions to the south of Lake Joanna, across Waycross, being Country Club Ridge, Arbor Hills-Units I and II, and Ridgeview, at which time he reviewed a scaled down aerial (Opposition's Exhibit G) of the proposed project, which he submitted, for the record, noting that the average density of the subdivisions is 2.71 dwelling units per acre. He stated that, since the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, he looked at those subdivisions on the lake that are on central sewer, being Bay State South - Phase III Plat and Park Place on Lake Joanna Plat, at which time he noted that, of the subdivisions that touch the lake, 47% of them are on central sewer - 213 in Park Place on Lake Joanna Plat and 40 in Bay State South - Phase III Plat. He stated that there are 258 lots out of the 548 lots around the lake that are on central sewer.
Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Green about the 44 Gables Phase IV project, at which time she reviewed and submitted, for the record, the Preliminary Plan (Opposition's Exhibit H) for said project, noting that it is going to be significantly closer to Hwy. 441 than the proposed project ( Lake Joanna Reserve) and that it contains lots ranging in size from 7,500 square feet to 19,840 square feet, compared to the revised plan for the proposed project, in which the smallest lot is 8,750 square feet. She questioned Mr. Green about the City of Eustis's Future Land Use Map for 2010 (Opposition's Exhibit I), which she displayed and submitted, for the record. Mr. Green stated that the City of Eustis shows an RR as their lowest designation, which is one dwelling unit or less per acre. He stated that that is the designation given to most of the area around Lake Joanna, East Crooked Lake, West Crooked Lake, Lake Swatara, etc., which Ms. Campione clarified is the designation that the applicant asked to have changed from RR to SR, in order to be able to create a density higher than the one unit per acre, or less.
Ms. Campione submitted, for the record, certified copies of Ordinance Nos. 99-24 and 99-25, which were considered by the City of Eustis, along with Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 99-25, as Opposition's Exhibit J, which she noted shows a proposed development plan for the project in question, which she asked Mr. Green to review. Under examination by Ms. Campione, Mr. Green indicated that the lot sizes in the proposed development were not compatible with the surrounding areas, according to the City of Eustis. She questioned whether it was his professional opinion that what is being proposed on this development plan is consistent with what he finds in the surrounding area and was informed that it is a greater density than what is in the surrounding area of the lake front. She asked Mr. Green whether, in making his determination as to whether he felt the proposed project was compatible with the surrounding land uses, he had looked at any policies in the Comprehensive Plan, at which time she asked him to review said policies, with regard to land use densities and established residential development patterns, in providing equitable use of the land. She asked him to review Land Use Policy 7-3.12, Surface Water Quality and Land Use Guidelines, which states that Lake County shall continue to promote land use decisions which limit the density of lake front and stream/shoreline development, with the maximum density being based on the provision of centralized water and wastewater facilities, and that where the provision of centralized services are required, densities shall conform to what is compatible with the protection of shoreline values and the surrounding area.
Ms. Campione questioned Mr. Green regarding the issue of xeroscaping, which he noted does not mean there will be no watering. He stated that the seven principles of xeroscaping is (1) review the soils; (2) plan and design the landscape and plantings; (3) use the proper plants for the proper place in the landscape; (4) use grass wisely; (5) irrigate efficiently; (6) use mulch; and (7) maintain properly. He stated that the biggest factor is using the proper plants, noting that one would not plant an azalea bush in the middle of a parking lot, one would plant it under an oak tree - that is xeroscaping. He stated that there are different levels of xeroscaping, noting that the St. Johns River Water Management District has guidelines in different levels - moderate, moderate drought tolerant, and drought tolerant, which he elaborated on.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Green as to what the overall Comprehensive Plan designates the area in question as, which Mr. Green noted is Urban or Urban Expansion, which allows up to four dwelling units per acre; whether Lake County has a system in place that was put there in 1993 as part of their settlement with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as a way to help define what maximum density one might achieve in an area called their Density Point Rating System, and whether he evaluated the proposed project, based on that density point rating system, which he responded that he had not. She stated that county staff had done it, therefore, questioned whether he had looked at prior staff reports where it was done and numbers were affixed to the project, which he noted that he had not. She stated that, when staff ranked this project on the criteria in the County's Comprehensive Plan, it demonstrated that it could accommodate up to 5.6 dwelling units per acre and that that is one of the guides or principles that is used in helping one determine what is an appropriate density. She referred to staff's analysis of the proposed project, contained on Pages 7 and 8 of the Staff Report, noting that staff reviewed the request with the Standards of Review, as required in Section 14.03.05 of the LDRs, labeled A through J (findings of fact), in which they state that they feel the project will lead to an orderly development; that it is in harmony with the public interest; that it is generally consistent with the surrounding area; and that the proposed gross density is allowable within the range of the Urban Area Residential Density Chart.
