A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AUGUST 26, 2003
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 26, 2003, 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; Debbie Stivender, Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: William A. “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Mr. Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Cadwell noted that, along with the regular agenda, the Board has Addendum No. 1 before them today.
Commr. Hill stated that she would like to add under her reports, a report from the Impact Fee Committee as to the School Board impact fees, and she does foresee a possible vote.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to bring up an issue on the fire tax that was not thoroughly discussed when the Board met last week, in regards to commercial and industrial assessments.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he as a couple of items under his business, which he will bring up at the appropriate time.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tab 1, and Addendum No. 1, Item I. A. 1., as follows:
Designated Official Planning Agency/Transportation Disadvantaged/Resolutions
Request from Community Services for approval of Resolution 2003-136 by the Board of County Commissioners in its capacity as the Designated Official Planning Agency to recommend to the Florida Commission for Transportation Disadvantaged that the Lake County Board of County Commissioners be appointed as the Community Transportation Coordinator for Lake County, Florida.
Addendum No. 1
Subgrant Agreement/Tracy Canal Culvert
Request from Public Works for approval and signature on the Federally Fund Subgrant Agreement for Phase II Obligation of Funding for the Tracy Canal Culvert replacement.
Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board will hold a closed session at 11 a.m..
PUBLIC HEARING -
ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 1004 - RONALD & MEI B. MOSS
Commr. Cadwell noted that Road Vacation Petition No. 1004, Ronald and Mei B. Moss, is tied in with a zoning case, and he would like to hear them together and, at the appropriate time, he will open the public hearing on the road vacation, and the zoning case.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff has a couple of changes to the zoning agenda.
Mr. Richardson stated that staff received a letter regarding LPA#03/4/1-5, Eleanor Barrineau, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., a request for continuance to the first transmittal cycle 2004. In regards to Rezoning Case No. MSP#03/3/1-5, Ronald and Mei Moss, Florida Rock Industries, Marion Sand Plant, Mr. Richardson stated that Florida Rock and LPG have submitted some additional information, which staff just received a couple of days ago, therefore, staff is requesting a 30 day continuance, to be able to review the information, and to provide it to the opposition.
REZONING CASE NO. LPA#03/4/1-5 - ELEANOR BARRINEAU
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing on Rezoning Case No. LPA#03/4/1-5, Eleanor Barrineau, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., a request for continuance to the First Comprehensive Planning Amendment Cycle for the year 2004.
It was noted that Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., was present asking for the continuance, and there was no opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for continuance to the First Comprehensive Planning Amendment Cycle for the year 2004, Rezoning Case No. LPA#03/4/1-5, Eleanor Barrineau, Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire.
REZONING CASE MSP#03/3/1-5 - RONALD & MEI MOSS, FLORIDA ROCK
INDUSTRIES, MARION SAND PLANT - CHRYL ELLINOR, LPG URBAN AND
REGIONAL PLANNERS - MSP IN A - TRACKING #31-03-MSP
Commr. Cadwell disclosed that, in regards to Rezoning Case MSP#03/3/1-5, Ronald and Mei Moss, Florida Rock Industries, Marion Sand Plant, Chryl Ellinor, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Tracking #31-03-MSP, he had discussions with the attorneys on both sides of this particular issue. He noted that staff is requesting a 30 day postponement.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for postponement.
Commr. Stivender, Commr. Pool, Commr. Hill, and Commr. Hanson disclosed that they had also talked to representatives for both sides, as well as to some of the people in the area.
Ms. Leslie Campione stated that she is here on behalf of individuals who live in the vicinity of the proposed mine expansion, and they are here today to register their objection to the postponement. They feel that, at the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission level, there had been ample time for data to be collected and presented. She noted that there had been a number of postponements up until that time. Ms. Campione explained that the reports that the applicant submitted to the P & Z Commission were basically refuted by two independent parties who found that the information, and the way they analyzed it, was not correct, it was misleading, and they neglected to use site specific data, therefore, what they presented could not support their position. Now the applicant wants to collect further data, which will now cost her clients to have it evaluated by their experts. Ms. Campione stated that she would ask that, at the very least, they be given the opportunity to have at least a 30 day period to review anything that they collect data wise, and also that they be given the actual data collected as opposed to interpretation of that data, as shown in the report presented by the hydro-geologist for Florida Rock. She asked that the Board make this a requirement, that they be given that information, so that they can do a thorough analysis of anything that has been collected.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the Board can certainly request that the information be provided to them, but he did not know if they actually had the right to compel it.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, because the request is coming from staff, he is inclined to grant the 30 days, but he was not clear on the amount of time being requested by Ms. Campione.
Ms. Campione clarified that she is requesting 30 days from the date that she receives the information and, from talking with staff, she understands that they have collected all of their data at this point.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicants, stated that, when they met with staff a week ago, they discussed the additional information they were gathering and advised them that they probably would not have it available before yesterday. Because staff indicated that they were going to ask for a continuance, and they are still gathering the information, they should be able to provide it within the next week to ten days to staff. Mr. Richey stated that everything they gather will be provided to staff, and they will be happy to provide it to Ms. Campione. As noted, they are doing site specific drilling in that area, and that information will be provided in the report.
Ms. Campione stated that she would suggest a 60 day postponement, until October, because she will need 30 days to review the additional information. She stated that, at this time, she would like to file a Motion to Deny Hearing with the Board of County Commissioners (Board), pursuant to Section 14.00.09, Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which is a principle of Res Judicata. It provides that an application that is filed with the County that is denied cannot be refiled for at least one year after it has been denied. In addition, if there has not been a substantial change in the circumstances involving the application, then the application cannot be re-filed, or the Board can deny to hear the case again and this is where they are on this application. Ms. Campione stated that this is an application that is essentially the exact application that was heard in May, 1999, by the Board. It was denied at that time by a 5-0 vote, and the circumstances involving the application have not changed. At the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission meeting, she specifically asked questions of their consultants as to specific changes to the site, with them indicating that the site had not changed. Mr. Richey argued at that time that the mining area had been altered, but, in fact, there is a parcel that was shown in the original site plan that was on the south side of CR 450 that was not going to be mined, and that has been removed but, other than that, the area to be mined is the same. Mr. Richey also argued at the P & Z Commission meeting that the other change in circumstances that had an impact here was the fact that the consumptive use permit that is issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) had been modified, so Florida Rock was taking out 50% less volume in water from the Floridan aquifer and, therefore, this was a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a rehearing by the Board. Ms. Campione explained that she went back to the minutes from the 1999 meeting, and she listed the various points that were raised by each of the five Commissioners during the deliberations, and there are no references to the consumptive use permit as being an issue that was being taken under consideration. She further explained that the consumptive use permits are under the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD. Ms. Campione stated that County staff does not evaluate the information they use to make those determinations, and staff cannot place additional conditions on a SJRWMD permit. She stressed that, in reality, nothing has changed with regard to this mining application. At the P & Z meeting (August 6, 2003), their hydrogeologist testified that, in 1999, it was his position that there would be no draw-down off-site impacts from this mine. So reducing the water out of the aquifer does not change anything about this particular application and the land use change being requested of this Board.
Ms. Campione stated that she would like to read into the record the points that were made during the deliberations at the May 25, 1999 hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, for clarification, when they open a public hearing to discuss a postponement, they generally speak just to that issue but, if this is going to be an issue in October, this issue could be settled by the Board today, and they can move forward or not move forward with the request.
At this time, Ms. Campione read the following into the record, as reflected in the motion she wished to file with the Board:
On May 25, 1999, in a unanimous vote of 5-0, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners voted to deny an application filed by Florida Rock Industries to permit an expansion of the Marion Sand Plant on 244 acres owned by Ronald and Mei Moss. The vote was taken on a motion by Commission Gerber who stated that her motion was based on findings submitted by the parties in opposition to the mine, including Policy 1-1b-1, which involves nuisance disturbances, and also Section 14.03.05, c, e, f, g and l, which have to do with compatibility issues, protection of the environment, the Sawgrass preserve, and “all of the points that were already brought up.” Set forth is a list of the points that were cumulatively raised b the five Commissioners during their deliberations:
a.Mining is not the use best suited to soils in a recharge area as required by Land Use Objective 1.6.
b.Mining operations will not protect sinkholes in accordance with Land Use Policy 1-2.5.
c.Mining would be an incompatible encroachment into an area that is developing in a rural/residential character as prohibited by Policy 7-13.4.
d.Lake County has not identified this site as an area containing resources that need to be protected from urban encroachment, and therefore no performance standards or development densities have been adopted on the Future Land Use Map to prevent the area from developing as a residential area as required by Policy 7-13.6.
e.Mining in the subject area is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policy that allows for residential development through the creation of family parcels in rural areas as permitted by Policy 1(1)(B)(5).
f.The proposed mine cannot meet stated requirements on the mining regulations set forth in Section 6.06.02(B) of the Land Development Regulations.
g.Mining would create nuisance that would disrupt the quality of life for surrounding property owners and threaten the investment in the surrounding development.
h.Mining poses special problems that make it incompatible with the recharge function of the proposed location. Mining is prohibited in areas of “high recharge” which have been defined in the Comprehensive Plan as areas that recharge 10 inches or more per year.
I.The mining facilities for the proposed expansion are located in a different County and Lake County will not get the benefit from an economic standpoint.
j.The type of development that has happened outside of Umatilla on the West side has been positive for the area. The expansion of the mine would limit the ability of the surrounding area to continue to develop in a healthy manner.
k.The mine is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan regarding mining in prime and high recharge areas as required by Policy 7-13.3. The evidence regarding recharge capabilities, when in conflict, should be weighed on the side of being conservative.
l.Lake County should not ignore the proximity of the proposed mine to the Sawgrass Preserve purchased by the Lake County Water Authority, and environmentally sensitive areas such as the Preserve should be protected pursuant to Policy 7-13.2.
Ms. Campione stated that it is her position that the application, as it has been presented, is essentially the same application that was heard before by the Board. The Code provides that these applications should not be heard over and over again, for a number of reasons, including one, the fairness to the people who are in opposition to the mine, those who spent a lot of money in 1999 to hire people who have the expertise to evaluate the application, and now are having to spend a lot of money in 2003 to do this again. Ms. Campione asked that the Board deny a hearing on this case noting that Res Judicata should bar it; it should not be heard again. She presented the written motion to the Board.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicants, stated that he has some basis to disagree with what has been presented by Ms. Campione. Mr. Richey stated that Ms. Campione argued that those folks attending the P & Z Committee meeting in 1999 felt that they did not have to worry about this application coming back, based on the Res Judicata, and she argued Section 14, which she is arguing today. He explained that Section 14 that existed at the time, in 1999, when this case was denied did not have the provision that talked in terms of Res Judicata and substantial change. He discussed the Planning and Zoning Code that was adopted in the early 1970s and modifications that allowed for an applicant to reapply in three months, if, in fact, the case was turned down without prejudice. He presented current wording that was adopted on July 9, 2002, which is the reference code provision that Ms. Campione cites in her memo, and stated that Ms. Campione is asking that the Board take this code provision, which did not exist in 1999 when this case was turned down, and to apply this provision to those actions taken by the Board at that time. He clarified that, in July, 2002, the Board added the additional conditions, which have to do with Res Judicata. Mr. Richey stated that his position is that, to apply Res Judicata to an act that took place in May, 1999 would not be fair and equitable and the cases say that, when you change the rules, you have to be careful applying it retroactively. Mr. Richey stated that this is a concern to him, and he has cases that support this idea, that the Board cannot go back and change what did not exist at the time. At the P & Z Commission meeting, he argued that this is a smaller acreage (244 versus 208); it is the same mining plan but in reverse; and it has a lot more buffering and those kinds of things, which are significant from cost and evaluation, but water is an issue; it was a prior consideration; and it was discussed before. Mr. Richey stated that the Chairman, Commr. Cadwell, in his discussions with regard to the denial last time, had raised the concern of water. Mr. Richey explained that two years ago, based on their experience in the Green Swamp, they developed a technique of mining, which allowed them to consume, through their consumptive use permit process, water to process sand, and they are able to reduce the consumption at this facility by 50%. It took them more than two years to reconfigure the mine, to allow them to have this water savings. Their permit allows them a little more than a million gallons a day, and they are going to reduce it to .52 million a year and, in terms of significance, based on the County’s Comprehensive Plan, that would serve 3,800 people per year. Mr. Richey stated that this savings exceeds the very issue that Ms. Campione’s expert testified about at the P & Z Commission meeting, with regard to the 44 inches of recharge over their 150 acres of mining. He stated that they have a 50% reduction of water consumption to process the same amount of sand, which does not consume over 3,800 people per year in water. The cases talk about the fact that it has to be significant and says that the significance can be determined by the Board. He is saying that 50 million gallons of water conserved under any standard is significant. Mr. Richey presented a brief synopsis of the techniques that were developed in a highly critical area of the Green Swamp and stated that the case was delayed a couple of months, so they could evaluate the actual savings. They filed a hydrogeological report that says their savings will be at least 50%, which is additional information that was filed that was not available when the case came through in 1999. Mr. Richey stated that the Board is not going to hear all of the information today, and there is further information that has been developed and will be developed between now and the next hearing, to show the importance of this 50% savings, and he respectfully suggested that this is significant.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment on the request for postponement. There being none, but the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, when the courts determined that rezoning cases were no longer legislative but judicial, then all of the doctrines that apply in courts now apply to the Board and their decision making process. The Res Judicata is one of those doctrines and, when a judge makes a decision, that is the decision and the case is over at that point. He pointed out that, even if the judge made a wrong decision and, even if it is clear that it was wrong, you do not get to come back in a civil case. Your remedy normally is to appeal and the purpose of that doctrine is to keep people from constantly re-litigating the same issue. He stated that this is the issue that has been raised here. A lot of times it is a fact based issue, because you have to determine whether there is anything different. Mr. Minkoff stated that remedies to the Board would be to make a decision today on this issue, or to wait, hear the evidence of the case and, once the evidence was done, the Board could also include this (Res Judicata) as a grounds for denial, if the Board feels it was the same issue, so the Board could go either way as a process.
Commr. Cadwell stated that his concern, in not hearing the case, is that the applicant could go back at some point and make some more changes that would convince the Board that it was significant from the first one, and they would be back here again in six months, or a year. He stated that he did not support it the first time, and he is going to be hard pressed to hear any evidence that is going to convince him to support it this time, but this Board has always erred on the side that, if it is in question, then lets at least hear it and move forward and this has generally kept them from going across the street. Commr. Cadwell stated that he will go along with whatever the Board wants to do today.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board could delay making a decision on the Res Judicata issue, hear the case, have the staff report, and the Board can reiterate this argument at the end, if they felt it still applied. One of the reasons to deny the petition, after hearing it (in 60 days) could be that it is Res Judicata; it is the same issue. If the Board acted on Ms. Campione’s request today, then the Board would not hear the additional evidence. Mr. Minkoff stated that the surest and safest course of action would be to hear the case, because the Board would not have given up the ability to rule that it is Res Judicata, and they will hear the evidence.
Commr. Hanson stated that, since staff has requested the postponement, it is probably the most conservative way to go.
Commr. Pool stated that the Chairman is right, they do not want to be across the street in litigation on a constant basis and, to hear this in all fairness, he believes that some information has been brought forward that may or may not shed light on it, and not to hear both sides again would be a disservice to both sides, therefore, it is only fair to hear both sides and ere on the side of caution.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he is inclined not to act on Ms. Campione’s request today and that way the Res Judicata is still on the table, unless there is a majority that would agree with him that they could probably stop today but, if they leave that on the table, it is still a basis for denial when they do have the hearing.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool to approve the request to postpone Rezoning Case MSP#03/3/1-5, Ronald and Mei Moss, Florida Rock Industries, Marion Sand Plant, Chryl Ellinor, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Tracking #31-03-MSP, for 60 days, until October 28, 2003.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board is not going to act on Ms. Campione’s request today, but leave it on the table as an argument for the hearing.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED
ROAD VACATION PETITION NO. 1004 - RONALD & MEI B. MOSS
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and noted that the Board had moved for this item to be heard at the same time as the zoning case and, on behalf of the applicant, he would ask that the Board continue Road Vacation Petition No. 1004, Ronald and Mei B. Moss, to coincide with the hearing in October on Rezoning Case MSP#03/3/1-5, Ronald and Mei Moss, Florida Rock Industries, Marion Sand Plant, Chryl Ellinor, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Tracking #31-03-MSP.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the postponement of this case, to be heard in October with the zoning case. It was noted that Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, had no objections, and there was not public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Road Vacation Petition No. 1004, by Ronald & Mei B. Moss, to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of Umatilla Road (#8047) and a portion of the platted lots within the Plat of Dream Lake Poultry Ranches located in Section 5, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area - Commission District 5, until October 28, 2003, to be heard at the same time as Rezoning Case MSP#03/3/1-5, Ronald and Mei Moss, Florida Rock Industries, Marion Sand Plant, Chryl Ellinor, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Tracking #31-03-MSP.
REZONING CASE CUP#03/8/2-5 - WILLIAM J. DENN
CUP IN A - TRACKING #70-03-CUP
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to discuss Rezoning Case CUP#03/8/2-5, William J. Denn, Tracking #70-03-CUP, a request for a CUP in A, for the purpose of utilizing a portable sawmill, with the intent to saw oak logs into boards that will be assembled into shipping containers. The assembly will be done at a separate location. Ms. Kapner noted that she received this morning five additional letters of opposition. The property is approximately 5.34 acres located within rural land. The proposed CUP is consistent with all of the general standards of regulations, the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code of Ordinances of Lake County. The conditional use is compatible with the existing or planned character of the area in which it is currently located, and staff recommends approval with conditions, as outlined in the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. William Denn, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that his son lives on the property in question, and he lives in Deland. He presented the following documents to the Board, and to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 (composite):
Bechtol Engineering and Testing, Inc. dated August 21, 2003; survey area; and Historical AADT Report from FDOT dated August 25, 2003.
Commr. Cadwell noted that Mr. Denn was turned down by the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission by a vote of 5 to 4.
Mr. Denn quoted the following motion made by the P & Z Commission for denial, as found in the P & Z Commission minutes in the backup: “He felt the residents should be able to enjoy their peace and quiet in an agricultural setting.” He stated that the P & Z Commission heard a great deal of information, both oral and written, and he felt that a great percentage of it was greatly exaggerated. Mr. Denn stated that he had an engineering report from Bechtol Engineering and Testing, Inc. dated August 21, 2003, to review with the Board. The opposition expressed three major concerns to the proposed CUP, as follows: noise, traffic along SR 44, and pollution. Two petitions were filed, one by residents of Palomino Pines, and one by residents in an area bordered by Fox Fire Lane, Dogwood Avenue, and SR 44. Also three letters were received along with the five letters that came from Palomino Pines, as noted by staff. In rebutting points of opposition, Mr. Denn referred to the letter in the backup from Mr. Edward Hand dated August 6, 2003. Mr. Denn stated that the CUP would be permitted to run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. He pointed out that background noise (traffic) approximately 180 feet north of SR 44 would be about equal to the saw mill from a distance of 200 feet northward, as determined by Bechtol Engineering and Testing, Inc. Mr. Denn explained that the mill sits about 150 feet from the property line and approximately 250 feet from the nearest house, and there are trees, and a hedge, between the two properties, which act as a buffer. Mr. Denn noted that his tests were done in open air with no buffer. He also pointed out that, according to the OSHA chart, they are considerably above a whisper and about the level of normal conversation. As for Mr. Hand, his home is in Palomino Pines and about 7,500 feet away, or approximately one and one-half miles. The closest home in the Palomino Pines subdivision is 3,500 to 4,000 feet. He explained that they ran their own tests to determine noise levels, which have been verified by the report made by Bechtol Engineering.
Mr. Denn addressed the issue of possible pollution problems, and the environmental impact, and stated that the portable sawmill is totally self contained, and the only by-products are saw dust, and the outside pieces of log, with both being non-polluting and biodegradable. The saw dust is given away, and the excess pieces of word are made into landscaping chips; it is not a threat to animals, or plants; it pollutes neither the air, nor the water; staff has determined that it violates no existing, or planned, environmental regulations; and this land is not located in the Wekiva Geopark/Ocala National Forest. In response to questions, Mr. Denn explained that it is a 24 horse gas engine.
Mr. Denn addressed the issue of traffic and referred to a letter written by his son explaining the sawmill process. He stated that there are no logging trucks, or tractor trailers, and comments made about turn lanes, deceleration lanes, speeders, and bus stops are not relevant to the F150 pickup and trailer that they will use to pick up logs from someone’s property. Mr. Denn referred to the Historical AADT Report (Exhibit A-1) and stated that the average daily traffic count between CR 42 and SR 44A, in the year 2002, was 6,800 trips per day. He and his son will probably pick up logs about twice a week and take the boards out about twice a week, which will be eight trips a week. He refuted the idea that portable sawmills are combustible noting that it will be outdoors and subject to humidity and cannot be ignited in this manner.
Mr. Denn stated that there are 37 homes in Palomino Pines, and the petition with signatures of opposition reflected 11 from this subdivision, plus the five that had been presented to staff this morning. He counted 29 homes in the Fox Fire and Dogwood area, and the petition reflected six signatures, for a total of 17 signatures in opposition, which is not a majority. Furthermore, the government has a responsibility to protect the interest of the minority. The request for the CUP complies with all existing and planned regulations; it is environmentally safe; it will not alter the lifestyle of the residents, or the value of their property; or affect the wildlife habitat; and Mr. Denn asked that the Board approve his request.
Commr. Hanson asked whether the applicant had any provisions in his plan for recycling the sawdust, and Mr. Denn responded that he does not have any plans, nor are they capable in any way of doing that but he does give the sawdust to individuals who have horses.
Mr. Steven Denn, the applicant’s son, addressed the Board and explained that the band mill is powered by a 24 HP twin cylinder gas engine, and it has two mufflers.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in looking at the aerial in the backup, it appears that there are a lot of structures on the five acres in question.
Mr. Denn explained that, on the property, there is a 40 x 60 barn; a 48 x 24 mobile home with a two car garage; and a smaller 14 x 55 mobile home.
Commr. Cadwell asked those in opposition to this request to address the Board at this time.
Ms. Catherine Simmons stated that she and her husband, Terry, have lived in this area for about 16 years, and she is opposed to the request. Ms. Simmons is concerned with the noise noting that one day in the future, the road will be a four-lane road, and there will be even more noise from the traffic. She lives right across the street from the property in question, and she wants to keep the area quiet and country-like.
Mr. Richard Bixler addressed the Board in opposition to the request and stated that he lives beside Ms. Simmons. He is concerned about the smell of wet sawdust, which will attract rodents, and the loud noise that will be created from the cutting of oak.
Ms. Helen Bixler stated that she and her husband, Richard, moved to this area about a year ago for the tranquility in the area, and she is opposed to the request.
Ms. Sherril Colamortino addressed the Board and stated that there is a house between her property and Mr. Denn’s property. Ms. Colamortino read a letter from her brother, Mr. Edward Hand, who was unable to be here because of his work. The letter contained much of the same information as read by Mr. Denn when he rebutted issues of opposition. Ms. Colamortino referred to the 17 residents that had responded to the petition in opposition to the request and stated that not all of the citizens were given notice of this hearing. She reviewed the effects of long term exposure to noise levels, as determined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as well as serious health conditions that can be developed as a result of improper ventilation for dust and fumes; the hours of operation, which will not include burning time; and OSHA requirements for employees who work at the proposed sawmill. She was concerned about proper protection being given to the children in the area. The property lies within the SJRWMD area, and the Wekiva River Protection area, and it is prone to flooding; it is a recharge area. The property owners are concerned about their wells and drinking water and she questioned whether the County can assure the residents that there are safeguards in place to protect them. She discussed the close proximity of the property, in relation to the Wekiva Geopark/Ocala National Forest, and the property values that will be affected by the sawmill. She explained that the land is comprised of three different parcels, two acres, 3.09 acres, and one-fourth of an acre. On the original notice of public hearing, it stated that the enterprise would be operated from an existing residence, as a home occupational use, but this statement was omitted from the agenda, because Mr. Denn lives in Deland, which is Volusia County. She was concerned about future fires and wondered by Mr. Denn did not buy a larger piece of vacant property that was further away from residents. Ms. Colamortino stated that the overwhelming majority of individuals in this area have expressed opposition to this request, for the noted reasons, and they ask that the Board uphold the decision of the P & Z Commission and deny the request.
Mr. Ralph Patterson addressed the Board to discuss the decibel levels that was noted by Mr. Denn and stated that this level was determined without a log in the saw and that the sound doubles when you put a log in it. In terms of the closest residence to the property in question, there is a house in Palomino Pines that is less than 1,000 feet away, and there are children around the sawmill. Mr. Patterson stated that fine dust can cause an explosion. He had some information with him from the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, which addressed the common symptoms and health problems associated with sawdust. Mr. Patterson stated that there were only 16 people that signed the petition, because they were the only ones that were asked to sign it and, from the description given by Mr. Denn and his son, Mr. Patterson felt there would be big trucks picking up the wood. The dirt road has a passing zone, there are a lots of accidents, the traffic speeds through this area, and there is a school bus stop that is in very close proximity to the sawmill. He explained that the decibel level will not only affect the people, but it will affect the wildlife, and the wildlife is one of the reasons he selected to live in this area. Mr. Patterson stated that he could get a petition from everyone in the neighborhood, but a lot of the people did not sign it because they never saw a sign posted on the road about the rezoning, even though it had been noted that it was there for one day.
Mr. Steve Salis stated that he lives in Palomino Pines. Mr. Salis stated that, in an agricultural area, industrial businesses are not allowed and, in this case, the residents are opposed to the pollution, noise and traffic. The applicant has no plan for recycling the dust, and the sawmill burns gasoline, and he wanted to know where the applicant was going to store the gasoline, because this creates another hazzard. Mr. Salis was concerned that, after the applicant gets the approval of the Board, he will have other tractors and trailers, and he wanted to know who was going to enforce the CUP. Mr. Salis stated that he does not want a sawmill in his backyard, or an automobile garage, or anything else, and he is concerned about the safety of the wildlife. Mr. Salis stated that he is in the process of renovating his house and landscaping his property and, if someone wants to buy his house in the future, he will have to tell them about the sawmill, because they will hear the noise. He stated that Mr. Denn does not live in Lake County, so he did not vote for the Commissioners, and the Board members are supposed to represent the people who voted for them.
Miss Christina Mason addressed the Board and stated that she is 15 years old, and her grandmother is 62 years old. Miss Mason explained that her grandmother has been sick for more than five months, and the proposed sawmill will be in her backyard, which may cause her further health problems, and Ronnie Mason, who is nine years old, stated that he loves his wildlife and would like to see it protected.
Ms. Amy Mason addressed the Board and stated that what is being proposed today could be a hazardous combustible albatross. Ms. Mason stated that the people’s lives, peace, and health are at stake here today, and they are concerned about the sawmill’s lubricants seeping into the aquifer, the stored gases, and the toxic smoke. Mr. Denn said he would not be cutting any pine trees and this would be a small scale business, but these could be ungoverned promises. Ms. Mason stated that they need to update their thinking on these areas of heavy residential growth, because this could be a disaster. Her husband is a carpenter, and he runs one skill saw in the neighborhood, and it can be heard for miles, so there is a question of the noise level being presented for the proposed sawmill.