Mr. Van Gannaway, the owner of Gannaway Chevrolet and a resident of Lake Joanna for the past three and a half years, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and answered questions from Ms. Campione regarding the case. He stated that, when he moved to the Lake Joanna area, the lake had a sand bottom and was in much more pristine shape. He stated that he felt density was the biggest thing that the Board needed to look at, as far as responsibility. He stated that he had other issues, as well, such as property values, noting that he is afraid, if the Board approves the proposed development, there is a possibility that there will be another planned urban development coming right behind it. He stated that the Board needs to look at the future, noting that there are school issues, road issues, and environmental issues involved. He stated that Lake County is not going to stop growing, noting that there are still other development properties available. He stated that the issue of sewer is important, but density and the impact that it has on the environment, schools, and roads - all the things that the Board is responsible for now and later is also important. He asked the Board to take those things into consideration, when they make their decision regarding this request.
Ms. Kathleen Cook, a resident of the Lake Joanna area, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, and answered questions from Ms. Campione regarding the request. She stated that she bought her property on Lake Joanna in 1954 and, when she and her husband retired, they built their home on the lake and have been there ever since. She stated that, ever since she has lived on Lake Joanna, she has tried to affect and influence the neighbors moving into the area, as to the care and protection measures that should be taken for the lake. She stated that, if Lake Joanna is lost, it will be the end of Lake Joanna and the treasure that it now is - not just to the people who live around the lake, but to Lake County. She stated that the residents in the area are not against development, but they would like to have a development that is in no way a threat to the lake. She noted that she and her husband and their children developed Lake Joanna Estates in the 1980s.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and questioned Ms. Cook about the fact that Lake Joanna Estates is on septic tanks and wells and that there has been no move by her or any of the residents of Lake Joanna Estates to try to obtain central water and sewer.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and questioned Ms. Cook about the fact that the setback from the lake to her home is between 135 to 150 feet; that there were no LDRs in place when she built her home; that she does not have swales, but does have a 50 foot barrier between her home and the lake.
Ms. Campione gave her closing remarks, noting that she wanted to focus on what she attempted to describe to the Board this date, which is the characteristics of the area in question, which makes it unique. She stated that the property is zoned R-1 and has been divided, pursuant to the lot split process, into five acre tracts, of which one has been sold off. She stated that there was testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that the groundwater flows to the north/northwest on the site and that concern was expressed about the impact of what happens with the proposed development and what is going on with the problems on the lake. She stated that the adjacent property to the north of the property in question is low density. She stated that she was asking the Board to take a look at the lake as a whole and to focus in on the properties to the north that are directly adjacent to the lake. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan states, when one is developing shoreline property, they must take into account the overall density and promote low density along the shorelines and to take into account the character of the area, as well as the compatibility, and to try to protect the shoreline values. She stated that the property in question should be consistent with the properties to the north and to other properties around the lake. She discussed the issue of a central sewer system and the fact that she believes the Code provisions are clear and that the testimony heard this date reflected how said provisions should be applied. She stated that effective growth management is not going to happen by trial and error, noting that there are some mistakes that the County can make and learn from, but there are other mistakes that cannot be undone, noting that once a subdivision is platted and the streets are in and the homes go up, it is there to stay. She asked the Board to take a hard look at not only the issue of sewer and septic tanks, because she believes the Code is clear that the proposed development should be on sewer, because it is near and economically feasible, but to take a look at the size of the lots, as well.