Ms. Mary Kremer addressed the Board and stated that she sent each of the Commissioners a letter, but she wanted them to understand that she does not oppose Mr. Denn making a living, because she is a small business owner herself, but he should not be making it in their residential area. She stated that it really did not matter that only 17 people signed the petition in opposition to the request. She bought her property in 1981 and paid County taxes all of those years, and she has since built a log home and lives at the end of Ponderosa Avenue directly in the line of where this sawmill will go. She does not understand why their feelings would not take precedence over Mr. Denn’s desire to have the sawmill at this location.
Mr. Richard Harrison addressed the Board and stated that he lives on Natchez Street in Palomino Pines. Mr. Harrison stated that this piece of property is located off of a very busy State highway where people travel in excess of 55 mph. He wanted to know if there are any State regulations for ingress and egress off of State highways for trucks. The CUP does not state that only small trucks and trailers will be accessing this property and hauling logs in and out of the property, and they only have Mr. Denn’s word that they will only be operating a couple of days a week, even though the CUP says five days a week, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He feels that Mr. Denn is misleading them with a lot of his statements, and he would like the Board to consider rejecting this application.
Ms. Beverly Jacobs, Palomino Pines, stated that Mr. Denn had indicated that he went to the corner of Ponderosa and Chippewa and did not hear noise or traffic. She lives further down on Ponderosa and, when she is sitting on her back porch, they do hear traffic, so she is sure they would hear the sawmill. She does not want to here this noise five days a week, or even someone mowing their grass with a lawnmower from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., five days a week.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Because Mr. Denn asked to present closing comments, he reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Denn stated that he would like to reiterate his comments by stating that the request for a CUP complies with all existing and planned regulations, as indicated by the planning board, and it is environmentally safe and will not alter the residents lifestyle, or value of their property, nor will it affect wildlife. The noise is documented by an independent engineering firm and supports his position about the noise. When the engineering report was done, they had a log in the machine.
Commr. Cadwell closed the public hearing and reserved comment to the Board. He stated that the request is in his district and, because his grandfather worked for a sawmill company in Leesburg, he knows there is a noise factor involved. Another factor taken into account by the Board is the ability for folks to make a living and use their property. The government has almost eliminated small business opportunities but, in this case, even if you look at the size of the lot, and the surrounding development, he does not believe that a sawmill on five acres is appropriate and, with the noise, and with it only being a five acre lot, he would be inclined not to support it.
Commr. Stivender stated that she is always for property rights but, in this case, she agrees with Commr. Cadwell because, in her district, she has the same problem except the industrial area was there before the residential area, and now they are having to deal with the residential area, and she does not want to create that same situation somewhere else, so she will not be voting for it.
Commr. Hill stated that this appears to be a full time industrial type business, even though it was portrayed in the backup as a portable small hobby operation but, when someone is running an operation 45 hours a week, with two employees, and it is portable, then why is the applicant not taking the operation to the site where someone wants to have wood removed or why is he not locating it in an industrial area where the shipping containers are being assembled. She has a problem with this because it seems like there are no limitations on hours, days, the number of saws, the number of employees, or the trucking aspect of the business. With that, she feels it is strictly a high industrial use, and it should be in a larger industrial area.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in one letter, it mentioned that this property was in the Wekiva Basin, but it is not in the Wekiva Basin. The area is very low density although there are pockets of residential subdivisions, and she believes that there is still a reason to allow this type of use in rural areas. The Board approved a sawmill several years ago on Highway 439, and the backup indicates that there have been no complaints, and it was very similar to this area. It is appropriate in agricultural areas to have the ability to have this type of use rather than requiring them all to go to industrial. There is a lumbermill about a mile from where she lives that has been there for about 60 years, and she never hears it; it is not a portable one, and it is in the Wekiva Basin, but this one is too close to the folks living in the area, and their concerns are valid, so today, she will not be supporting the application.
Commr. Pool stated that he appreciates a small entrepreneur trying to make a living, but the fact is the residents are established there, and they are asking for peace and quiet in their neighborhood. He stated that Mr. Denn has done his homework, and his demeanor and attitude is much appreciated, as well as those who brought their cases forward but the portable operation should be in a larger, more rural setting. He did not believe it was conducive to the neighborhood, and the neighbors have made some very valid points, therefore, he will not be able to support the request.
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 denied Rezoning Case CUP#03/8/2-5, William J. Denn, Tracking #70-03-CUP, a request for a CUP in A, to saw oak logs into boards that will be assembled into shipping containers, with the assembly to be done at a separate location.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:40 a.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board will be taking a 15 minute recess, and then they will come back to announce the closed session.
At 10:55 a.m., Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting and announced that the Board will be going into a closed session concerning Covanta.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that they will start the closed session at a public meeting. Mr. Minkoff disclosed that they are going to have a closed session to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy only, and they will not be making any decisions. The entire session will be recorded by a court reporter, once they begin the meeting. He reminded the Board that only one of them could speak at a time; no portion of the meeting can be off the record. He announced that the persons present will be the five Commissioners, as well as Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, and himself, and Mr. Prineet Sharma and Mr. Bruce Harris, Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., who are outside counsel for the firm. They anticipate the closed session will take 30 to 40 minutes and, at the conclusion of it, the meeting will be reopened at a public session.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
Commr. Cadwell noted that the closed session ended at 11:59 a.m. At this time, he announced that the Board will recess for lunch, until 1 p.m.
LPA#03-4-1 - ROBERT SHAKAR - GREG BELIVEAU - TRACKING #46-03-LPTA
PH#16-03-2 - ROBERT SHAKAR - GREG BELIVEAU - TRACKING #33-03-PUD
Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting at 1 p.m. and noted that Agenda Item 11, Rezoning Case No. LPA#03-4-1, Robert Shakar, Tracking #46-03-LPTA, had been withdrawn.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would prefer that Agenda Item 12, Rezoning Case No. PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar, Tracking #33-03-PUD, go back to the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission, and the Board not hear it today. It has already been put on the P & Z Commission agenda for September, so it would come back to the Board in 30 days.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing on PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar, Greg Beliveau, Tracking #33-03-PUD and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that the County has had this case for about six months, and the applicant has submitted some revised plans, which reduced the scope and magnitude of the project. Staff has indicated that they want it to go back to the P & Z Commission, and his position is that, because it is not a substantive change, which warrants going back to them, since the P & Z Commission has already submitted a positive recommendation to the Board on a larger project, the smaller project would not necessarily require it to go back. Staff has asked the Board to send it back. He stated that they would like the Board to hear it this afternoon, and Mr. Shakar is here, and they are ready to proceed, but it is at the discretion of the Board.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, after reading the P & Z Commission minutes, some of the issues brought up go directly back to some of the changes that were made and he feels it should go back to the P & Z Commission. As noted, the case has already been put on their agenda for September.
Mr. Richey stated that they would prefer not to have a continuance, but he understands there is a request from staff for a 60 day continuance. They have already had a six month continuance that has cost his client a lot of money.
Commr. Cadwell called for public comment on the request to send the request, as noted, back to the P & Z Commission.
Ms. Peggy Cox addressed the Board and stated that she lives in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, and her concern is that this is a substantial change, and she has not seen it advertised, but the affected property owners that live next to it have received notice in the mail and are holding notices that this request will be heard in front of the P & Z Commission on September 3, 2003. She stated that this is why all of the residents are not here at this time.
Commr. Richey stated that he was not concerned about the notices that went out in the mail, but he is concerned whether the application had been duly advertised as required by Florida Statue and Florida Code, with regard to the advertisement in the newspaper.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, if it has been publicly advertised for today, the Board would probably be comfortable moving it to that date in September, since it comes back to the Board on September 23, 2003, and it would be appropriately advertised.
Ms. Cox stated that what has been advertised today is the old proposal, and no one knows it has been changed except those who have received notice, or those who have been tracking it.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if staff sent letters to adjacent property owners telling them that it was not going to be heard until September, it would be most prudent to wait and hear it in September, because those folks do not know they are here today to present the case.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Director of Growth Management, noted that it has been advertised and notices have gone out.
Commr. Hill stated that it was noticed in the newspaper August 21, 2003, and the advertisement did say September 3, 2003 P & Z Commission meeting.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, representing Alliance to Protect Water Resources, stated that they are requesting that this case be postponed and that the Board follow the P & Z Commission schedule. Ms. Fullerton stated that, in their communication with staff, it was their understanding that staff was going to request a postponement, because of the extent of the changes.
Mr. Richey stated that, if, in fact, there notices have gone out saying that the request was going to the P & Z Commission, and then back to the Board in September and, if they have a hearing today, then he feels it would be contrary to his client’s best interest, therefore, he would withdraw his objection, with the understanding that they will be back next month, at the P & Z Commission meeting, and then before this Board, which is 30 days, based on the duplication of advertising and not wanting to confuse anybody or cause any legal problems in the future.
There being no further public comment, Commr. Cadwell closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request to postpone PH#16-03-2, Robert Shakar, Greg Beliveau, Tracking #33-03-PUD, until September 23, 2003.
REZONING CASE PH#50-03-4 - PPH INC./FAIRWAYS OF MT. PLYMOUTH
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. - AMENDMENT TO PUD TO R-1
For the record, Commr. Hill disclosed that she met with the applicant and opposition for the case; Commr. Hanson disclosed that she also met with the applicant and opposition; Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he met with Ms. Jean Etter; Commr. Pool disclosed that he met with Ms. Bonifay and that he had received some e-mails from those concerned; and Commr. Stivender disclosed the same.
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that Rezoning Case PH#50-03-4, PPH Inc./Fairways of Mt. Plymouth, Cecelia Bonifay, Esq., Tracking #78-03-PUD/AMD, is a request for an amendment to PUD Ordinance #60-90 for approximately 16.92+/- acres of land that is currently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential), to be rezoned to a PUD and added as Phase IV to the existing Fairways of Mt. Plymouth PUD, and to clarify some language. Ms. Kapner noted that she received two additional letters of opposition. She reviewed the Amendment Summary, as shown in the backup, noting that they are eliminating language in many of the areas, to be more consistent with today’s codes. As set forth in their findings, the proposed rezoning is not in conflict with the LDRs Table 3.03.03 Urban Area Residential Density Chart that allows 2.5 dwelling units per acre within this area; it is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan as shown in Policy 1-20.4.2.d that allows up to 5.5 dwelling units per acre in the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Urban Compact Node outside of the Wekiva River Protection Area Boundary subject to the point system in the LDR; the proposed land use is consistent with the existing PUD to the east; it would not adversely affect the level of service of any public facility, since the subject parcel would be served by an on-site central water and sewer system; if connection to Rainey Road is proposed, offsite road improvements and additional right-of-way dedication may be required. Ms. Kapner stated that staff is recommending approval of the request.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman, Senterfitt, addressed the Board and stated that she is here on behalf of PPH Inc., and the Fairways of Mt. Plymouth. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Steve Neveleff, developer of the project, is present and will be happy to answer questions regarding the site design. As indicated, this is an old PUD that has been in existence since 1990, and it was done in conjunction with the Mt. Plymouth Country Club, with Mr. Tom Hampton. The original owners of the property, the Pannico Brothers, actually worked with Mr. Hampton as a way to improve and upgrade and expand the golf course. Ms. Bonifay explained that, at the same time that this PUD was coming through, she was also representing Mr. Hampton, and they were coming through and making changes to that plat and modifying those, so that the two properties could work together. She explained that the Code has changed since that time, and the County now has LDRs, and most of the changes are cleaning up that language, because the references are to Code sections that no longer exist. The property was intended originally as a mixed use development. It does have a very small amount of commercial; it has an area for the clubhouse, which is going to be done in conjunction with Mr. Hampton; and the rest will be residential with some mix of product. Today they are asking to clean up the ordinance, so the references are applicable to the current Land Development Code, and to add the 16 acres of land. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Neveleff had a number of meetings with some of the members that are here today, and with individuals who live in the current development, or surrounding area.
At this time, Ms. Bonifay reviewed the facts about the Fairways at Mt. Plymouth. She stated that approximately 47.43% of the entire project including the 16 acres will be open space; the overall density will only be 2.4 units per acre. The developer has spent over $75,000 in the initial platted development, to Troon Road, which is the major entrance, to do the road improvements required by the County in the original PUD. Most of the traffic enters or exits by using Troon/CR 435; there is little or no impact today on Rainey Road, or Adair Road; and they will not be requesting any access to Rainey Road. In the original development, they had talked about a secondary access, but they are not making such a request and, if it is required, it would be based on County requirements. The central water and sewer has already been installed for the entire development, at a cost of over $700,000; it is a private system; and the County has no interest in taking over that system. The wells are in excess of 400 feet deep, which is much deeper than the normal well, but they were done at the expense of the applicant. For every home built, three new oak tress are planted on each lot. According to Mr. Neveleff, they have planted over 70 new oak and magnolia tress throughout the project in Phase I. It has been constructed with curb and gutter and, according to the rules of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), all stormwater must be retained on site. Currently the average home price is a little over $143,000 and some have gone up to $200,000. In regards to the multiple types of projects, as indicated in the ordinance, there are currently 15 town homes, and one more was added to make 16. Ms. Bonifay explained that this was one of the issues that came up in 1990, to have some variety of housing type. At final build out, the tax base for the County is anticipated to be in excess of $35 million. They currently have more than 75 new homeowners living in the Fairways, and it is a very desirable selling product for that area. She reviewed the Conceptual Site Plan, Fairways at Mt. Plymouth, and stated that they agreed to have only three lots facing on Rainey Road. Instead of putting in a very expensive pumping station, they are asking that the noted three lots (shown on the Conceptual Site Plan) be on septic, with the rest of the development being on central water and sewer. These lots will be approximately 160 x 140, so they are one half acre lots, which exceeds the requirements for a septic tank. They will also retain their own stormwater in swales, as mandated by the County, with this being one of the biggest concerns from the people on Adair Road and Rainey Road, and they did not want to see the backs or sides of houses. They also wanted to limit the number of houses, with no direct access to Rainey Road. She stated that she has a lot of other data that they presented at the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission meeting that she will be happy to offer on surrounding zonings, or they will be happy to address any questions in rebuttal.
Commr. Hanson stated that there was a question about the southwest corner and whether the old house, as shown in the backup, is actually on this property.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the house is not on the property in question. It was owned by the same individuals who owned the subject property but, for clarification, there is a house and barn on a piece of property, but it is not a part of this application.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he saw in the P & Z Commission minutes that the School Board had no comment, and he assumed it was due to the low number.
Ms. Bonifay stated that Commr. Cadwell was correct and they have not received anything from the School Board. They prepared an analysis showing capacity and, as the P & Z Commission meeting, they asked the School Board to send any comments to them.
In response to Commr. Cadwell’s question about the commercial, Ms. Bonifay explained that the Board, at that time, wanted a mixed use, but they did not want a lot of it, so, in looking at the ordinance (#60-90 - Page 5) Section B., Commercial, there is only 1.78 acres of commercial, and it is limited to 6,000 square feet.
Mr. Neveleff, RealVest Partners, addressed the Board and explained that the front area at the intersection of Troon and CR 435 (Exhibit A - Applicant) was set up to have a clubhouse, and a commercial area. He explained the location of the entrance to the commercial, and the shared drive that would come all of the way through that would allow for a 6,000 square foot commercial building.
In response to Commr. Cadwell’s question about rezoning on that intersection for commercial, and whether it would meet commercial locational criteria, Ms. Bonifay explained that the commercial locational criteria may have been subsequent to this PUD, although they have allowed commercial in PUDs and, in this case, it was a shared idea of the Board to have it where there was better access off of a state road, or county road, because they did not want it internal to the PUD.
In response to Commr. Hill’s question regarding advertising signs for the commercial lot, Ms. Bonifay explained that they do not have a site plan, at this point. She explained that the most traveled area would be coming from CR 435 and accessing onto Troon. There are no curb cuts on CR 435, and all access was to be off of Troon, which is why they had to do some major improvements at Troon. She noted that the town houses will be on the original portion, not on the 16 acres being addressed today.
As part of the clean up of the ordinance, Commr. Hill pointed out that on Page 5, Section B. Commercial, the following should be deleted from the ordinance: (d) uses, except commercial kennels/veterinary clinic and (I) mortuaries and funeral homes. They could also note that the townhouses will not be included on the additional 16 acres.
Ms. Jeanne Etter, stated that she lives in Mount Plymouth. She is the President of the Mount Plymouth Landowners’ League, and this is the entity she is speaking for today. Ms. Etter stated that this morning she received signed petitions opposing this PUD, and the commercial uses, and they have serious concerns about the amendments being presented today. She explained that the original 1990 ordinance allowed for 1.78 acres of commercial/professional that would consist of a maximum of 6,000 square feet total for three buildings. The purpose for rezoning this property was to re-locate the golf course clubhouse and related facilities, but it appears that the applicant is requesting the addition of general retail uses, personal care services and research services, to be included in the original 6,000 square feet. Included in this application is a request for 3.59 acres for the clubhouse facility and related structures, to consist of a maximum of 6,000 square feet, and an additional 6,000 square feet for future phases, which would include up to 160 parking spaces. She questioned the need to add more commercial property, after 13 years of having no activity on the PUD. The property fronts on CR 435 and Troon, a residential street, and it is surrounded by residential housing. The addition of commercial properties has the potential of creating serious traffic safety issues. There are four left hand turns into the neighborhood, as well as a golf cart crossing, and they oppose placing commercial development in the middle of residential. Ms. Etter explained that the Future Land Use Map designates this community neighborhood center to be located at the corner of SR 46 and CR 435. She noted that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Framework Study Report recommends the creation of market street corridor at the junction of SR 46 and CR 435. All commercial activity is already located at this junction, which is the appropriate location for any additional commercial/professional facilities. Ms. Etter discussed the issue of public notification of the proposed changes and noted that Rainey Road is a rural dead end road that is not traveled by all residents of the community. They are respectfully requesting denial of any commercial/professional development to be located in the middle of their neighborhood. She submitted the petition and her letter to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition.
Mr. Tommy Hight, Mount Plymouth, stated that he lives about 200 yards or less, from the proposed activity. Mr. Hight feels that the applicant is trying to put in the same type of commercial business that already exists in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area. He also feels that the clubhouse is going to create a lot of potential dangerous traffic activity and, as far as he knows, there is no provision for a traffic light. He asked the Board to reject any commercial buildings in that area. Mr. Hight noted that his son has a small business in this area, but it is located near SR 46.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicant will be happy to withdraw their request for new uses under commercial, which seem to be a concern, and they will go back to the original uses, so they will be removing retail uses (general), personal care services, and research service.
Mr. James Homage stated that he is here on behalf of six owners of properties that live adjacent to a the 16.9 acres, to be rezoned from R-1, up to possibly four units per acre. The request is to increase the zoning from 1.95 to 2.4 units per acre through the entire PUD, which is an increase of zoning throughout the PUD, but the new available land is 16.92 acres. They are concerned about whether or not the County has the ability to award this type of density, based upon the residential density chart. He reviewed the points that were awarded by staff through the Point Rating System (PRS) noting that six points were awarded for fire protection, however, the fire department has reported that the fire protection services in this area are at a rate of seven or higher, which does not meet the criteria of six or better, therefore, those six points were inappropriately awarded. Staff awarded ten points for use of land previously altered and, in the discussion with the owner of the property, that property has been in its current condition since before 1981. Mr. Homage stated that he has also been unable to locate a PUD that has been submitted until today. In reviewing the points, it puts the applicant below the threshold of 16 points, which allows a development to go from 1 to 1, to 1 to 2.4. His clients own property that is currently in the area that is R-1. Mr. Homage showed pictures of Rainey Road, and a picture of the PUD, as it is currently being developed, and stated that their main concern is that, in the immediate adjoining area, it is basically R-1, and they question the number of homes that are being planned for the 16.92 acres, in an area that is really not developed. He does not believe that the residential density chart allows that type of development in this area. His clients oppose the high density being proposed and are requesting that it stays R-1, and that no type of access be allowed onto Rainey Road. If the Board finds that the development meets the density chart, then his clients would ask that they at least keep R-1 along Rainey Road, to allow the transition, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, between a high density development in a very rural area. Mr. Homage tallied 15 points and was being liberal by giving them five points for a PUD, at 1 to 1. At 16, it goes to 2.5, which is only a maximum number. He stated that they are also asking for the removal of 9.5 acres of open space within the development, but staff also has to apply the residential density chart to that area and, if the 16.92 acres does not get the ten points, then certainly the other open space area would not get the ten points. Mr. Homage presented three photographs to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit O-2 for the Opposition.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that the three lots that face Rainey Road are one and a half acre lots, and this is the agreement they entered into in good faith negotiations with the people.
Mr. Curtis Duffield stated that he is a resident of Adair Avenue, and he is speaking only for himself and his wife. Mr. Duffield stated that they would like to see the area stay R-1, which is one of the reasons they moved here. He was a part of the meeting last night with Mr. Neveleff and some residents of Rainey Road and, in good faith, they did come to an agreement with Mr. Neveleff on a compromise that they feel is good for them. He respects that compromise, and he would like to see it stay R-1 from Mainstee Avenue to CR 437.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, he asked Ms. Bonifay to present closing remarks.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that the property is located in the urban node, not the Wekiva, so the density that is allowed is up to 5.5 dwelling units per acre, and they are at 2.4. She submitted a composite of information, as follows, to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 (composite) for the Applicant: The Facts About the Fairways at Mt. Plymouth; Conceptual Site Plan; Utility Plan (The Fairways at Mount Plymouth); and Surrounding Zoning Maps (Location & Zoning), and zoning map. Ms. Bonifay stated that, as indicated before, they will withdraw any request for any expansion of the commercial and leave it exactly as it was approved in 1990.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the density point rating system and stated that again she has conferred with staff, and they find that Mr. Homage is in error in his calculation. As to fire, and noting that Mr. Neveleff can testify to this information, they have one of the highest fire ratings in the area and, furthermore, there were points that County staff did not give them, in terms of location to thoroughfares, so they still have a total that would allow 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She does not feel that Mr. Homage has a creditable argument. In terms of the notice, she did not check what had occurred in 1990, but the people have said they were not here at that time. In terms of a PUD, the County requires the following condition in the ordinance:
X.3. This amendment shall inure to the benefit of, and shall constitute a covenant running with the land and the terms, conditions, and provisions hereof, and shall be binding upon the present owner and any successor, and shall be subject to teach and every condition herein set out.
Ms. Bonifay explained that the PUD requires that, if there is any transfer, they must let any subsequent purchasers know about it, and PUDs are recorded on the public records of Lake County, therefore, any individual doing a title search would have found a PUD recorded by Lake County. In looking at the conditions, they would have determined that there was a section that shows access only off of Troon that would have allowed 6,000 square feet of commercial. They would never be able to accommodate a venture with a well known food/grocery store of any sizable square footage and clearly these are very small commercial ventures being proposed. She did not ask Mr. Hampton to be here today, but the idea was to locate a new clubhouse on this land thereby allowing him to reconfigure an existing part of his golf course, but he has not been able to do this. She stated that they would be happy to answer any further questions. Since the request had a positive staff report, and a unanimous recommendation from the P & Z Commission, they would ask the Board to approve the request, with the conditions, and reducing the number of lots to three on Rainey Road, with those houses facing Rainey Road, and removing the access.
Commr. Cadwell referred to the motion made by the P & Z Commission and stated that, after looking at the property, he was glad the applicant removed the commercial, which was a concern of his, but there was a recommendation for a crash gate emergency access to be installed on Rainey Road, and he questioned the location of that gate.
Ms. Bonifay explained that, during the original discussions, they had looked at a secondary access out the back, or a crash gate. They actually had smaller lots, with a 50 foot wide access, and with a gate, but this is what the residents really opposed. So Mr. Leveleff’s position is that, unless the County demands this requirement, they are happy to eliminate that condition, as long as it does not present a public health, safety, or welfare hazzard. This would give them three larger lots across the front with septic, and it will omit an access that would have been there. It was noted that the following wording should be removed from the ordinance: Section III, F. Crash gate emergency access only shall be installed on Rainey Road. Also the language in I, A. 3.would be changed to read three single family homes, which would front on Rainey Road, and the following language should be removed from the ordinance: 4. The PVC fencing for the original development shall continue for this additional acreage. The language in I, B. 2. would go back to what is in the original ordinance taking out retail uses (general), personal care services, and research service. Ms. Bonifay noted that the percentage of overall open space is 47.43 over the entire development including the 16 acres. The townhouses will be done on the original portion of the PUD; no townhouses will be on the 16 acres. Ms. Bonifay suggested adding some language, under I., A., Residential, 1., where 16 units may be for townhouses located on the original acreage for Phases 1 through 3.
Commr. Stivender stated that there were concerns about right-of-way and transportation and, until the site plan comes back, the applicant cannot really address these issues but, in the ordinance, it does say that they will be getting an additional 40 feet from the centerline of the road on CR 435, and 33 feet from the centerline on Troon Avenue and Dubsdread Avenue, and there will be no access on Rainey Road.
Ms. Bonifay noted that this has already been done, and they have already made the improvements on Troon Avenue, since that is the major entrance.
There being no further public comment, Commr. Cadwell closed the public hearing and reserved comment to the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 Rezoning Case PH#50-03-4, PPH Inc./Fairways of Mt. Plymouth
R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), Tracking #78-03-PUD/AMD, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but that there be no additional commercial, no change of the commercial uses; no access onto Rainey Road, which would exclude the crash gate; three one-half acre lots fronting on Rainey Road; and with the conditions of staff; and Ordinance 2003-71.
REZONING CASE PH#47-03-3 - WILLIAM G. & NANCY E. CARROLL, TRUSTEE
R-6 TO RP - TRACKING #68-03-RP
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that Rezoning Case PH#47-03-3, William G. and Nancy E. Carroll, Trustee, Bruce G. Duncan, Attorney, is a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Professional), to allow a professional office development to be located on the property, in the Mount Dora-Eustis area. Mr. Richardson pointed out that there was a piece of property located in this area that was approved recently for RP zoning. The request before the Board will be consistent with the corridor, and it is logical to provide the transitional uses under the RP zoning, and staff is recommending approval of the request.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that his clients were not here, because of health issues, and he is happy to answer any questions at this time. Mr. Duncan noted that there were three letters of opposition, but none of the individuals appeared at the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission meeting, and he was unable to contact them.
It was noted that there was no one present in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
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 Rezoning Case PH#47-03-3, William & Nancy Carroll, Bruce Duncan, P.A., a request for R-6 (Urban Residential) to RP (Residential Profession), to allow a professional office development to be located on the property, Tracking #68-03-RP, and Ordinance 2003-72.