Ms. Campione stated that the residents in the area are pleased to see that the applicant has increased the lot sizes along the lake, which they feel is extremely important and goes a long way in protecting shoreline values, however, noted that the lots in the interior areas seem to actually be smaller than the lots that are in the Ridgeview and 44 Gables subdivisions. She stated that they feel an R-1 zoning classification would be appropriate, which is one dwelling unit per acre, noting that they feel it would protect the lake and is consistent with the surrounding properties. She stated that the applicant is asking for 2.4 dwelling units per acre, therefore, feels that a compromise would be 1.8 dwelling units per acre, noting that Park Place is developed at 1.8 units per acre. She asked that common sense be applied in this case and that the Board take into account her clients' concerns of protecting the character of the area. She displayed and submitted, for the record, a picture (Opposition's Exhibit K) of some homes on Lake Joanna, showing the slope of the property to the shoreline of the lake, at which time she noted that the stormwater runoff on the lake front lots and what the property owners do with it is going to be critical to how it impacts the lake.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray, Harris, Robinson, Hovis, Boyette & Crawford, representing the Lake County Water Authority, addressed the Board, on behalf of the Executive Director of the Lake County Water Authority, stating that this issue has not come before the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees. He stated that he was present to voice a concern about potential water quality issues, with both Lake Joanna and the Lake County Water Authority's Hidden Waters Reserve. He stated that the Water Authority does not object to the subdivision; however, they would like for the Board to require central water and sewer hookup, should they approve the request. He stated that they feel the Comprehensive Plan Policies that require said hookups have been adequately discussed.
Ms. Bonifay readdressed the Board and voiced a concern that neither the Executive Director of the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees, nor the Board of Trustees itself, had reviewed any of the information that was submitted, for the record, by the applicant. She
then gave her closing remarks, stating that there are shoreline protection elements in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs and that, given Mr. Wick's 30 years of engineering, feels that the appropriate swales for pollutant control would be put into effect, as well as the implementation of the St. Johns River Water Management District's regulations. She stated that she did not feel there were any subdivisions around the lake that were requiring all xeroscaping, or prohibiting any of their owners from fertilizing their yards, or monitoring how far those fertilizers are going and whether or not they are discharging directly into Lake Joanna, nor does she feel that, in the case of those few developments that have required a SJRWMD permit has there been any enforcement of violation of lake front swales, or the degradation of them. She stated that this case is about density, but it is also about a whole other set of values that are at play. She stated that the Board has heard this date expert testimony that the swales are suitable for septic tanks and that the developer is going to enforce upon himself greater standards than anyone else around Lake Joanna, who is so concerned about the water quality, has done in the past 5 to 30 years. She stated that the technical evidence is there, to support what the applicant is asking, and she would only request that, if the Board is considering a mandate to central water and sewer, that the density being considered would work. She stated that the Staff Report states that the proposed development is consistent and compatible with surrounding properties, based on all the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request on septic tanks and no other studies or analysis have been offered to say that the proposed density is not appropriate for the area.
Ms. Carolyn Hollenbeck, a property owner on Lake Joanna since 1949, addressed the Board and asked them to retain the R-1 zoning that is currently in the area and to require central water and sewer services for the proposed development.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson commended both attorneys for the way they handled the meeting, noting that she felt it was both productive and educational, from the Board's perspective. She stated that she felt the Board will continue to find themselves in these types of conflicts, as well as the citizens of Lake County, and that there will be more opportunities for infill, which this case apparently is involved with. She stated that the Board will find itself in conflict between suburban and urban, noting that she feels the further to the north of Lake Joanna is probably more of a suburban situation and to the south of the lake is more of an urban situation, as one gets closer to Hwy. 441. She stated that she feels utilities in the area is an incentive to hook up to them and that, by hooking up to them, it will become a tool to allow other people who live around Lake Joanna to also hook up, over time. She stated that she felt the important issue was to have zero additional impact on Lake Joanna, noting that zero impact, whether it is through stormwater or the size of the lots along the lake, will have a big effect. She stated that she felt the fact that the applicant will be incorporating xeroscaping into the project is a very important factor and can set an example and that she feels the project has an opportunity to have a completely different design in a traditional neighborhood district, noting that she was talking about quality design and using design standards that the County has traditionally not required, which would add to the quality of the development. She stated that she feels through design and landscaping there could be smaller lots and, therefore, a smart growth concept. She stated that the density has been reduced from when the development originally came forward. She stated that she feels the applicant should be required to hook up to water and sewer for the one acre tracts along the lake, but leave the total units as they are, as an incentive for hooking up to central water and sewer, and she feels it will create the least impact on Lake Joanna.