REZONING CASE CUP#03/8/1-4 - JAMES MICHAEL RILEY
BRUCE G. DUNCAN, ATTORNEY - CUP - TRACKING #71-03-CUP
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that Rezoning Case CUP#03/8/1-4, James Michael Riley, Bruce G. Duncan, Attorney, is a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) in agricultural zoning, to allow the owner to operate a truck yard facility, and for the parking/storing of a maximum of five semi-trailers/tankers. Mr. Richardson stated that the property is located in a rural area east of Eustis, and the property is served by an individual well and septic tank. As noted in the backup, in the agriculture district, only truck yards for citrus and produce transporting operations are allowed. In order to make a determination between hauling orange juice versus hauling actual citrus fruit, staff looked at the definition of agricultural uses, which indicates that this category does not include processing or distribution plans for agricultural products and supplies, and they were not accessory uses in conjunction with an actual agricultural operation. Staff felt that the operation does not fit with the CUP in agricultural zoning. There were also issues related to the transportation facilities, and the access of the trucks onto SR 44. The property is also a lot within the Greenbriar Subdivision, which is a five acre tract, platted subdivision. There were a few inconsistencies with the type of use being requested and, therefore, staff is not recommending approval of the request.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney with Potter, Clement, Lowery & Duncan, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Riley has been operating the facility for about three years. Mr. Duncan stated that he was contacted by Code Enforcement, and it was not a citizen generated complaint, but a complaint generated by a staff member. Mr. Duncan stated that they appeared before Code Enforcement and informed them that they had applied for a CUP. Mr. Riley ceased operating the facility while waiting for this hearing. He noted that there are 11 letters on record, with ten of those being from neighbors that live directly adjacent to Mr. Riley, and they are in support of the request. There is one letter of opposition, but that particular individual now lives in Lady Lake. He stated that there are two major nurseries in this area that generate a great deal of truck traffic. There were no complaints from the people in the area during the time the business was operating. Mr. Duncan reviewed the pictures in the backup noting the site where the trucks are housed and noting that there is buffering on the back side where the trucks are maintained. He stated that there are a couple of adjacent residents present today in support of the request. Mr. Duncan stated that they respectfully disagree with staff’s position that orange juice does not qualify as an agricultural product. There was discussion about this at the P & Z Commission meeting, and they do believe it is a permitted use under agricultural provided they go through the CUP process. He explained that the trucks are dispatched from this site, they go to the orange juice facility and pick up the orange juice, and then they deliver it to the requested destination. It is very rare that there is more than one truck on site at night, because the truckers often take their trucks home. They have agreed and, as shown in the ordinance, that the maintenance of these vehicles is not going to be allowed on the site. The applicant is making a request to allow him to park more than one semi-tractor trailer on the site over night, and they have agreed to amend the language in the ordinance to limit the number to four, rather than five, as approved by the P & Z Commission.
Commr. Cadwell clarified, for the record, that staff did not say that orange juice was not an agricultural product; they said it was not processed or produced on this lot.
For the record, Commr. Pool disclosed that he had a meeting with Mr. Duncan on this issue, and Commrs. Stivender, Hill, and Hanson disclosed that they also met with him.
Mr. Duncan explained that one tanker will fit inside the building, but the other two tankers are stored on the back side of this property, and there is fencing and vegetative buffer behind the building. In reviewing the letters from surrounding property owners, they cannot even see the trucks when they are parked on site. He noted that the business has been in operation for about three years, and he is required, as shown in the ordinance, to do some Type A landscaping. There was also concern about permits to access onto SR 44, but they provided the P & Z Commission with proof that they do have permission from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to access onto SR 44.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being no public comment and no opposition to the request, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she has some real concerns about the request, particularly because it is a subdivision, however, anyone who has five acres, unless it is not allowed in the subdivision, can park one semi-truck on a five acre tract. She noted that it has previously been used for maintenance, which is going to be eliminated.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had the same concerns with it being a platted subdivision but, when he drove by the property, he remembered that it had been there but, with it being a CUP, it gives him a level of comfort because, if it becomes a problem, they can handle any violations.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case CUP#03/8/1-4, James Michael Riley, Bruce Duncan, P.A., CUP (Conditional Use Permit) in A (Agriculture), Tracking #71-03-CUP, to operate a truck year facility, with maximum storage of four semi-tanker trailers at one time, and Ordinance 2003-73.
REZONING CASE PH#52-03-3 - HERITAGE LAKES/RONALD BLACK, TRUSTEE
DAVID SCHMITT, BOWYER-SINGLETON, P.E. - A TO PUD
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that Rezoning Case PH352-03-3, Heritage Lakes/Ronald Black, Trustee, David Schmitt, Bowyer-Singleton, P.E., will consist of a 55 or older residential community with a golf course, parks, conservation areas, etc., as dedication, and a 12 acre site, with the ability to do 100,000 square feet of commercial. The proposal calls for 999 dwelling units, and they can exceed the 999 dwelling units, up to a maximum of 1,195, with a binding letter from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Mr. Richardson reviewed the zoning of the surrounding area, and the development pattern, as shown on the Conceptual Land Use Plan in the backup. He noted that the Plan shows a mix of villages within the development; each of those villages will be held to the underlying future land use category barring any other changes they may have with the Code, for a clustered subdivision. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions that, as part of the development process, they will design and construct the project to meet the clustering requirements in Policy 1-10A.1.2.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether this will be an adult community, with it being pointed out that this language was not included in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Richardson stated that, if the Board is going to make that as part of the approval of the request, then this language will need to be added to the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Commr. Stivender disclosed that she met with Mr. Richey on this issue, and Commr. Hanson and Commr. Hill disclosed the same.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission recommended that the request be approved as an over 55 community. There was a provision that the appropriate wording, as approved by the County Attorney, would be added to the PUD, which has been filed. Mr. Richey stated that the developer is Lennar US Homes. They have proposed to build a 55 or older retirement community, on approximately 1,121.80 acres, with the ability to have 999 dwelling units without a binding letter from the DCA, and up to a total 1,195 with a binding letter from the DCA. Mr. Richey stated that he has with him today Mr. Mike Holbrook, Bowyer-Singleton and Associates, Inc., and Mr. Bruce Lawson, US Homes/Lennar.
Mr. Richey referred to a site plan, as shown in the backup, and explained the commercial area that will be accessed from SR 19, and by golf course paths internally. Access is from SR 19, and the whole community will access through SR 19. There will be no residential access on O’Brien Road. They will be going over or under O’Brien Road for the purpose of their gated, secured community. He noted the open space and wetlands and stated that they have great comfort in knowing that they are going to be clustering around the conservation areas, and the open space, as required. They will have an excess of open space on this piece of property. He explained that the property has been used extensively for agriculture uses, with some pastures and orange groves still existing. Several residents on O’Brien Road indicated to the P & Z Commission that, as the agricultural pursuits took place on the property historically, there had been an impounding of water on his property for his cattle, which resulted in some flooding from time to time on those five acre lots, and they wanted to make sure that, in the development phase of this project, their pre- and post water would remain the same. He represented to the them that, under the St. John River Water Management District’s (SJRWMD) rules, and the County’s rules, they will be improving that situation, because the natural flow is going to be restored through the site. Because some of the property owners had agricultural uses along the site, they have included, and he will present as an exhibit, the drawing of the buffer plan showing a 50 foot buffer along the boundary line, which will provide some buffer from the residential. They are going to be served by central water and sewer, either by the City of Leesburg, Central Lake Utilities in Howey, or the City of Groveland. Both the City of Leesburg and Central Lake Utilities have advised them that they have capacity, and they are not going to have to increase their capacity to provide them with water and sewer, and they are obligated to provide them with reuse water on their recreational amenities. Mr. Richey stated that he would like to reserve his right to come back and answer questions. He submitted the buffer drawing to the Deputy Clerk, which was marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant. He noted that the project will consist of over 50% open space, which exceeds the required 25%, with the active recreation, the passive recreation, and the conservation areas.
Ms. Ann Griffin addressed the Board and stated that she is speaking as an individual. Ms. Griffin noted that she did mail all of the Commissioners a letter about this issue. It was noted that her letter of July 28, 2003 was in the backup. She would like to see the Board postpone anything of this magnitude until after their worksession on linking water use and land planning. She attended the East Central Florida Water Supply Planning Initiative Phase II in July, 2003, as well as Commr. Hanson and Mr. Gregg Welstead, Assistant County Manager/Director of Growth Management, and the focus of the meeting was the linking land and water use. There were two new laws that were passed by the 2002 Legislature, and these laws were emphasized at this meeting. They read as follows: 163.3177(4)(a): Local Comprehensive Plans must be coordinated with the appropriate Water Management District’s regional Water Supply Plan, and 163.3177(6)(c): Local governments must include in their potable water element a work plan covering at least a 10 year period for building water supply facilities considered necessary to service existing and new development, etc. by January 1, 2005. Ms. Griffin explained that she would like the Board to postpone this issue, until they have a chance to confer with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), because the County is not a water supplier, and they are to confer with the cities about their work plans, and then send a letter to the DCA showing that they have worked with the cities. She is concerned about the cumulative impacts of the water consumption in the south part of the County, and the fact that the USGS and the SJRWMD have said that the flow of the Gourdneck Springs will be decreased by 28%, by the year 2006, if all current plans go as expected. She explained that the SJRWMD is concerned about the cumulative impacts from the Orlando area, because what happens in Orlando has a 50% impact on Lake County’s water. She understands from reading the newspapers that over 8,000 homes are planned in the general South Lake County area, which concerns her about the cumulative impact. In her letter, she addressed other large new planned developments that seem to be lining up around the turnpike and referred specifically to Leesburg and Minneola. She attended the P & Z Commission meeting, and one of the issues brought forth was the fact that this PUD is planned for 999 units, which is right under the threshold for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), which would require more stringent environmental regulations. It was also brought up that the golf course is in the flood plain and, with all of the recent flooding problems, she did not feel this was a good idea. It was also brought forth at the meeting that the PUD violates one of the rules of the Comprehensive Plan, because the PUD will be around the area of sensitive wetlands. One of these is called the Little Everglades, which is a very environmentally sensitive area. She is also concerned about the Harris Chain of Lakes and these cumulative impacts, and she would like the Board to postpone this issue, until they have a chance to confer more with the SJRWMD about these two laws, as noted and, until after the Board’s workshop today.
Commr. Cadwell informed Ms. Griffin that the workshop scheduled for today has been taken off of the agenda, because of the time involved with the zoning schedule. The item will be rescheduled in the future.
Ms. Griffin stated that she was glad that the Board was going to have such a workshop, and she is glad that the SJRWMD is taking an aggressive stand on land and water use. She is asking that, since it is such a big development, the Board postpone it, until they have more time to analyze it. Ms. Griffin submitted her letter and attachments to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit O-1 for the Opposition.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, speaking as Land Use and Water Issues Chairman for Alliance to Protect Water Resources, addressed the Board and stated that she agrees with Ms. Griffin’s statements and would only say “ditto”, and that she was here today to make her appeal to the Board on the Montverde junction later on today, but she believes this is a large subdivision and certainly has greater impacts, as to our water supply.
Mr. Richey explained that this project has already submitted a pre-application with the SJRWMD, and they will meet or exceed any of their requirements. There are no requirements in the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process, with regard to sensitive and environmental situations, and there are no requirements that they are not meeting now through this development order, or the County’s rules, or the SJRWMD’s rules. There is utilization of some of the flood area, 15% or 20% of some of the golf course but, in response to Ms. Griffin’s concerns, about 80% of the golf course is not being built in the flood zone. It is being built to the County’s new criteria for golf courses, which will be included in the amenity package being proposed. They have done their traffic consultation with the County. There are three providers offering their utility services, because this piece of property is located in the major urban center, as set forth on the Comprehensive Plan. The utilities have been extended into this area, the road network is there, and it is an adult only community, which has as an economic basis for positive growth and development in Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he really pushed hard for the industrial park, which is very close to the parcel in question, but he wanted to know where those individuals living in the project will buy groceries.
Mr. Richey stated that he is going to provide a 12 acre site and, there are already 12 acres of approved commercial located at the entrance to the industrial park. He stated that there are other commercial sites in that area and that is why they have included up to 100,000 square feet of commercial in their project.
Commr. Hanson stated she is concerned that they have created an industrial location, and they are not providing housing for potential workers.
Mr. Richey explained that on this side of the turnpike, it is designated residential and, on the other side of the turnpike and further up the road, they have industrial, so they are taking advantage of a mixed use. He stated that, with the school impact fees at the $4,000 level, they will have to catch up a little with the demand for the area, before they have a lot of mixed use communities offering other types of housing. He explained that this development will be a positive economic benefit to the County, and it will make money off of this development. He stated that Commr. Hanson is correct in saying that they need to provide some housing types for people who are going to work and use the industrial park.
Commr. Hanson stated that this is a concern of hers, and it does not require a land use amendment, which means they are not changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow this. The number that would actually be permitted is almost three times what Mr. Richey is asking for today, but her concern is still that there is no provision for housing near and around the industrial park and, even though this may not be the right location, it is a concern.
Mr. Richey explained that there are some five acre tracts, and some smaller vested and platted tracts, on Villa City Road, and there is a market for them. He stated that the proposed project will be a gated community, and it will have a minimal impact on O’Brien Road.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, addressed the Board and stated that, in response to Commr. Hill’s questions about a traffic signal, and right-of-way, Mr. Richey had indicated earlier that they do not plan to connect to O’Brien Road. They are going to have a tunnel, or a fly-over, so that would relieve any of their concerns with their access, or improvements on O’Brien Road. They will have access on SR 19, where they have a requirement for turn lanes and, more than likely, a traffic signal is going to be required there.
Mr. Richey explained that the property north of O’Brien Road could be an option for them in the future, to develop other types of housing other than retirement, if that market develops. The project has been represented as an adult only community, and they have not had the input from the schools, so he would like to leave it as it is today. They will be happy to work on that issue in the future. He noted that none of the residents are going to access to O’Brien Road and, if they do, they will provide the right-of-way and meet all requirements at that time, but the plan does not call for any access to O’Brien Road. In response to Commr. Stivender’s question regarding the language in the proposed Ordinance, Page 3, D. 1. a., Mr. Richey clarified that they will include this language, and they will work with staff at the appropriate time.
Commr. Cadwell addressed the concern brought forth by Commr. Hanson in regards to housing and stated that, if they did have the type of housing that created additional families and school children, he would vote against the project, because of the overcrowding in the schools, even though they need this type of housing at this location, because of the folks that work there.
Commr. Hanson stated that it is something that they need to look at from a staff level, because she can see the whole area overloading with seniors only, which may not be a good balance for the area, and she understands that it is driven largely by very high impact fees for schools. She anticipates that they will see a lot more of these types of developments.
Mr. Richey stated that, after talking with the three utility services that are extending utilities to this piece of property, he has found that there is a significant amount of residential development being proposed in this area, and the majority of it is not retirees, so there will not be an imbalance. He noted that most of the projects that have been approved recently have not been retirement only. He clarified that, based on the Comprehensive Plan, the potential for this piece of property is 3,208 dwelling units, but they are proposing a substantially open community, clustering of housing.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Stivender stated that staff’s recommendation was for approval; the P & Z Commission’s recommendation was for approval; on those grounds, she would make the following motion:
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#52-03-3, Heritage Lakes/Ronald Black, Trustee, David Schmitt, Bowyer-Singleton, P.E., A to PUD for mixed uses consisting of a 55 and older community, Tracking #81-03-PUD, with conditions, and to include additional language in the ordinance reflecting an adult only community, and Ordinance 2003-74.
REZONING CASE PH#46-03-3 - JAMES T. MILLER - SHERIE LINDH
LPG EXPRESS - LM & R-6 TO MP - TRACKING #69-03-MP
Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to explain Rezoning Case PH#46-03-3, James T. Miller, Sherie Lindh, LPG Express, a request from LM (Light Industrial) and R-6 (Urban Residential), to MP (Planned Industrial), a request to operate an office warehouse facility featuring ancillary wholesale trade, which would be limited to the offices and activities conducted therein. The site plan will address specifics at some later date. Staff finds the request to be consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), land use density and intensity standards contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and employment centers by definition encourages uses including wholesale trade, warehousing, offices, and a combination of these uses. The complex would be suitable to serve as a transitional use between higher density development, as noted, and, because the proposed functional uses, which are allowed by right in the proposed zone, are predominantly non-retail oriented, the owners have requested to proceed without central utilities, and staff feels this is reasonable in this situation. Staff finds the proposal compatible with uses in the surrounding vicinity, and a general improvement to the neighborhood between Mount Dora and Tavares and recommends approval of the request.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Sherie Lindh, LPG Express, addressed the Board and stated that, because this subject site’s functional land use is professional office, with attached warehousing, they would specifically request that the ordinance address landscape buffers. The buffers they propose are based on functional land use, 15 foot buffers, which are a Type B buffer.
Commr. Hill stated that the ordinance does not address noise and lighting, as well as the buffer and landscaping, and Mr. O’Brien noted that these items can be addressed during the site plan process.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
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 Rezoning Case PH#46-03-3, James T. Miller, Sherie Lindh, LPG Express, LM to MP, a request to operate an office warehouse facility, as noted, Tracking #69-03-MP, with the addition of landscaping Type B to be included in the ordinance, and Ordinance 2003-75.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 2:53 p.m., Commr. Cadwell announced that the Board will take a ten minute recess.
REZONING CASE CUP#03/8/3-5 - RENEE OPPELT/ADAM FISHMAN
LESLIE CAMPIONE, P.A. - REQUEST FOR CUP - TRACKING #79-03-CUP
Commr. Cadwell reconvened the meeting and noted that the Board will continue with rezoning Agenda Number 7.
Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to explain Rezoning Case CUP#03/8/3-5, Adam Fishman, Tracking #79-03-CUP, a conditional use permit to allow the owner to maintain two tigers (exotic animals) on approximately 11.5 acres as a use ancillary to the existing residence on the property. The property is currently zoned agricultural, and it is in the Wekiva area along the north side of Highway 44 near Seminole Springs. Staff determined that it would be an agricultural use, keeping of animals and, not withstanding this determination, staff finds the proposed use to be appropriate as a conditional use within the Agriculture Zoning District. The proposed request is not inconsistent with the existing land use patterns in the area, nor does it place a demand on public facilities and services. Staff recommends conditional approval of the proposed request contingent upon production of a state license for the keeping of such wild animals issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that this is a request, as indicated by staff, to allow Mr. Fishman to house two tigers on his property. He has owned them for some time; he has raised them since they were little; he works with them and trains them; he uses them for educational purposes; he has a permit from the Fish and Game Commission to have the animals. Ms. Campione explained that it was a two step process. He has a license where he has kept them in the past but, in order for him to get the second part of his license, he has to get zoning approval. The Fish and Game Commission is responsible for dictating the type of enclosures, and for inspecting the enclosures. Ms. Campione explained that the applicant is proposing to keep the outdoor atmosphere of the property, and it will not be zoo-like in any way. She showed the Board a picture of the enclosure concept where they train and exercise the animals and noted that the applicant keeps the tigers in a separate completely enclosed area at night and noted that tigers cannot jump. Ms. Campione stated that there were several letters in the backup, which she believes she put into the record at the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission meeting, letters of recommendation, as well as a copy of the permit, and she also has the USDA licensing process that he has to go through. She noted that there are 300 of these USDA licenses in the State of Florida for various exotic animals. She clarified that, under the County’s CUP, they would be required to have those licenses and, from the standpoint of the enclosures and pens, that would come under the purview of the Fish and Game Commission. She stated that, as long as they maintained their licenses, they would be complying with the CUP. She further noted that the applicant has no intentions of having any more than the two tigers. She submitted pictures of the tigers, Joy and Angel, and the picture of the enclosure, to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 (three photo composite) for the Applicant. Ms. Campione stated that she would like the opportunity to address the Board again, if questions, or concerns are raised.
Ms. Sandra Slimp addressed the Board in opposition to the request. Ms. Slimp stated that she and her daughter have 20 acres about a block away from the area in question. There is an elementary school less than a mile away, and this is a nice, quiet rural area where they have horses and cattle and other farms animals. Ms. Slimp stated that they are concerned about the safety, and the guarantee that the tigers will not get out of their pens. They were also concerned about the sounds that the tigers make at night, and the affect the noise will have on the other animals. She understands the applicant’s love for the tigers, but she would like him to find other property for them, because they are really opposed to this request.
Mr. Henry Wall, Huff Road, addressed the Board and stated that a tiger can jump and climb and it can kill you, and he is really concerned about the noise a tiger can make because he has heard them at zoos.
Ms. Debra Parshall stated that she lives adjacent to Mr. Adam Fishman, applicant, on the east side, and she has no problem with the tigers being there. Ms. Parshall stated that she and her husband do not object to Angel or Joy, and they have volunteered their time to maintain their pens, and to work with the animals and, because they are exotic animals, and an endangered species, they need to be there.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Parshall is in the backup.
Mr. Adam Fishman stated that he is the owner of Angel and Joy, and he would like to clarify that lions actually make evening and early morning territorial calls, which can be heard up to two miles away; tigers do not do that. In terms of safety, Mr. Fishman explained that the exercise area is about 40 feet by 75 feet long and encompasses the natural atmosphere of the existing site. He explained the actual construction of the enclosure and caging material and stated that they have a lock down area with a roof on it, which is eight feet tall. There is also a perimeter fence surrounding the entire closure, as he explained. Mr. Fishman clarified that tigers do jump but the question is how high and they are too heavy to be climbers. He noted that the construction exceeds all state and federal government requirements for exotics.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, even with those requirements and that size fencing, there is some danger of having those types of animals.
Mr. Fishman stated that he has had the tigers since they were three weeks of age, and he does educational shows with them, and most of the money goes to the animals. He tries to educate people about the exotics and why they are even in captivity and not in the wild noting that exotics that are born in captivity cannot be released out into the wild.
Commr. Hill wanted to know how the applicant would handle a major emergency, such as a storm, or other type of unforeseen situation.
Mr. Fishman explained that he has a transport system in place, as well as a veterinarian on call 24 hours a day, but he does not have a smaller section to move the tigers to at this time. He noted that the animals are declawed.
Mr. Ron Holiday addressed the Board and stated that he has raised tigers and leopards for 50 years, since he was 17 years old, and Mr. Fishman was one of his students. He teaches at Amazing Exotic Educational Center, and the compound that has been built by Mr. Fishman is extremely safe. Mr. Holiday explained his profession noting that he has a lifetime of experience, and he is very much in favor of the applicant having these animals.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion fo the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the request is in his district that this is a noble cause by the applicant but, if he lived there, he certainly would not like it, and he would not rest comfortably and would worry about his children, and he was not in favor of it. He did not know where he would be comfortable having them in Lake County, because of the growth.
Discussion occurred regarding a similar request that had been made some time ago in Cassia, and no one could recall any complaints being made on that particular site.
Commr. Hanson stated that, because the area is so rural, she believes they are going to have more and more applicants asking for the same thing, particularly in the Wekiva Basin, and she still has some concerns.
Commr. Stivender stated that she really does not have any concerns with it. She did go out to Amazing Exotics, and she has been up close with the tigers. They are in captivity, they were raised that way, and they are not aggressive, and the applicant is only talking about two tigers, which is not like the existing exotic site in Cassia.
Commr. Stivender made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Rezoning Case CUP#03/8/3-5, Renee Oppelt/Adam Fishman, Leslie Campione, P.A., CUP in A, to allow the owner to maintain two tigers (exotic animals) on approximately 11.5 acres, as a use ancillary to the existing residence on the property, Tracking #79-03-CUP, and Ordinance 2003-76.
Commr. Pool seconded the motion for discussion to make sure that they understand the issues of concern. He stated that the applicant has gone above and beyond the requirements, and they seem to be tame animals. He stated that people have many pets that he or someone else may not agree with or keep as a pet, but he meets all requirements. He questioned how far they could go and deny him an opportunity to utilize this land. He stated that, if this becomes a nuisance, and there are complaints in the neighborhood, he wanted to know that, in the event it does becomes problematic, the Board can come back and resolve the issue.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the CUP has a yearly inspection.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, in order to take it away (CUP), there would have to be a violation. He further explained that problems in the neighborhood are not always a violation and, as long as they are in compliance with the Game and Fish Commission rules, they would be in compliance with the County’s CUP.
Commr. Cadwell explained that there is a difference between this particular case and other CUPs because, if there is a violation in this case, it could be tragic, and he is not comfortable with it.
Mr. O’Brien pointed out that, in the ordinance, it states that Code Enforcement shall perform inspections for compliance with the conditional use permit on an annual basis.
Commr. Hill stated that she is still concerned about what they will do in the event there is a major storm.
Mr. Fishman explained that they do have the lock down area, which is reinforced and has a roof and lock on it and, in the very near future, he plans on having a transport trailer on the premises at all times.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion to approve the request, with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Cadwell and Hanson voted “no”.
REZONING CASE PH#18-03-3 - RANDY HILLMAN, TRUSTEE/GALLEON BAY
RANDY JUNE, JEC - A TO R-1 - TRACKING #34-03-Z
Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board to explain Rezoning Case PH#18-03-3, Randy Hillman, Trustee/Galleon Bay, Randy June, JEC, Tracking #34-03-Z, a request from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (Rural Residential), a request for a conventional 73 lot subdivision with an overall density of one dwelling unit per gross acre. Mr. O’Brien explained that this property had previously been presented to the Board as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), for a 92 lot conventional subdivision under R-2 zoning. The request today is to rezone from A to R-1, and a reduction of lots to 73, on 73.4 acres, for a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The property is just beyond the Clermont utility service area situated on the north side of the turnpike opposite the intersection of CR 455. Staff had initially encouraged portions of the subject site, because its proximity to the environmentally sensitive Gourd Neck Springs area would be more appropriately utilized as a buffer against such resources. The applicant has modified the request in response to concerns relative to environmental issues, and concerns expressed by neighbors in the vicinity. Staff is recommending approval of the request based on those concessions.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that this case has never been before the Board. A PUD was processed a couple of years ago for a R-3 that would allow one-third acre lots, and it was continued based on the Montverde study that was done and, during that process of the study, the developer withdrew that request, and it never was processed. A full evaluation was made of the site, and a hydrological study was done on it, to determine the availability of the soil type, for purposes of septic tanks and wells. There were letters written by the City of Clermont saying that they would not provide water and sewer across the turnpike. He stated that this application was filed a couple of months ago for R-2. It went to the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission, and there was a room full of people in opposition to the R-2 zoning. The P & Z Commission recommended against the R-2, and it came to the Board, and it has been continued for three or four months while they readvertised it. They met with the neighbors and agreed to certain terms and conditions, such as 1,950 square foot of living area; one unit per acre density on the property; 73 lots on 73 acres; increased buffers exceeding the Lake Apopka requirements and requirements of the county code; and a Developer’s Agreement, which deals with the concerns and questions of the neighbors. They were concerned about R-1 zoning allowing an 800 square foot house, which was not compatible with the other quality residential in the area. There is also a preliminary development plan that sets forth the increased buffers.
Mr. Richey stated that they had agreed to put in the Developer’s Agreement a provision that says that, because this project will be on individual wells and septic tanks, the four year rule that is in the Green Swamp would be included in the it, which requires them to pump the septic tanks every four years and do the maintenance, as required. Since this is not included, he is asking that it be included in the proposed Developer’s Agreement. Originally the P & Z Commission voted against the R-2; the P & Z Commission is recommending approval of this development, and the Developer’s Agreement with the 73 lots, and the conditions. Mr. Richey noted that Mr. Randy Juene, Engineer/Developer, is here as well as Ms. Trish Eckerd who led the homeowner’s group. In regards to the School Board, Mr. Richey noted that, when this was presented to the P & Z Commission, there were no comments, even though it will impact the schools.