Commr. Pool applauded the applicant for self-imposing the criteria in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern regulations, relative to the pumping, inspection, and maintenance of the septic tank systems on a five year basis, and for self-imposing the Outstanding Florida Waters criteria on the development for stormwater management. He stated that he also felt it was the right way to go, for the applicant to bring the setbacks back even further from the lake than what is currently required. He stated that he felt the density the applicant was asking for was not excessive, when one considers the overall parcel of property, and that he felt central water and sewer was a very important compromise.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to see the applicant consider a more traditional neighborhood design for the proposed development.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the overall density should be a little lower, noting that he was looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 to 40 total units.
Commr. Stivender stated that she was not going to be in favor of the proposed development, if it was on septic tanks, because she feels the County is trying to protect its lakes. She stated that, even though only 18% of the homeowners around the lake are on sewer, there has to be a place to start with it. She stated that, with the additional cost of running sewer and water lines, the applicant needs to keep his density, with the larger lots on the lake, which she noted keeps with what the lake front is.
Commr. Hill discussed the issue of timeliness, at which time she questioned whether the City of Eustis was planning to come in with water and sewer within three to five years and whether the applicant would have to do a package treatment plant, before the City comes in.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that the applicant would not have to do a package treatment plant, noting that, if the sewer lines are not there, the applicant does not develop the property. He stated that, if the Board is requiring him to have it, there is no other option for him, until city sewer and water is available.
Commr. Hill stated that she felt central water and sewer was the way to go, for the integrity of the lake.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the motion require there be one acre lots on the lake front; that the guidelines for stormwater be the same as those for Florida Outstanding Waters; that the development be required to hook up to central water and sewer; and that the development incorporate xeroscaping.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt that was a good compromise, from the letters and phone calls she had received, noting that the biggest concern was the number of septic tanks and the lot sizes along the lake. She noted that she would like to see the applicant go beyond the County's requirements for landscaping, as far as buffering from the roads and the lake is concerned.
Commr. Pool questioned whether staff was understanding and comfortable with what the Board was offering, as a compromise, with regard to this request.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board, stating that staff liked everything they had heard so far. She clarified the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the request with septic tanks, versus central water and sewer.
A motion was made by Commr. Hill and seconded by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2001-87 - Ralph Keeler, Jr./Gladys Fortner, Rezoning Case No. PH32-01-4, Tracking No. 80-01-PUD, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for the construction and development of a single-family residential subdivision, with the following conditions: That there be 50 dwelling units total; that the lots on the lake be one acre in size; that the guidelines for stormwater be the same as those for Florida Outstanding Waters; that the development be required to hook up to central water and sewer; that there be buffering along the roadways and the lake; and that xeroscaping be required for the development.
Commr. Cadwell amended the motion, to keep the lake front lots at one dwelling unit per acre, but that the remainder of the development be at 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
Commr. Pool seconded the amendment, for discussion.
Under discussion, it was determined that the development would be comprised of 42 units total, if it was approved at 2.5 dwelling units per acre, with the lake front lots consisting of one unit per acre.
The Chairman called for a vote on the amendment, which failed, by a 4-1 vote. Commrs. Pool, Hanson, Stivender and Hill voted "No".
The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT 3
RESOLUTIONS
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that, on Monday, May 21, 2001, she presented Resolutions to college teams from all over the United States, on behalf of the Board, who are participating in the NCAA Women's Golf Championship being held this week at Mission Inn. She stated that the teams were very appreciative and thankful that they came to Lake County, noting that they feel it is a lovely county.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER HANSON - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4
COURTHOUSES
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she recently attended a function in Jacksonville, Florida, along with Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, and Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, where they received an award for the Historic Courthouse from the Trust for Historic Places. She stated that Mr. Anderson will be making a presentation to the Board, with regard to said award, at a future date.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER HANSON - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4
MEETINGS/MUNICIPALITIES
Commr. Hanson reminded the Board that a Townhall Meeting is scheduled to be held at Round Lake Elementary School, in Sorrento, at 7:30 p.m., on Wednesday, May 23, 2001.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER HILL - DISTRICT 1
MEETINGS/MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that a District Meeting is scheduled to be held in Lady Lake, at the Town Hall, on Thursday, May 24, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
________________________________ CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/5-22-2001/6-8-2001/boardmin