Mr. O’Brien stated that, according to the applicant’s computation, the proposed development will add an additional 51 students to the County school system, based on the higher density of 92 lots.
Commr. Hill and Commr. Stivender disclosed that they met with Mr. Richey.
Commr. Hill stated that this makes the request compatible to Montverde, and the Ordinance references the Developer’s Agreement.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the applicant is requesting that the Board approve the Developer’s Agreement, and the rezoning today.
Mr. Richey addressed the issue of clustering and noted that the neighbors were concerned because, by clustering, it would be on the hill, which would interfere with their view and, based on the topography of the area, it would not be compatible with their single family residential.
He also noted that they will be putting a trail along Old Highway 50.
Commr. Pool stated for clarification that, because the property is north of the turnpike, it is in Commission District 3, not District 2.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Ms. Nancy H. Fullerton, speaking for Alliance to Protect Water Resources, addressed the Board and stated that she was not here to oppose this development per say, but she is taking the opportunity to discuss the area and water issues. Ms. Fullerton stated that, on May 3, 2000, in representing Save Our Lakes Committee, she spoke in opposition before the P & Z Commission, when the developer asked for 112 units. At that time, staff recommended 71 homes, which is about where they are today. The Montverde area study was going on and the BCC voted against it. Ms. Fullerton stated that they opposed it in 2000, based on rural character, urban sprawl, which is actually very minor with this development compared to Pine Island, Hillcrest, upcoming Center Lakes, Sugarloaf, Lennar, and other growth in this area. They opposed it because of the “killer” intersection of CR 455, and now there is a stop light there, and the road has been straightened. They opposed it because of the possible environmental impacts on Gourd Neck, and that is really the only issue left as their concern today, which represents the concern for the water supply use, and the groundwater for the whole area. She stated that Ms. Griffin had brought up most of the points and, with all of the developments going on around there, there is the fear of the cumulative affects on Gourd Neck and the groundwater supply of Clermont, Montverde, Minneola, and this area, and this has been verified by the reports that the Water Authority received in April from the USGS, and from the SJRWMD. Ms. Fullerton wished there was some way that all of this development could be treated as a DRI. As these larger developments come up for discussion, she is asking that the County encourage the SJRWMD to participate in early discussions of consumptive use permits and water supply plans, because there is a link between land use and water supply, and the responsibility lies upon the local government. She did have a question about individual wells and septic and stated that, as far as the Lake Apopka/ Pine Island plan, they do not have any waterfront lots, and that is something that would protect Gourd Neck.
Mr. Richey stated that, in closing, this project will be developed to the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) standards, with regard to stormwater, etc. They have added an additional buffer along the three lots on the lake, a 100 foot buffer, and the Developer’s Agreement requires all septic tanks to have 200 foot setbacks, and to be located within the front yard. There is no central water available in this area and, until that time, it will be on individual wells and septic tanks, with the acre lots exceeding any State requirements.
Commr. Pool stated that, as part of, and as Chair of the Lake Apopka Planning Initiative Steering Committee, they, as a group around the lake, including the Friends of Lake Apopka, all agree that some of these setbacks and buffering, and other things that are going on today, including treating Lake Apopka as an OFW, are very important as they go forward in planning this area, and he shares Ms. Fullerton’s concerns but, it is a far better project for everyone concerned. He appreciates his fellow Commissioners for adopting some of those rules and regulations that made it better.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-1 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Rezoning Case PH#18-30-2, Randy Hillman, Trustee/Galleon Bay, Randy June, June Engineering Consultants, Inc., A to R-1, for a 73 lot subdivision with an overall density of one dwelling unit per gross acre, Tracking #34-03-Z, with the Developer’s Agreement, which includes the addition of the Green Swamp septic tank wording, and Ordinance 2003-77.
Commr. Hill voted “no”.
Commr. Hill stated that her concern is still the schools and, even though the School Board is not present, in reading the paper today, it seems like they are over burdened and that is her objection.
Commr. Cadwell noted that, since there is no representative from the School Board to tell the Board where the children will go to school, they may be assigned to a school that does not have a problem, but they do not know.
REZONING CASE NO. LPA#03/4/2-2 - FRANCES HARTLE
HARTLE GROVES INC. - STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.,A. - AMENDMENT TO
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION - TRANSMITTAL HEARING
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that Rezoning Case LPA#03/4/2-2 for Frances B. Hartle, Trustee, Hartle Groves, Inc., is a request for a change in the Future Land Use Designation of Urban Expansion to Urban for approximately 69 acres of land. The property is located at Hartle Road and SR 50, and the property is completely surrounded by urban expansion designated lands. There are approximately 1,320 feet to the nearest urban designation from the overall property boundaries. With the proposed more intensive land use classification of urban, there is a difference in the number of dwelling units ranging from approximately 490, which could be approved under the urban designation as requested, versus the existing urban expansion at four dwelling units per acre, for a maximum of 280. Several issues were raised as concerns, as noted in the backup, with most of those involving dealing with the City of Clermont and who would actually be the utility provider, as well as objections raised by the City. Mr. Richardson stated that most of those have been addressed including the provision of water and sewer, even though staff has not received anything in writing from the City with terms for commitment to serve the property. He noted that the area is within the joint planning agreement (JPA), and staff has not received anything from the City regarding this item. Staff is concerned about the creation of an urban island in the middle of urban expansion. The surrounding densities are significantly lower with Magnolia Point, about 3.6 dwelling units per acre. There is a mobile home park (Orange Lake) within a mile from the property in question, which would be the only area that would come close to matching the densities being requested. Even though the applicant is attempting to make a logical pattern by improving the roads, with the issues and concerns of staff, and the creation of an urban island, staff is not recommending approval of this land use plan amendment.
Commr. Pool disclosed that he met with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney for the applicant, and Commrs. Stivender, Hill, and Hanson disclosed the same.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and explained that this piece of property is owned by Mrs. Hartle, and they are here today, because they had been approached about rearranging Hartle Road to T-intersect with CR 455 where the new signalization is going. Mrs. Hartle has agreed to provide the right-of-way, and for the County to reconfigure this road, as shown in his drawing and, she has agreed to this as part of getting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to compensate her for that loss of property and density. Mr. Richey submitted the conceptual site plan to the Deputy Clerk, which was marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant. Mr. Richey stated that, when they come back from the transmittal hearing and adoption hearing, they are going to have a plan showing some commercial at the intersection, and some residential behind it. The Public Works Department spoke at the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission meeting in favor of this Comprehensive Plan amendment and recommended that the Board transmit it. At the P & Z meeting, staff had indicated that there were some unresolved issues that would be resolved as it goes through the adoption process, those being road right-of-way and utilities. Mr. Richey referred to the Utilities Easement between Frances B. Hartle and the City of Clermont (March 17, 1998), which says that the City will provide this property with water and sewer, because the City wanted to serve Magnolia Point, and they were required to cross this piece of property to get to Magnolia Point. He noted that this is a recorded document that is in the public records, and it runs with the land and is a binding document. Mr. Richey stated that, in discussing this with the City of Clermont, on May 13, 2003, they were reluctant to recommend approval of this project to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) but, since the City now needs to place a lift station on Ms. Hartle’s property, they have assured him that, between now and the adoption hearing, they will resolve those outstanding issues. Mr. Richey submitted the Utilities Easement to the Deputy Clerk, which was entered and marked as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant.
In response to Commr. Cadwell’s inquiry about his attendance at the Clermont meeting, Mr. Richey explained that the City of Clermont put this item on their agenda without giving them notice, to talk about this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mrs. Hartle was attending the meeting and called him. When he arrived at the meeting, Mr. Richey stated that they had none of the facts about the alignment of the road, or the land uses, and he asked them to continue the vote for a couple of weeks, so that he could provide that information. Their position was that they only cared about the City’s position, and they voted 4-1 against continuing it, and they went ahead and voted against it.
Mr. Richardson explained that, if this case is transmitted today, staff has ten days to get this in the mail to the DCA and this issue will fall ahead of the others that staff will be hearing in October. He noted that they will be looking at the adoption in December.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that, as directed by staff, Mr. Richey presented minutes from the meeting, and the other two cases were postponed from today and will be going to Clermont’s P & Z and Council meetings this month, for a recommendation.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, explained the contact they have had with Mrs. Hartle over the years regarding the realignment of the road.
Commr. Pool explained that the road alignment was not only a safety issue but a travel issue for people in the area. The City went to Mrs. Hartle and asked for this right-of-way, and she has been gracious enough to help the City of Clermont, when he was Mayor, with the water and sewer, and now with this transportation initiative.
Commr. Cadwell called for those wanting to speak in opposition to the request.
Ms. Nancy Fullerton, speaking as a resident of Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that she would like to know the density actually being proposed.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, addressed the Board and stated that, because of the commercial activity going along the frontage, their actual impact to the site is 133 additional units. Mr. Beliveau stated that, based on the agreement, water and sewer are available and they also had a traffic analysis showing the traffic capacities available for this system. They also looked at the minimal increase to the school system and, based on the 133 units, they are looking at 33 students in elementary; 15 in middle; and 15 in high. In looking at the analysis of the school, there was capacity in the middle school; they are slightly over capacity at the East Ridge High School; and they are over capacity in the elementary school. They did an analysis based on impact fees, and the new impact fees creates those 133 units, and over one half million dollars of new revenue, which more than compensates the impact of the new students. He reviewed Figures 1 through 4 noting the surrounding employment centers and noting that one employment center is about 400 feet away; the urban to the east is about 1,354 feet away; and the City of Clermont is a little over 3,200 feet. Mr. Beliveau pointed out that the exhibit shows the developments that have been approved around them, which is very consistent with the land uses. He stated that Greater Hills allows for 667 dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of commercial of C-1 and C-2; Magnolia Point allows for 546 dwelling units, with a percentage of those being townhouses and single family; and Magnolia Center along SR 50 has been approved for 300,000 square feet of commercial and an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF).
Mr. Richey noted that he had submitted the Justification for Urban Land Use and Figures 1 through 4, to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and entered as Exhibit A-3 (composite) for the Applicant.
Mr. Beliveau noted that, after meeting with staff, they allowed them to defer items of concern until the actual site development phase and noting that the right-of-way going through the middle of the site is a change in condition, which warrants this request.
Mr. Richey noted that, in providing the Board with his exhibits, he is making sure that the full record will be transmitted to the DCA, if the Board chooses to adopt.
Commr. Cadwell noted that Commr. Stivender had to leave the meeting for a moment, but the Board could proceed with their motion.
Commr. Pool made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the transmittal of Rezoning Case LPA03/4/2-2, Frances B. Hartle, Trustee, Hartle Groves, Inc., Tracking #45-03-LPA.
Commr. Hanson seconded the motion for discussion. She stated that it is a tough situation because obviously it would be for the benefit of the County, and the residents that live on both sides of SR 50, to have that road connected. There are the employment centers all the way around it, but it is still a land use amendment that changes from urban expansion to urban in an area outside of that urban area.
It was noted that Commr. Stivender had returned to the meeting.
Commr. Cadwell understood Commr. Hanson’s concern and again, he is not sure what his vote will be when it is time to adopt the request, but they have been working in good faith with this applicant in regards to the right-of-way, and they will not have any adoption hearings until the County is through with the JPA and, at that point, the City of Clermont will have a voice in it, and that is why he is comfortable going ahead with the transmittal today.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
LANDFILL - SUMTER COUNTY
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that, at last week’s meeting, a proposed land use amendment in Sumter County was brought to the Board’s attention relating to a landfill that borders Lake County. Mr. Gregg Welstead, Director of Growth Management, has headed up a staff team that has looked at that issue, and he has some comments to present to the Board. Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff prepared a technical staff report to provide to the Board, and Mr. Welstead is in the process of getting the information copied for them.
Mr. Neron asked that this item be postponed until the information can be provided to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - BOARD MEETINGS
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, discussed a potential change to the first public hearing date on the budget, from Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 5:05 p.m., to Monday, September 8, 2003 at 5:05 p.m.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place this item on the agenda for Board action.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to approve to reschedule the first public hearing on the budget from Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 5:05 p.m., to Monday, September 8, 2003 at 5:05 p.m.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool informed the Board that he had already committed to attending the Greater Hills Homeowners Association meeting Monday evening, but he will try to attend the meeting, as rescheduled.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
SUMTER COUNTY LANDFILL LAND USE ISSUES
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Director of Growth Management, presented a Technical Staff Analysis to the Board regarding Sumter County Landfill Land Use Issues. Mr. Welstead stressed that the report addresses only Lake County issues. Some of the concerns raised relate to the Pruitt property, which is immediately north of this and has several thousand home sites. The City of Leesburg has annexed the area, and the annexation proceeds all of the way from the south to the northern limit of the Bradshaw property, which is Lake County on one side, and the landfill is immediately adjacent to it, on the west off of Austin Merritt North Road, which is a private road, and there are a number of issues related to roadway. Mr. Welstead had pictures of CR 48 and the intersection with Austin Merritt Road and, at this time, Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, explained the pictures in great detail. It was clarified that access to the site (landfill) will be via Austin Merritt Road north of CR 48 in Lake County.
Commr. Stivender stated that she has been asking about improvements to CR 48 for a long time, and it is on the (road) program, and now they are going to add all of these additional trucks.
For clarification, it was noted in the analysis that the estimated vehicular traffic will consist of approximately 72 large truck trips; 66 light truck trips; and 40 employee trips per day.
Staff reviewed the entrance to the site using the topography map noting the increases and decreases in elevation that currently exist in the roadway, as it goes into Sumter County.
Mr. Richardson explained there is no access to the site from the Sumter County side without them actually creating a brand new road, and there are some wetlands involved but they have acquired an easement.
Mr. Welstead stated that there is an ongoing meeting this afternoon, and at least one staff member will be attending that meeting and gathering additional information. He noted that this issue will heard in Sumter County in a couple of weeks.
Commr. Stivender clarified that she was not trying to stop Sumter County, or the private industry, from progressing but it comes into Lake County on CR 48 and, since she has been on the Board, she has been saying that they need to work on CR 48. Now information about it is coming from another County, not from their own residents, and she has a concern with the impact.
It was noted that the issue has been postponed for two weeks, to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they need to be specific out of respect for the Sumter County Commissioners, as to their objections, and the Board can generate a letter, if staff will give them some direction.
Commr. Stivender stated that the complaints that she has been getting from the residents is that this is a spray field right now, or a sludge application, and it has not always been maintained. The people along the Lake County line are having to smell this because it is not being monitored properly. She feels that all of these types of requirements should be included to protect those who live along that line. She stated that they need to address the environmental issues, and the road issue, with the road being the major issue to her.
Mr. Welstead stated that the City of Leesburg has some well fields in the area, perhaps over a mile away, and they have some concerns.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that staff put together a letter addressing the roads, and the future land use pattern in that area, in terms of what the City of Leesburg is doing.
Mr. Welstead stated that, based on the outcome of the meeting this afternoon, staff may have some additional information that he will incorporate and provide to the Board for inclusion.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that staff will draft a letter and distribute it to the Board prior to next Tuesday and put the item on the agenda for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, asked that the Board members not send any comments back to staff on the letter, but to wait for the public meeting to discuss those.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HILL - DISTRICT #1
SCHOOL BOARD IMPACT FEES
Commr. Hill informed the Board that, on Thursday, the August 21, 2003, the Impact Fee Committee did meet at the request of this Board. They did include discussion of the School Board Impact Fee, even though that had already gone through the process. She read the following motion into the record, which was passed by a 7-1 vote: “On a motion by Benham, seconded by Jim Miller, to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners re-consider the recently approved school impact fee, due to apparent discrepancy in the numbers.” Commr. Hill stated that, on April 3, 2003, the Impact Fee Committee made an original motion, and they recommended that the Board adopt the fees at 60% and phase in, with the reasoning being the Board had the actual tables, but not a text, and they were concerned about the legal challenges. So the Committee thought they would eliminate that issue by approving it at 60% and phase in. Then this Board had the text, the tables, and also the consultant, when they approved it at 100%. Commr. Hill stated that she can see two options for the Board now, and she will let the Board tell her which direction they want to go. If they bring this back to the Board, she would prefer it to be in a workshop form or, the second option, to have staff crunch the numbers, because everybody is looking strictly at the mathematical potential error. Then they can have staff bring a report back to them, as to the mathematical aspect of it, and they can consider it in a workshop, or a Board meeting. Commr. Hill stated that, if the numbers are incorrect, it will have to be changed within the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in his opinion, when the homebuilders came to him, there were two issues, one being that there was a mathematical error of $300. It is his understanding that their consultant feels he is correct with the way it is figured. Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not believe that the $300 was really an issue with the homebuilders, as much as the next issue, the School Board not counting any money spent on the high schools, and not counting any of that towards capacity. He pointed out that this was a policy decision made by the School Board, when they told the voters they were going to take the money from the additional penny and renovate the high schools that have had nothing done to them in the last 20 or 30 years, so he did not think there was any inference to the voters that this would increase school size; it was purely to renovate what was there; and the homebuilders feel it was a bad policy and, even though it may have been, he does not believe it affects the impact fee.
Commr. Hill stated that, when Mr. Jim Drake, Lake County Schools, came to the Impact Fee Committee, and the President of the Homeowners Association was there, there was no discussion. Mr. Drake was not concerned about the theory, or any other aspect, it was strictly a numbers issue, and that was all he presented. He just wanted them to look at the numbers and that is why she read the motion, so the Board could see it was just a discrepancy, and an actual bottom line number.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that staff would like to have the assistance of their consultant who prepared the numbers, so a dollar adjustment would have to be made to the consultant’s contract, since it has expired.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5–0 vote, the Board approved to place on the agenda the item regarding the impact fee, as discussed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he understands that the motion would be to have staff re-look at the mathematical equation along with the consultant and report back to the Board. Again, it was his opinion that the $300 was not an issue with the Homebuilders Association, it was the other issue regarding not counting that capacity that could really reduce the impact fee by more than $300 and, to go through this again, and to spend more money, he did not agree with this direction.
Commr. Hill made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to direct staff to re-look at the mathematical equation (for the school impact fee), along with the County’s consultant, and the Homeowner Association’s consultant, and report back to the Board.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that Mr. Drake did vote for this motion, and he was very much in favor of it, to make sure that nobody had any questions with these figures.
Commr. Cadwell called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted “no”.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT #2
BROWNS FORD CROSSING - HISTORICAL MARKER
Commr. Pool stated that he needs to address the issue of the Browns Ford Crossing site.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, after looking at the Florida Statutes and the Administrative Rules, he talked with Ms. Gail Bass, from Representative Carey Baker’s Office, and he believes that what is intended is to ask for the placement of a State historical marker at this site. In order to do that, you have to make an application to the Department of State, and the County can do that, and he believes that Commr. Pool would like to ask staff to begin that process.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add to the agenda the item regarding a historical marker for the site, as noted.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to direct staff to make an application to the Department of State for the placement of a State historical marker/monument at the Browns Ford Crossing site.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT #4
GREEN BUILDING SEMINAR
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that they had a very successful green building seminar a couple of weeks ago, which Mr. Gregg Welstead, Director of Growth Management, had put together with HOK from Tampa, and she appreciates staff working with them.
RESOLUTIONS - STATE FOREST
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Resolution 2003-137 designating October 2003 as State Forest Awareness Month.
Commr. Hanson stated that, in response to calls she has received regarding the tax increase (fire) on commercial properties, she wanted to clarify that she knew the residential rates were going up but it turns out that the commercial has more than doubled, and the rates have not remained the same, and that is what she had assumed would happen because all they ever talked about was residential. In questioning staff, she found that the consultant used one year to base the recommendations on rather than an average of the years. As the Board moves forward, she would like to ask staff, if the Board agrees, to come back with the comparison of the rates today, with the rates as they were before the increase. She stated that, over time, as they get more information, and more years to back up their decisions, they need to be averaging more than just one year. She understands that there is a problem pulling out the number of calls for fire and for emergency services, so they need to do whatever is necessary to be able to pull out that information, and to get the most accurate numbers, as they make these decisions. She is disappointed that staff did not make it more obvious to them that they were talking about more than just the 30% increase, or the $37 residential. She noted that, in looking at the information that was provided yesterday, it is a significant difference on commercial, even though other areas have gone down, but the increase did not move forward at the same percentage for all categories.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, noted that staff would prepare a report to bring back to the Board, as requested.
Commr. Hanson stated that there is not much that the Board can do about the numbers at this time, because the trim notices have already gone out to the residents.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, informed the Board that, on September 9, 2003, the Board had scheduled the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento issue. With the fire and solid waste issues scheduled for that day, staff felt that it would be best not to have the study report the same day, not knowing how long those hearings will take that day. He stated that, if they delayed the report for a month, it would be timely.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board had announced to the people present that day that the report would be discussed on that particular day, as noted, which may be a problem. He stated that this was Commr. Hanson’s district and, if she is comfortable with the change, the Board would go along with it.
Commr. Hanson felt that staff could get in touch with those individuals who were here at the meeting when the date was announced and get the information out to others in the community.
WEKIVA STUDY AREA
Commr. Hanson stated that the Wekiva River Basin Coordinating Committee will be meeting in Altamonte Springs tomorrow, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, and the Board members are invited to attend the meeting. She stated that the potential for the boundaries could include other Commissioner districts, and it is countywide and a significant part of Lake County. Even though the Board has not really discussed the issues, Commr. Hanson stated that she needs to know that, as she participates in the process, she either has the backing of the Board, or she is also representing their interests.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, presented the Board with the following information: Wekiva River Basin Coordinating Committee Timeline, Issue One and Issue Two, and a list of the Committee Members. Mr. Welstead stated that the item that is foremost on their list for completion at the meeting tomorrow and Thursday is designation of the study area. He noted that the meeting tomorrow starts at 10 a.m. and runs through 7 p.m., and public comment will be from 5-7 p.m., and then continues on Thursday, 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., or whenever they finish. He explained that a lot of the agenda tomorrow is just formalities, and then they will go into discussion of the specifics. Yesterday he received a copy of a map (Map 13: Potential Wekiva Study Area SJRWMD Proposed Springshed Protection Area), which will be discussed either tomorrow, or Thursday. The Board members were presented with the map for discussion. Mr. Welstead noted that this map is Map 5 out of the Task Force report. At this time, he explained the outlines of specific areas.
Ms. Blanche Girardin, Environmental Services Director, addressed questions of Commr. Pool by explaining that she met with the hydrogeologist representing some of the cities, Eustis, Mount Dora, and Tavares, this morning and noting that she is well versed on the model used by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Ms. Girardin stated that she questioned the use of that model, because there are better tools available to them today, and she has asked the hydrogeologist to bring up tomorrow in the meeting, the use of a more appropriate and more modern model that marries surface and groundwater more appropriately to study this, however, she will let the Board know that the SJRWMD has information or data that they have entered into every packet that is on that map. In their meeting today with the cities, staff questioned the appropriateness of using such a large area. She noted that the model that was used to generate that map is the entire East Coast Central Florida Water Supply Region, which extends just south of Jacksonville down to Brevard County, west into the watersheds of the SWFWMD, and east into the Atlantic Ocean. They asked that the hydrogeologist address the fact that there may be better information, and more local information, that might be more appropriate to do these plans, and also that she has evidence that the draw down in the Seminole and Orange area alters this map and causes fluctuations in this map, and to ask the SJRWMD to respectfully look at outside data that shows that more conservation in that area might mean less conservation in Lake County.
Commr. Hanson wanted to know if Ms. Girardin felt that all of what is being shown as the contributing groundwater to the Wekiva system that is south and west of Lake Apopka actually goes to the Wekiva, because they have always assumed that it went on up through the Chain of Lakes and out to the St. Johns ultimately rather than to the Wekiva.
Ms. Girardin explained that she questions the validity of that issue, but the hydrogeologist who represents the cities had done several years of potential metric maps for the floridan aquifer that indicates there is a flow in that direction but, she feels they need to get more localized and more accurate.
Commr. Hill stated that essentially they are saying that there are no springs in Orange County, or Seminole County, that feed into the Wekiva, when she is counting ten springs just in the Orlando area.
Ms. Girardin stated that, having worked on the Wekiva, it is her opinion that they have not adequately looked to the east at all, but she does not have documentation, or data, to provide to them tomorrow. She explained that they are using 1995 data, and they are not counting on the draw down caused by the Greater Metropolitan Area.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that they, as staff, and Commr. Hanson, as their representative, need to know the tact to take with the Committee. Staff is planning to be more active in attending the meetings, and he will be at the meetings but, the Board has only directed them to basically support the cities in the triangle, and Umatilla, as well.
Commr. Cadwell stated that some of the decisions will have to be made when items are presented to Commr. Hanson, based on the science that is presented to her, and to staff, and they are going to have to rely on her.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was her feeling that the science will probably not be there in the time frame but, if they look at the dark blue boundaries (SJRWMD - Map 13), they at least come all of the way over to US Highways 17 and 92 and I-4, and it includes some major metropolitan areas that would be similar to Mount Dora and Eustis on both sides. Her feeling is that whatever they do in Lake County, the same regulations need to be across the Board, if they feel that way. The other recommendation of the Board, which they sent through Mr. Minkoff to relay to the Task Force, was that they were to be held harmless if any takings were created by the State, because of this issue.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the process this time would be as follows: first, decide the area they are going to study; second, decide what additional controls need to be put on there by the legislature. The immediate step, for tomorrow and Thursday, is going to be looking at these areas and seeing if they can pick one. The blue one (Map 13) is a good one except that Eustis and Mount Dora and some of Umatilla probably are not going to be happy with it.
Commr. Hanson stated that the only concern she has is that no one has looked at the County’s land use maps and Comprehensive Plan to see what they have in place today.
Mr. Welstead stated that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is in the process of doing this with staff, and they have also requested the same information from a number of municipalities including Groveland and Clermont. It was noted by staff that the Executive Order has them examining all of the Comprehensive Plans, and the Timeline shows that, by the November 1 deadline, the DCA is charged to provide a review of all the local land plans and LDRs and provide a report to the Committee.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether there were any other suggestions. She understands that they will have to make decisions as they go along, but she understands that the cities and some of the other affected parties will be attempting to put together a minority opinion.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, even though the Board has Commr. Hanson as their representative who supports the Board on the Committee, he was sure that she would not be opposed to any other Board member speaking under public comment, and he was certain that she knows where the Board stands on certain issues.
Commr. Hanson noted that she and staff will keep the Board posted.
Mr. Welstead wanted to make the Board aware of the US 441 bypass, which has been taken out of the scenario.
Commr. Hanson stated that they really did not focus on that at all during the Task Force, but her personal feeling is that, depending on what happens through this process, it will determine whether her vote will be to move forward with the Expressway Authority. She stated that Lake County does not need that extension; Central Florida regionally needs that extension. It would be helpful with the growth along Highway 441, as they move into the future, but they do not have to have it, and she does not intend to sell out the folks that live here for that road.
Mr. Welstead noted that, if the Board goes to the DCA web site, there is a Wekiva section that will have all of these maps, as well as additional information including agendas.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK