A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 28, 2003
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting Room, on the second floor of the 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: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; William “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the Closed Session that was originally scheduled for this meeting, for the purpose of discussing the Covanta issue, would not be needed at this time, however, noted that he would like to add to the Agenda an update regarding ongoing litigation, which he would inform the Board about at the end of the meeting, with a request for Board direction.
Commr. Cadwell stated that (1) the St. Johns River Water Management District has scheduled an East Central Florida Water Supply Planning Initiative Meeting on a day when he has another commitment and cannot attend; therefore, he would like to appoint another commissioner to represent the Board at said meeting; (2) the Orlando Regional Health Care System has put together a Central Florida Trauma Center Task Force, to address some long range issues, and he would like to bring someone forward that would serve as the citizen representative on that Board; and (3) he would like to bring to the Board’s attention a letter that Sheriff Knupp sent to the City of Leesburg, regarding the issue of annexation, which he feels needs some discussion and possible action.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said items on the Agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works - Amendment for Engineering Services for Additional Services Necessary
for Sleepy Hollow Road Project
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of Amendment for Engineering Services, in the amount of $8,020.00, submitted by Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), a design consultant, for additional services necessary for the Sleepy Hollow Road Project.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: VACATIONS
PETITION NO. 1004 - RONALD AND MEI B. MOSS - UMATILLA AREA
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that, due to the fact that this case was tied to a Rezoning case that was scheduled to be heard later this date, he would prefer postponing action regarding it until after that case was heard.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone action regarding Petition No. 1004, Ronald and Mei B. Moss, Umatilla area, until after the Rezoning cases are heard.
PETITION NO. 1008 - BRENDA S. BREGG, POTTER CLEMENT LOWRY &
DUNCAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, REPRESENTATIVE - PAISLEY AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate the right of way on Donmar Road, as shown on the Plat of Mardon Acres, located in Section 29, Township 17 South, Range 28 East, in the Paisley area - Commission District 5. He displayed an aerial and plat of the property in question (contained in the Board’s backup material) stating that access into the subdivision in question is off Fisherman’s Road, which he noted meanders through several subdivision plats. He stated that several lots are involved with this request, as well as a citrus grove and a rural road in the vicinity. He stated that the County has on file letters in favor of and in opposition to the request. He stated that the road, which was originally a sand road, but is now a clay road, has been a platted right of way since 1968; however, the question is whether the access has a public purpose. He stated that staff reviewed what they have on file and it appears that the road in question is the most practical viable access the residents have to a paved road.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter Clement Lowry & Duncan, addressed the Board stating that he was representing the Hammond family and Brenda and David Bregg, the applicants listed on the petition for this case. He submitted a petition, containing approximately 21 names, in favor of the vacation and noted that there were several people in the audience in favor of the request, as well. He stated that the road in question has been in existence and utilized as a mail route/grove road since the early 1900s. He stated that various residents of the subdivision have legal access, which was dedicated to them, via Fisherman’s Road, West Lane, and two 50 foot easements, one that runs along the east side of the orange grove. He stated that his staff was able to establish that all the residents he alluded to have legal access to their properties, via the route he pointed out to the Board. He stated that a notice of the vacation was sent to Sprint, TECO, SECO, and Comcast and they have no objection to the vacation of the road. He stated that the problems began when four-wheelers, motorcycles, and such activity began using the road. He stated that his clients respectfully disagree with Mr. Stivender, regarding the condition of the road prior to the placement of clay, noting that they had improved the area with some landscaping and the planting of grass. He stated that Mr. Griffith, a resident in opposition to the request, started dumping clay on the road, which caused problems with the petitioners. He stated that the issue he wanted to address this date was the rights of the petitioners, noting that the residents in opposition to this request objected to the vacation of the right of way, with their primary concern being that it was a paved legal access for their property, in the event they eventually want to develop it. He stated that, ever since the grove has been in existence, the petitioners have utilized it to bring in their equipment, pickers, trucks, etc., and have made some improvements for the staging area for the trucks, while the fruit is being picked and loaded onto the trucks. He stated that his clients do not have any recollection of the residents in opposition to the request ever utilizing the road for access to their property. He stated that Mardon Circle is a narrow road and not suitable for heavy equipment, tractor trailers, etc.
Mr. Duncan stated that Mr. Griffith, probably the petitioner’s biggest opponent, filed an application for a building permit and, according to the directions that he put on the application for the contractors, he does not utilize Donmar Road to access his property, at which time he read into the record the directions that Mr. Griffith put on the application. He displayed various photographs showing the Hammond family home, reflectors that they placed in the right of way to keep vehicles from tearing up the area, and clay that Mr. Griffith placed on the right of way.
Mr. John Weatherford, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Chester Jasper, property owners to the south of the property in question, addressed the Board stating that the easement access runs up to West Lane to the east, which he noted is a deeply rutted sand road that is not very passable. He stated that the physical access to his clients’ property is by way of Donmar Road, which has been improved to a degree where it is passable. He addressed concerns the Jaspers have about emergency vehicles being able to access their property; the ability of a foster child in their care being able to catch the school bus at the intersection of Fisherman’s Road and Mardon Circle, utilizing the safest and shortest route; and their garbage pickup, should the right of way be vacated. He stated that, in looking at the photographs that Mr. Duncan provided to the Board, one can see that Donmar Road is quite passable and it is important that it remain open for his clients to have access to it. He stated that there is no dedicated access to the west, noting that it would take establishing that through a prescriptive easement lawsuit, which may or may not be proven, and each property owner would have to file their own lawsuit, to establish their rights in the case. He stated that there currently exists a public right of way that leads almost to his client’s property, which should be preserved, to allow emergency vehicles to access it.
Mr. Dan Griffith, a resident of the area and the individual who had clay dumped on the right of way, in an attempt to upgrade it, addressed the Board stating that he and his wife live on a five acre parcel south of Mardon Acres. He stated that they have the same concerns as the Jaspers and, with regard to the petition that was submitted to the Board in favor of the vacation, he feels some people will undermine the rights of other people - some on purpose and others through sheer ignorance, because they do not know what is going on, with regard to the situation.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that he met with Mr. Griffith, prior to this meeting, and indicated a concern he had about the interest of other property owners in the area and that, when Mr. Griffith had the clay dumped on the right of way, he felt he did it to aggravate his neighbors. He stated that he felt things were heading into more of a neighborhood dispute than a question of access, which concerned him. He noted that Mr. Griffith had a wide area in which to have the clay dumped, yet he dumped it in a nice grassy area that had been improved and was easy to travel on. He stated that he felt the right of way was in better shape before Mr. Griffith had the clay dumped on it than it currently is.
Commr. Hanson stated that it appeared the only property owner that would have legal access at this point in time would be the grove owner south of Donmar Road and that the residents in the area have no legal right to be using any part of the road.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, based on the map before the Board this date, that was correct.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Pool to approve Resolution No. 2003-186 - Petition No. 1008, by Brenda S. Bregg, Potter Clement Lowry & Duncan, Attorney at Law, Representative, to vacate the right of way on Donmar Road, as shown on the Plat of Mardon Acres, located in Section 29, Township 17 South, Range 28 East, in the Paisley area - Commission District 5.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem with the vacation, because she did not believe that Donmar Road was ever intended to service the whole area in question, but was put in place to provide access to the grove owner. She questioned what position it would put the County in, if the grove owner becomes landlocked, due to the Board’s action this date to approve the vacation of the right of way.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, in order to vacate a road, the Board has to show that it is in the public interest and, if they were going to cause a property owner to be landlocked, it would be hard to be in favor of the public interest to close the road.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about the position that approving the request would put the County in, even though the grove owner may never go to court to obtain prescriptive rights.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
At this time, staff was directed to remove the clay that has been placed in the right of way, due to the fact that it is unsightly and removing it will make the right of way more passable.
PETITION NO. 1010 - BLACKWATER CREEK ENTERPRISES, INC. - EUSTIS
AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to vacate a portion of Eustis Sand Company Road, located in Section 35, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area, in Commission District 5. He displayed a map (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the road in question, stating that everyone has agreed to the vacation, with the exception of one utility company. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that it is a matter of cleaning up the right of way.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution No. 2003-187 - Petition No. 1010, Blackwater Creek Enterprises, Inc., to vacate a portion of right of way for Eustis Sand Company Road, located in Section 36, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area, in exchange for the dedication of right of way in the existing road location - Commission District 5.
CLOSED SESSION - COVANTA
The Chairman announced that the Closed Session, scheduled to be held at this time to discuss the Covanta issue, was cancelled, however, noted that the matter would be addressed later in the meeting.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PUBLIC WORKS - FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE
COUNTY AND HIGHLAND REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENTS, INC., ET. AL.
REGARDING SOUTH CLERMONT CONNECTOR
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works, addressed the Board and explained this request, which is an amendment to the agreement between Lake County and Highland Real Estate and Investments, Inc. (HREI), involving the South Clermont Connector, to allow the County to bid the construction of the project and allow for reimbursement to the developer an amount not to exceed $1,000 for administration of the engineering contract and the construction contract, if it is bid by HREI. He stated that the gentleman the County is dealing with on the project has some incidental expenses and the County would like to have approximately $1,000 available to draw from. He stated that the County is moving along with the project, but it is taking a little time to get it completed.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and execution of First Amendment to Agreement between Lake County and Highland Real Estate and Investments, Inc., et al, regarding the South Clermont Connector, as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - REZONING
Commrs. Hill, Stivender, Hanson, and Pool noted that they had met with the applicants, or the applicant’s representatives, prior to this meeting, at which time a copy of the Rezoning Agenda was submitted, for the record, indicating those cases where they had met with said individuals.
REZONING CASE NO. PH61-03-4 - A TO CFD - SORRENTO INDEPENDENT
BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. - TRACKING NO. 89-03-CFD/AMD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend existing PFD/CFD Ordinance No. 22-86, consisting of five (5) acres, to add a daycare facility to the permitted uses and to rezone an additional ten (10) acres that was purchased by Sorrento Independent Baptist Church from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District). He displayed an aerial map (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the property in question, noting that it is located within the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node and outside the Wekiva River protection boundaries, as they currently exist. He stated that the request is consistent with the Lake County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that Public Works has indicated they may require turn lanes on CR 437 at the development entrance, depending on what may further come forward, such as a site plan, if they want to add additional structures. He stated that the County has not received any letters of support or opposition to this request. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by an 11-0 vote, and staff was recommending approval as well.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-87 - Sorrento Independent Baptist Church, Bruce G. Duncan, Rezoning Case No. PH61-03-4,Tracking No. 89-03-CFD/AMD, a request for approval to amend existing PFD/CFD Ordinance No. 22-86, consisting of five acres, to add a daycare facility to the permitted uses and an additional ten acres to the church property, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH65-03-3 - A TO CFD - PETER G. AND DONNA M.
WEINHEIMER - TRACKING NO. 90-03-CFD
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to rezone a 50 acre tract of land located in the Rural Conservation Area of the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), to allow the operation of a spiritual retreat and learning center. He stated that the spiritual retreat and learning center activities will include workshops and classes in subjects such as shamanism, native wisdom, spiritual practice, personal growth and health, yoga, martial arts, holistic medicine, and other associated philosophies. He displayed an aerial map (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the property in question, noting that the uses being requested would be permitted uses within the Rural Conservation district, under the CFD zoning. He displayed a conceptual drawing of the site plan (County Exhibit A), which was submitted, for the record, pointing out the locations of the various structures being proposed for the site, such as open pavilions for yoga and martial arts classes, a café and book store, an eating area and kitchen, and six (6) cabins. He stated that the applicants currently have a permitted bed and breakfast on the property and the six cabins they are proposing will be on well and septic tanks, noting that there is no water and sewer available at the site, at which time he noted that the wells and septic tanks will have to meet all of the Florida Department of Health’s requirements for septic tanks in the Green Swamp. He noted that a group septic tank could be used for the cabins, rather than requiring a septic tank for each cabin. He stated that the applicants are also proposing a bath house associated with the cabins, which could eliminate the need for the bathing areas in the cabins, and the applicants could have just one central location for the bathing area.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that there are currently no code enforcement issues on the property, but, noted that there is one issue involving the building permit that was pulled for a storage building that is being converted in the area where they will conduct their massage therapy and training. He stated that they cannot renew the building permit until the rezoning has proceeded forward, so it is on hold, however, noted that they are ready to renew it, should the Board approve this rezoning request. He stated that they are proposing to only have the facility open during the Fall and Winter months, due to the fact that problems with mosquitos and heat increase during the Spring and Summer months. He stated that a petition with 21 signatures in support of the request is on file, but no letters of opposition were received. He stated that staff found the request to be consistent with the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and with its Comprehensive Plan, therefore, were recommending approval to rezone the property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a spiritual retreat and learning center, as presented. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request, by a 7-4 vote, because they felt the applicants were vague about what they wanted; however, he felt they were pretty specific about what they were asking for and the types of uses they wanted. He stated that, if a lot of record determination was run on the property, the applicants could end up with four sites and, if they did some manipulating through a lot line adjustment, there would be the potential for possibly five sites, in that they only have to have a minimum of one acre of uplands for each of the tracts, to be recognized as a site. He stated that they will be getting the operation going in Phase I of the project and, in Phases II and III, they would like to develop trails for hiking and plan to construct some type of wetland observatory, sort of a boardwalk, for nature observance.
Ms. Donna Weinheimer, Applicant, addressed the Board stating that she was the owner of the property in question, as well as the owner of Out of the Blue Massage Therapy in Clermont. She stated that she has been a resident of Lake County for 20 years and she and her husband have owned businesses in the County during that time. She stated that she feels this project is something that is necessary, noting that there is nothing in the south Lake County area that offers the entire family something to do. She stated that, while one member of the family takes a pottery class, other members of the family can do bird watching, or take a martial arts class, etc. She stated that her retreat offers something for the mind, body, and soul all in one place. She stated that she was very flexible in making it happen and is willing to work with the County on how things should be set up. She noted that the facility will not be open to the general public, but only to the guests that will be staying there.
Ms. Weinheimer stated that she originally planned to have six separate cabins and buildings, however, found that she could also have a bed and breakfast, with ten rooms containing double beds, a dining area, and indoor class area, as well as some outdoor pavilions for yoga, sculpturing, photography, etc. She stated that the facility could be condensed down to one building, with one septic tank, on one portion of the property, with nature trails around the rest of the property. She stated that she also has two small cabins that need to be upgraded, that can be used for the massage therapy and wellness buildings, where one can go to read books, listen to tapes, and get a massage.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the proposed site plan shows no structures in Phases II and III of the project and questioned whether Ms. Weinheimer would have a problem with putting wording in the Ordinance to indicate that there will be no structures in those phases of the project.
Ms. Weinheimer stated that she would not have a problem with doing so, however, noted that there will be observatories for the wetlands, for people to be able to do photography and bird watching, and she will be upgrading the trails that currently exist on the property, so that they are more easily accessible.
Commr. Hill stated that she was not opposed to what Ms. Weinheimer was planning to do, she just was not sure that the site is the proper place for the facility, with the number of people that are expected to utilize it.
It was noted that the existing bed and breakfast has two bedrooms and there are currently two cabins on the property, as well.
Commr. Stivender clarified with staff the fact that, when they reviewed the plans for the project, they found no problems with what currently exists on the property, in that it is all legal and that the septic tanks function properly.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that he was not aware that there were two cabins on the property, noting that he thought the two buildings on the property were storage buildings that were going to be converted into the wellness center and massage therapy areas. He was informed by Ms. Weinheimer that the buildings were originally storage buildings that were now going to be used as the wellness center and massage therapy areas.
Mr. James Clements, the owner of a parcel of property across the street from the applicants, addressed the Board stating that he did not understand why it took him over one year to obtain approval for his daughter to build a house on his property, which is high and dry land, yet the property in question is swamp land and the applicants are being considered for an expansion of their facility. He submitted, for the record, a newspaper article (Opposition’s Exhibit A) that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on October 26, 2003, about the Out of the Blue Half Moon Retreat, which is owned by the applicants and located on the property in question. He stated that, according to the article, the applicants have had their facility open since June and that it is open for retreats from October through April and to the general public year round. He stated that it is licensed to accommodate as many as 50 people, with dormitories and private units, to serve both public and health care professionals. He stated that said article is the second one that has been written about the retreat.
Mr. Clements stated that, with regard to the 21 people that signed the petition in favor of the request, he would be interested to know whether anyone that actually lives around the applicants signed the petition, noting that he personally knows the people that live in the area and does not know of anyone that signed it. He stated that he would like to know where the applicants’ clients are going to park their vehicles. He stated that he is all for having a business, noting that he is a businessman himself, owning two businesses - one in Winter Park and one in Orlando, but, he feels the Board should not even be considering approval of this request, because it is located in an area that is swamp land.
Commr. Stivender pointed out the fact that the way the property is currently zoned three to four houses could be constructed on it and questioned whether Mr. Clements felt that would be more detrimental to the area than what is being proposed, noting that the applicants would not have to preserve the wetlands, but could just build the houses.
Mr. Clements stated that the property is agricultural and not good for anything but cattle. He stated that he was against having a high use of the property and does not want to see a lot of people coming and going from the facility. Upon being questioned as to whether he had seen a lot of traffic going to and from the bed and breakfast that is currently on the property, he responded that he had not.
Commr. Cadwell questioned the applicant about the storage sheds, noting that they looked like more than just storage sheds and was informed that the buildings are currently being used as a reading room and sound room, with a deck and hot tub between the two. She stated that it was something she and her husband were just using for themselves, however, noted that, when they started going through the rezoning process and thought more about what they would like to do with their property, decided to convert the buildings, as she alluded to earlier. She stated that she would like to use one of the buildings for massage therapy treatments and the other one as a waiting/sitting room, with a library, sound, and a sundeck between the two.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicants would be able to get four building lots from the parcel in question and was informed by Mr. Hartenstein that it would be possible, which he elaborated on, noting that the applicants could do a lot line adjustment, to where each parcel would have one acre of uplands, with the remaining acreage containing wetlands, and come up with a high possibility of five tracts, however, he noted that four would be fairly easy to do. He stated that it would take a creative surveyor to lay it all out, but it would be possible.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Mr. Hartenstein felt four parcels clustered would be a better alternative than the 10 acre lots, and was informed that, by clustering it all into one group, the applicants would be able to keep a greater distance from any wetlands. He stated that the cabins could be established to where they would be on one septic system, versus four individual septic tanks, which would have a much lesser impact to the area than there would be with four building sites.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that, under a CFD zoning classification, the County could restrict the uses for the facility the same as they can in a CUP, including the hours of operation, the number of people utilizing the facility, etc. - that it is a planned district and something that can be specific, by ordinance.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that, with regard to the number of cabins to be approved for the site, he feels ten would be too many, however, informed the Board that whatever number they approved every type of use that is listed could be limited by ordinance.
Commr. Pool stated that he would prefer to see a limited number of structures on the site, so that, in passing by the property, one would not think that it was anything but a single family residence.
Commr. Cadwell suggested inserting language in the Ordinance that will prohibit any additional structures from being built on the property, but that will allow the bed and breakfast that is currently on the property to be expanded to house up to ten people.
Commr. Hanson suggested that the accessory buildings be built to environmentally friendly standards (green building) and that there be impervious surfaces, as opposed to pervious surfaces, for the parking areas.
Commr. Hill stated that the property in question is in an area that is very restrictive and she does not have a comfort level with the request, because it seems a little vague. She stated that, before the Board changes the zoning classification to a very intense piece of property, she feels the applicants are being premature and perhaps the Board is being a little premature, as well, in that they are trying to design her business and how it should look. She stated that she feels the applicants need to sit down with an architect, or county staff, and see what is available to them, noting that they may not need a zoning change at all. She stated that, if they wanted to do clustering, staff might be able to help them with that, as well.
Mr. Hartenstein interjected that, once the ordinance is established, all the concerns noted this date will be addressed during the development review process, according to the State’s rules, the Comprehensive Plan, and the LDRs, to ensure that the property is developed properly. He stated that, if the applicants want to change those uses, they will have to come back before the Board and request an amendment to do so and staff would then look at the request all over again.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender to approve Ordinance No. 2003-88 - Donna Weinheimer, Rezoning Case No. PH65-03-3,Tracking No. 90-03-CFD, a request for approval to rezone a parcel of property from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District), for a spiritual retreat and learning center, with the following conditions: The existing bed and breakfast can be expanded to house ten people; the two existing cabins on the property cannot be lived in, but can be used for therapy sessions; there are to be no impervious surfaces for parking; nature trails will be allowed; there is to be no additional construction in Phases II and III of the project, to protect the wetlands; the facility is to be open only to those clients that will be staying in the bed and breakfast and not to the general public; and the facility is to only be open for business from October to March and not during the Spring and Summer months.
Commr. Hanson seconded the motion, for discussion, at which time she questioned whether there would be a sign at the entrance to the property.
Mr. Hartenstein stated that the applicants would be permitted to have a sign, but it would have to meet the sign regulations in Chapter 11 of the Lake County Code.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would limit the property to agriculture and, as was mentioned, she feels the only agricultural enterprise that could be put on the property would be cattle, because the property is very limited in upland to have a feasible grove. She pointed out the fact that the County’s LDRs do not have a specific category for quasi-commercial/recreational activities within the conservation areas - in the Wekiva and the Green Swamp - for any other land use but cattle, which could be very devastating to the property. She stated that she continues to have that concern and has talked about it the entire time she has been on the Board. She stated that there is not a true category that this request can fit under, other than CFD, which is the only alternative that is available. She stated that she feels, with the recommendations that the motion has, particularly the clustering, the impact on the environment will be minimal and will allow the paying public to use the property to become familiar with the environment and allow the property owners to have a reasonable return on their property.
Commr. Stivender interjected that Item E., under Section 1, on Page 3 of the Ordinance, as it is written, has an expiration date and questioned whether in two years the request will have to come back up for review and was informed that that would be the case, only if the applicants have done any development on the site. She amended her motion to add a requirement that staff review the case after one year, to make sure it is in compliance.
It was noted that the applicants would not be permitted to have any of the other uses that are permitted under the Community Facility District (CFD) zoning classification.
The Chairman questioned whether the applicant understood the motion and wanted to move forward with the request and was informed by the applicant that she did.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested that, rather than mentioning the number of people allowed to stay at the facility, the motion be changed to five bedrooms, plus the applicants’ bedroom, for a total of six bedrooms.
Commr. Hanson pointed out the fact that, if the applicants can expand their facility to add five additional bedrooms, it would give them a total of seven.
Commr. Stivender modified her motion to five bedrooms, rather than ten people, plus the two bedrooms that the applicants currently have, for a total of seven bedrooms.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Pool and Hill voted “No”.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. PH59-03-2 - R-4 TO PUD - CENTER LAKE PROPERTIES,
LTD., CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQUIRE - TRACKING NO. 93-03-PUD
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, informed the Board that staff had received a request for a postponement for Center Lake Properties, Ltd. to a date certain of December 2, 2003. He stated that the applicant is scheduled to discuss the case with the City of Clermont and has asked for the postponement, to give them an opportunity to do so, before the Board hears the case.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the postponement of this case.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Rezoning Case No. PH59-03-2,Center Lake Properties, Ltd.,Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, Tracking No. 93-03-PUD, until the Board Meeting scheduled for December 2, 2003.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP03/10/3-4 - KEEPING COATIMUNDIS AS PETS
JAMES AND BELLE DUNLAP, STANLEY ROLINSKI, AND KAREN BEISLEY
TRACKING NO. 97-03-CUP
Ms. Tiffany Kapner, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) for the keeping of coatimundi, Class 3 animals, as pets. She stated that the property in question is approximately 5.85 acres, within the Wekiva River Protection Area Sending Area No. 2 “A - 1 - 20". She stated that the proposed CUP is in compliance and is consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives, and standards of these regulations, the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code of Ordinances of Lake County. She stated that all requirements set forth in the State Statute pertaining to governing the importation, transportation, sale and possession of Class 3 animals must be met. She stated that the State regulations include, but are not limited to cage size, containment of the animals in a manner that will prevent their escape, number of animals per cage, health and nutritional obligations, and provisions for mental and physical stimulation. She stated that the CUP will not have an undue adverse effect on the nearby property and public services are being adequately provided. She stated that staff recommends approval of the request, with conditions, as outlined in the Ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stanley Rolinski, Applicant, addressed the Board, as requested by Commr. Cadwell, and displayed several photographs (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the Coatimundi, for the record. It was noted that the animals are about the size of a large cat or small dog and are native to Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and Central and South America. They were all rescued, as they are injured in some way or another, and are not something that the applicants buy or sell. They are good for the environment, because they eat termites, spiders, snakes, lizards and bugs.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. 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 Ordinance No. 2003-89, James and Belle Dunlap/Stanley Rolinski/and Karen Beisley, Rezoning Case No. CUP03/10/3-4,Tracking No. 97-03-CUP, with conditions, as outlined in the Ordinance.
REZONING CASE NO. PH62-03-2 - AMEND EXISTING PUD CONDITIONS
SILVER CREEK SUBDIVISION/ZUREIQ INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.
STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 92-03- PUD/AMD
Mr. Richard O’Brien, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD), to recognize rear yard standards to accommodate pools and pool enclosures in the rear yard areas of existing lots, to reduce the specified rear yard setback from twenty-five (25) to five (5) feet. He stated that the property is situated off Hwy. 27, in the southern part of the County, and is adjoining and to the rear of the Woodcrest Development, at which time he displayed an aerial map (contained in the Board’s backup material) of said property. He stated that staff has reviewed the request and checked to see that the requirements for Impervious Surface Area Ratio and open space could be met and, with the reduction in the rear yard area, they find that it can. He stated that the proposed amendment would not present the potential or propensity to advance any progression of particular land use patterns contrary to the initial intent of the PUD, as approved, and they do not anticipate that it will conflict with the public interest. He stated that they find the proposed amendment to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, therefore, were recommending approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant’s representative was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-90, Silver Creek/Zureiq Investments/Steven J. Richey, P.A.,
Rezoning Case No. PH62-03-2, Tracking No. 92-03-PUD/AMD, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. SLPA03/10/1-4 - SUBURBAN TO URBAN EXPANSION
HENRY HAAS/STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 94-03-SLPA
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a small scale land use plan amendment. He stated that the applicant was requesting approval to change the property from Suburban to Urban Expansion on approximately 4.12 acres along SR 46, east of Mount Dora. He stated that, although the land use change would be an island within a Suburban land use, directly to the east of the property is an employment center land use designation and there are industrial uses in the area, as well. He stated that there are two existing adjacent subdivisions to the west of the property, which will be developed at similar densities to what is being requested, based on this land use change and subsequent rezoning, but, because of the island that will be created by the Urban Expansion designation, staff could not recommend approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that, before the application for this request was filed, he had several meetings with staff to discuss the fact that the property in question could be evaluated either way - the way that staff presented it to the Board, in that the applicant would be creating Urban Expansion surrounded by Suburban, or as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, based on existing development. He stated that staff indicated to him at those meetings that the whole area of Suburban probably needed to be looked at, because of development in the area that is vested, but that they were not going to hold this project up, because the applicant is simply trying to get four acres rezoned, to allow the construction of six houses on property that is in a density that is consistent with the six houses that are being proposed to be constructed on the property.
Mr. Richey stated that, having met with staff four times, he felt comfortable that his client could expend the money, time, and effort to enter into a contract, pay the fees, and process this application. He stated that it was not until the day before the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that he was aware of the fact that there was a negative recommendation from staff.
Mr. Tim Green, President, Green Consulting Group, addressed the Board, representing the applicant, as requested by Mr. Richey, and explained what he had been asked to do, with regard to this request. He answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding the fact that he was asked to look at the neighborhood and existing development and found that the intensities and densities exist. He gave the Board his evaluation and professional opinion, as a planner, as to the appropriateness of the small scale land use plan amendment that was being proposed. He stated that, if one were to look at the Future Land Use Map, it looks like the applicant is creating an urban pocket, surrounded by less density, however, noted that, if they looked at the reality of the situation, they would find that the higher density would actually bring the neighborhood together as one. He displayed a plat (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the property in question, as well as an aerial photograph (Applicant’s Exhibit B), showing what is currently in the area, which he submitted, for the record. He noted that the aerial photograph was an older photograph, which does not show some homes that have since been built on Top of the Hill Drive, off of SR 46, as well as some that have been built south of the property in question. He stated that they feel they are not creating an urban pocket, even though the maps may look that way.
It was noted that a rooftop analysis was not done, because of the commercial and industrial uses and the one-half acre tracts that are in the area.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-91, Henry Haas/Steven J. Richey, P.A.,Rezoning Case No. SLPA03/10/1-4, Tracking No. 94-03-SLPA, a request to change the present Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of a 4.12 acre parcel lying within Section 34, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, from Suburban to Urban Expansion, to develop the property for residential purposes, as presented.
REZONING CASE NO. PH63-03-4 - R-1 TO R-2 - HENRY F. HAAS/STEVEN J.
RICHEY, P.A. - TRACKING NO. 95-03-Z
The Chairman noted that this case and the prior case were connected and that this request involved the rezoning of the property from the previous case.
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, informed the Board that staff was recommending approval of the request, noting that the applicant would not be able to get over six or seven units maximum on the property. He stated that what was actually proposed with the application shows seven units, all accessing off of Buttercup Lane, at which time he displayed a sketch (County Exhibit A) of the proposed subdivision, showing the proposed homes and the fact that there will be a landscape buffer along SR 46, which he submitted, for the record.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that Farner-Barley & Associates looked at the site and found that it is not capable of being engineered for more than six units.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. 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 Ordinance No. 2003-92, Henry Haas/Steven J. Richey, P.A.,Rezoning Case No. PH63-03-4, Tracking No. 95-03-Z, a request to rezone approximately four (4) acres in the Mount Dora area from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate Residential), in an existing Suburban land use category to Urban Expansion.
REZONING CASE NO. LPA03/8/1-2 - AMENDMENT TO FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM RURAL TO URBAN EXPANSION - HART FAMILY,
LLC/JIMMY D. CRAWFORD, ATTORNEY - TRACKING NO. 73-03-LPA
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment to the current Future Land Use Designation of Rural to Urban Expansion for approximately 142 acres, located in the vicinity of Hartwood Marsh Road and Hancock Road. He stated that the applicant wishes to develop the property for residential purposes, noting that the surrounding area to the north is residential and mining, to the east is mining (Tarmac), to the south is residential, and to the west is residential. He stated that the corporate limits of the City of Clermont partially surrounds the property on three sides - the north, west, and south. He stated that staff reviewed the request and the applicant proposes the change from Rural (one dwelling unit per five (5) acres) to Urban Expansion ( a maximum of four (4) units per acre). He stated that the City of Clermont has water and wastewater infrastructure available to the property, however, noted that the application does not contain written confirmation from the City assuring that the utility services will be provided for the project at its built-out capacity. He stated that staff feels this will be a logical candidate for annexation into the City of Clermont, due to the fact that the City surrounds the parcel on three sides. He stated that, in Policy 1-1.4: Urban Design Strategies, it talks about integrating functionality and aesthetically pleasing characteristics, however, noted that this parcel is located within the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) area, so it could be accomplished through joint Land Development Regulations (LDRs), under the JPA. He stated that the Board’s backup material contained a letter from Mr. Barry Brown, Planner, with the City of Clermont, stating that, if the Board approves the land use plan amendment, the City will ask that the property be annexed into the City and developed into city standards, prior to any future rezonings on the parcel. He stated that staff was recommending denial of the request, based on the fact that they felt the better route would be to deal directly with the City of Clermont, for annexation, in an effort to try to make that whole area look as one. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by an 8-3 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson, addressed the Board stating that he was representing the owners of the property in question, the Hart Family, noting that they have owned the property for more than 50 years. He stated that it was citrus until 1983, when it was frozen out, however, noted that it was replanted, only to be frozen out again in 1985, with the exception of approximately 20 acres, which still remains in citrus to this day, from the 1984 replanting. He stated that the family, at that time, largely gave up their citrus operation. He stated that Mr. Hart was not a citrus magnate and does not own a lot of additional property. He stated that Mr. Hart is now in his 80s and would like to do something with the property while he is still alive. He stated that the Hart family planted the property in pine trees and continued to work the 20 acre grove and maintain their agricultural classification on the property, so that they would not lose it in taxes. He stated that the family moved out of the State of Florida, took jobs in North Carolina, and moved on with their lives. He stated that they have watched the City of Clermont and south Lake County grow, at which time he displayed a hand drawn plat (Applicant’s Exhibit A) of the property in question, as well as surrounding properties, which he submitted, for the record. He stated that they watched the first development be annexed into the City of Clermont, being a 2000 plus unit Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that was approved by the County and then annexed into the City, known as Kings Ridge, as well as the property that abuts the property in question to the north, known as Somerset. He stated that they watched the City annex the property to the west and beyond their property along Hartwood Marsh Road, which has since been developed into Regency Hills, and to the northeast, they watched the County pass an amendment to the Land Use Plan, to take that area from Rural to Urban Expansion. He stated that they then watched the City approve an embedded subdivision on a 20 acre cut out of their parcel, known as Hartwood Pines. He stated that due east of the property there is an industrial land use known as the Tarmac Sand Mine, at which time he noted that he is aware of the fact that they have some concerns about this request, which he will try to address at the end of this discussion. He stated that Lake County and the City of Clermont has virtually surrounded the property in question with residential development, which sounds like infill, at this point in time.
Mr. Crawford stated that Mr. Hart met with him approximately 18 months ago and discussed what he should do with the property. He stated that they recognized it was probably a city development, in that there was not a JPA at that point, or much talk about a JPA, but they knew that the City had annexed all around the property. He stated that they spoke with the City representatives and agreed to work with them, noting that they would still annex the property today, but, the City’s actions over the past year, and, in fact, the past month, gave the applicant very little confidence that they were willing to annex the property and he was not willing to gamble his client’s property rights on that fact, so he told the City that the applicant would apply for a LUPA (Land Use Plan Amendment) in the County, but that they would be willing to annex at any point in time. He stated that they were scheduled to come before the Board in August of this year, however, the City and the County jointly came to them and asked that they postpone the request, stating that they were about to have a JPA and the applicant would have to appear before the City of Clermont for comments, even though the JPA was not yet in effect. He stated that, with everybody’s assurance they would be able to make this cycle with a September or October transmittal and a December adoption, they agreed to do what the City and the County had recommended they do, which was to go through the City’s comment process. He displayed a copy of the Minutes (Applicant’s Exhibit B) of the September 23, 2003 Clermont City Council Meeting, which he submitted, for the record, noting that a motion was made by Councilmember Elaine Renick that no changes to Zoning or Future Land Use Designations within the JPA occur, until the Future Land Use Map is amended, with the intent to reflect staff’s position, which passed by a 3-2 vote. He stated that staff’s position was that the JPA Future Land Use Amendments should all be completed, before doing anything else within the JPA. He stated that that was a very onerous and difficult standard for his clients to comply with, because nobody knows how long it is going to take for that to happen, although he noted that he felt the LDRs would happen right away and be adopted within 90 days. He stated that he did not feel the Comprehensive Plan Amendments would be done for another 18 months to three years, if it is ever done, which he does not feel is fair to his client. He stated that, from a planning perspective, he did not feel anybody would say that this is not the right place or the right time for a residential subdivision. He noted that the Planing and Zoning Commission approved the request, by an 8-3 vote, and that he was aware of the fact that the issue of schools and the requirement of annexation needed to be addressed.
Mr. Crawford stated that what the Board would be voting on this date was transmittal of a land use plan amendment, noting that adoption of that amendment, if it is transmitted, may take place in December, January, or later. He stated that the zoning on the parcel is agricultural and remains agricultural, noting that no matter what takes place this date, not one residential unit is being increased on the property. He stated that the property is surrounded by a retirement community and it is very possible that the property in question will be a retirement development, when the applicant comes forward and asks for zoning in the near future, hopefully next year. He stated that, with regard to the issue of annexation, Mr. Brown’s letter states that the City of Clermont does not want the land use plan changed; however, if it is changed, they want a commitment to annex and rezone into the City, which his client would be happy to do. He stated that his client has stated that, if the City of Clermont votes to annex him into the City and provide him with water and wastewater services, he will not need a land use plan amendment and will withdraw his request. He stated that his client would love to give the City that chance, noting that he feels it is a city project and will develop it completely to city standards.
It was noted that, if the applicant were to have Suburban on the property in question, in all likelihood, he would meet the issue of timeliness, although the applicant has not done that analysis, because it would assure that there would be no more than three units to the acre, if the applicant had a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Mr. Crawford stated that his client has applied for Urban Expansion and the County has approved Urban Expansion further out than his client; therefore, he feels it is the appropriate classification. He stated that the County would still contain control over the density, because he will be back in front of the Board, or the City of Clermont, with a PUD, but, until then, his request is one unit per five acres. He noted that his client agreed to donate 120 feet of right of way free of charge on the north side of Hartwood Marsh Road.
Mr. Barry Brown, Director of Planning, City of Clermont, addressed the Board representing the Clermont City Council, stating that the Council heard the request on September 23, 2003, and recommended that no land use changes be made, by a 3-2 vote, until such time as the Future Land Use Map for the JPA area has been completed. He stated that, from a staff standpoint, what is critical to them is if the land use plan amendment is approved by the County that the property be annexed into the City and rezoned in the City, prior to any development approvals or rezoning in the County.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt and Eidson, representing Tarmac America, LLC, addressed the Board and displayed an aerial photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit A) of the property in question, which was submitted, for the record. She stated that, although staff did not indicate such, there is a letter on file from Mr. Albert Townsend, Director of Real Estate, Environmental Services & Construction Management, Tarmac America, LLC d/b/a Center Sand Mine. She stated that she was not trying to oppose this request, but to ask that the Board note, for the record, concerns that Tarmac has about the request. She stated that Tarmac has been mining in the area in question for over 60 years. She stated that the area that was just excluded was the 450 acre parcel to the north, at which time they released 160 acres that had never been mined. She stated that, when Tarmac was going through the expansion of the mine site, which will cross Hartwood Marsh Road, a number of residents in the area came to that public hearing and were very vocal. She stated that, regardless of the fact that most of them had moved in next to the mine, no buffers were required and there was no cognizance of the fact that they were going to locate next to the expansion of an existing mine. She stated that Tarmac was asking this date that, if this request comes back for a zoning approval, as Mr. Crawford indicated that it would, that the Hart property be required to institute the same buffers that Tarmac was required to put on all their boundaries, which is a 250 foot vegetative buffer along the eastern boundary. She stated that what is currently on the site is going to be in place for the next 10 to 15 years, however long it takes to mine the area out, therefore, Tarmac would also request that the applicant’s property be fenced, which is based on the County’s Land Development Regulations Policy 6.06.01 - Protection of Mining from Urban Encroachment, which states: New residential development shall be restricted in the vicinity of operating mines. It is recognized, however, that mining activities may be compatible within PUDs in some situations.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the request before the Board this date is not doing mining in a PUD, but is potentially residential development locating next to a mine. She assured the Board that, if that is not done, after the proposed houses are sold, the County will start getting calls from the people moving in immediately adjacent to the mine, if there is not a significant vegetative buffer and all they use is 20 to 30 feet, whatever is in the Code, they will start complaining to the County about the lights, the noise, and the truck traffic and will want to know why the County allowed them to build in an area next to an existing mine, or they are going to want the mine to be shut down. She stated that that is the history of every sand mine that Lake County has had for the past 15 to 20 years. She suggested that the County also require that a restriction be placed in each deed that the individuals purchasing said homes are aware of the fact that they are moving in next to an existing industrial operation, or have them sign releases at the time that each one of them purchases a home in the area, which will save the County a lot of problems in the future. She stated that Tarmac wants to be on record as having requested that those significant buffers be instituted, when this request comes back for zoning.
Mr. Crawford readdressed the Board in rebuttal to the comments made by Ms. Bonifay, noting that he would agree that it is a zoning issue and not a Comprehensive Plan issue and one that will certainly work out. He stated that the applicant will agree to deed restrictions, noting that they were planning to do it anyway, because they feel that an improved sand mine being located next to the proposed development is a defect that has to be disclosed to all buyers of the real estate. He noted that they will provide buffers, as well.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that increasing the density in the area in question without a solution to the issue of school overcrowding was not something that he was comfortable with at this time, as well as the fact of increasing the density without the City of Clermont giving their approval. He stated that he did not feel the applicant would be harmed by delaying the request until the City of Clermont can decide what it is they are going to do and do it as one project, as opposed to the Board approving the land use plan amendment and the City doing the zoning.
Commr. Pool stated that the area in question needs to be part of the City of Clermont and it needs to be developed to City of Clermont standards, which is where he has a problem with it, however, noted that he would vote in favor of it, because he feels it will be to their standards.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would be voting against this request, at which time she noted that she had voted against the Center Lake Properties land use amendments, as well.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Rezoning Case No. LPA03/8/1-2, Hart Family, LLC/Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Tracking No. 73-03-LPA, a request for an amendment to the current Future Land Use Designation of Rural to Urban Expansion, for approximately 142 acres near the City of Clermont, to be developed for residential purposes.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request. He then called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Pool voted “No”.
REZONING CASE NO. PH67-03-2 - APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CAGAN
CROSSINGS FLORIDA QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ORDER - CAGAN
CROSSINGS, FQD/ROBERT APGAR, ATTORNEY - TRACKING NO. 99-03-
FQD/AMD: AND PH67A-03-2 - AMEND EXISTING PUD ORDINANCE TO
REFLECT AN INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND CORRECT
REFERENCES TO AMENDED LAKE COUNTY CODES - CAGAN CROSSINGS/
ROBERT APGAR - TRACKING NO. 98-03-PUD/AMD
The Chairman announced that the two cases involving Cagan Crossings would be heard together, since they pertained to each other.
Mr. Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to add an additional 500,000 square feet of commercial uses to the existing FQD, creating a commercial district, at which time he displayed a copy of the Master Development Plan - Map H (County Exhibit A) for the project, which was submitted, for the record. He stated that there was a potential for a big box user, which would take up a good portion of the overall allotted square footage, which will now be 700,000 square feet, noting that there is an existing 200,000 square feet and this request is for an additional 500,000 square feet of commercial. He stated that the request is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, noting that the commercial area on the east side of U.S. 27 lies within the commercial corridor, as designated on the current Future Land Use Map. He stated that the one item with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance is an additional request for a waiver to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) pertaining to signage, noting that it is for wall signage only at two square feet per linear foot of building frontage for those buildings over 170,000 square feet. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, as presented.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has indicated that the proposed development will not affect their Florida Quality Development designation.
Mr. Richardson stated that the only additional thing that staff is requesting is that the pedestrian connectivity be kept to the commercial area, at least for the eastern portion. He stated that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council recommendation was that the pedestrian connectivity be maintained throughout the development. He stated that the ordinances were not in the Board’s backup material at this time, noting that DCA would be preparing the Florida Quality Development and Planned Unit Development Orders and staff is still working with the developer. He stated that there is some extraneous language that is in the local development order that needs to be eliminated, because it is redundant with the FQD and some of it does not make any sense. He questioned whether the Board would like for staff, once the documents have been prepared and are in hand, to bring them back to them as an Agenda item, for approval, or just pass them forward for the Chairman to sign.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board was clear on the matter, so there would be no reason for staff to have to bring the documents back to them at a later date.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert Apgar, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and introduced the applicant, Mr. Jeff Cagan and his wife Sandra, as well as other individuals involved with the project. He stated that the applicant agreed with staff’s presentation and that they were pleased to be present this date with a unanimous recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, with conditions, of which the applicant is in agreement. He stated that the project will contain a big box commercial area where their first tenant, Wal-Mart, will be located, at which time he displayed a copy of their site plan (contained in the Board’s backup material), which had been superimposed on an aerial photograph of the site in question. At this time, a brief power point presentation (Applicant’s Exhibit A) was presented to the Board.
Mr. Apgar submitted, for the record, a folder (Applicant’s Exhibit B) containing letters in support of the request from property owners and developers surrounding the site in question, as well as a packet of information (Applicant’s Exhibit C) containing a Projected Economic Impact Report from Wal-Mart, prepared by Wal-Mart, which shows their projected employment, payroll, sales tax revenues, and additional real estate and personal property tax revenues to the County; and a summary of the projected Wal-Mart impact fees that will be paid to the County for transportation and fire services. He stated that he would like to correct Mr. Richardson’s remarks about the issue of signage, noting that Mr. Richardson indicated the applicant was requesting a signage waiver for buildings in excess of 170,000 square feet; however, their request is for a signage waiver for buildings in excess of 125,000 square feet. He asked the Board to approve the request, to allow it to go forward to the Department of Community Affairs.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether there had been any efforts to incorporate “green building” concepts into the project, noting that the proposed project is in a sensitive area; therefore, any measures that can be used to conserve water in that area will be well received.
Mr. Apgar informed the Board that there have been such efforts, noting that there are currently on the site lines which have been installed for irrigation from a non-potable water source.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2003-93, Cagan Crossings, FQD/Robert Apgar, Attorney, Rezoning Case No. PH67-03-2, Tracking No. 99-03-FQD/AMD, a request for approval of amendments to the Cagan Crossings Florida Quality Development (FQD) Order, as presented; and Ordinance No. 2003-94, Cagan Crossings/Robert Apgar, Attorney, Rezoning Case No. PH67A-03-2,Tracking No. 98-03-PUD/AMD, a request to amend the existing PUD Ordinance, to reflect an increase in commercial square footage and correct references to amended Lake County Codes, as well as a request for additional waivers pertaining to signage, under Section 11.02.03B of the Lake County Land Development Regulations, as presented.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
REZONING CASE NO. MSP03/8/1-3 - AMEND MSP NO. 89A/5/1-2 - CHARLES
BRADSHAW, JR./RELIABLE PEAT/WICKS CONSULTING SERVICES
TRACKING NO. 72-03-MSP/AMD
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend current MSP No. 89A/5/1-2, to include additional land for peat mining. He stated that the size of the parcel is approximately 1,238 acres, with 242 acres being proposed for peat mining, in the Okahumpka area, located east of CR 48 and south of North Austin Merritt Road. He stated that the future land use of the property is Rural and the surrounding land use is pasture to the north, a peat mine to the south, single-family residence and pasture to the east, and pasture to the west. He stated that the majority of the surrounding zoning is Agriculture. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval to amend the current MSP, to include additional land for peat mine extraction, which is contiguous to the current peat mining operation that was approved by the Board on June 20, 1989, under MSP No. 89/5/1-2. He displayed an aerial photograph (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the property in question, noting that the applicant is proposing to use the existing processing plant on the parcel that was approved on June 20, 1989. He stated that an amendment to add an additional 40 acres to the mine was approved by the Board on November 29, 1994, which utilized the processing plant. He stated that the peat mining areas under MSP 89A/5/1-2 are in the final stages of reclamation.
Mr. Kruse stated that there have been several complaints concerning noise at the mine’s current plant location from the processing facility and trucks operating at hours other than normal operations. He stated that Water Resource Management performed several inspections concerning needs and determined that, since mining had been completed on the site several years ago, to continue utilizing the plant at its current location was a violation of the MSP and zoning regulations. He stated that a Notice of Violation was sent to the applicant; however, staff agreed not to process it since the application was submitted. He stated that, under the planning analysis, the subject parcel is located in the Rural Future Land Use Designation. He stated that Policy 1-1.15: Land Use Activities Within the Land Use Categories of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, allows mining in the Rural land use category. He stated that the current zoning of the parcel is Agriculture and Table 3.01.03 - Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses of the County’s LDRs, permits mining and quarrying in all zoning districts except the RV zoning district, with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He stated that the Staff Report addresses hydrogeologic site characteristics, as well as ecological site characteristics. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the request, with twenty-five (25) conditions, as outlined in the Ordinance. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by a 9-1 vote, with the conditions that the mixing plant be relocated within six (6) months of the final approval of the Board of County Commissioners to an area closer to CR 48 and that the applicant would have the option to pave the portion of Austin Merritt Road that is on Mr. Bradshaw’s property, if they wish to use it as access off CR 48, with a provision that trucks leaving the property cannot turn right.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, Potter Clements Lowry & Duncan, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that his client, Mr. Jack Reiner, has been operating peat mines in Lake County for 18 years on five different sites and has never been brought before the Code Enforcement Board, noting that he does not deny there have been some complaints on the site in question regarding noise, however, the applicant has addressed many of them. He pointed out the existing processing facility on the aerial map on display, noting that the Planning and Zoning Commission stated the applicant could have six (6) months to move it. He stated that, initially, his client was adamantly opposed to moving the processing plant, but, following the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and, in an attempt to alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors, has agreed to move the plant to the northern portion of the property. He stated that, in addition to that, there were concerns expressed regarding the use of Austin Merritt Road, which provides access into the facility. He stated that the issues were discussed with Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, who looked into the matter with the Department of Environmental Protection, and what the applicant is proposing to do, in an attempt to try to give the neighbors some satisfaction that he is going to move the processing plant and do so in a diligent manner, is to ask the Board to give him 60 days, if they approve the expansion of the mining site plan, to have an application submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection to re-permit the processing plant and relocate it to another location, which he pointed out on the aerial on display. He stated that Mr. Wicks has indicated that there are going to be some soil borings and other things that are going to be required that is going to take some time, so it will take approximately 60 days to file the application, but the applicant is asking the Board to put a condition on it that they be required to file that application within 60 days from this date, should the Board approve the request. He stated that the applicant has agreed that the Board could put a condition on him that, within 90 days from the issuance of the permit from DEP, he be required to have the facility moved from its existing location to the new location.
Mr. Duncan stated that, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the processing plant seemed to be their key issue, thus, the reason the applicant has agreed to move it to another location, at a considerable expense to him - between $300,000 and $500,000. He stated that there was some discussion about utilizing Austin Merritt Road; therefore, in lieu of utilizing the dirt road and causing additional concerns for the property owners in the area, the only access point from the site will be directly onto CR 48, which they hope will alleviate the concerns.
Mr. Duncan stated that the applicant submitted, at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, a petition (Applicant’s Exhibit A) containing approximately 20 signatures from residents in the area. He stated that one of said residents, Dr. Crayton Pruitt, expressed a concern about the sludge field and landfill, but has no concerns about the peat mine, because he is aware that it is not something that is extremely offensive to the environment. He stated that there has been some confusion regarding the status of a particular area, which he pointed out on the map, as far as peat mining is concerned. He stated that said area has been mined completely; however, there are stockpiles of peat that are still being processed through the processing plant and, in addition to that, there is peat that is being brought to the site from the O’Brien Peat Mine (owned/managed by Reliable Peat), for processing. He stated that materials are brought in to mix with the peat, which are then loaded onto trucks and dispersed to clients. He stated that the hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and then 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. He stated that, when complaints began to come in regarding the noise, the applicant established a new policy at the facility that they will not accept a truck after 6:30 p.m., except in emergency situations, which have occurred, where a truck left the site after 7:00 p.m.; however, since that time, the applicant has cracked down and made it abundantly clear to his clients that he will not accept a truck after 6:30 p.m., to ensure that they can get the truck off the site by 7:00 p.m. He then addressed the issue of an altercation that occurred at the site involving an adjacent property owner, Mr. Paul Adkins, where a Sheriff’s deputy was called to the site, however, noted that nothing ever came of it. He stated that he was only bringing it up at this time, because it was addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Michael Woodward, Attorney, Kiser and Woodward, representing Mr. Paul Adkins, addressed the Board stating that Mr. Adkins has no problem with the mining taking place at the site in question, or with it being relocated to the new site, the problem is with the processing facility, at which time he documented the history of the facility. He referred to the aerial map on display, noting that the area that is covered by the existing MSP (in red) is not contiguous with the 242 acres that is currently being proposed, although it is within the overall parcel (outlined in yellow) that is subject to the lease. He stated that the actual mining areas are separated. He submitted, for the record, a letter giving an Annual Progress Report (Opposition’s Exhibit A) from Reliable Peat Company, dated October 10, 2001, to Mr. David Higgins, Department of Growth Management, stating that all mining had been completed the previous year, with no future mining to be done at the site; and a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit B) dated May 3, 2002, to Mr. Jack Reiner, Reliable Peat Company, from Mr. David Higgins, Department of Growth Management, in which he refers to the peat processing facility and the fact that he had consulted with the Director and the Chief Planner of the Growth Management Department on the issue of keeping the processing facility operational and that, subsequent to reclamation, the conclusion is that the processing facility cannot remain under the MSP, if it is no longer an ancillary mining activity associated with mining on the property, in that the processing facility is an industrial use and is permitted only in HM and MP zoned property. He stated that, from the beginning, the conditions of the MSP were that the processing facility would be used only for and ancillary to the mining that was taking place on the site that was permitted at the time and was not to be used for processing off site materials and was to end when the mining of that site was completed. He then referred to Page 2 of a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit C) to Mr. Jack Reiner, Reliable Peat Company, dated February 28, 2003, from Mr. Walter Wood, Department of Growth Management, stating that, since the mining operation ceased in the year 2000, once the remaining amount of peat mined at the site was gone, the operation would have to come into compliance with the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs); however, based on staff’s inspection, it appeared that the remaining quantity of peat was very small, but the drying, mixing, and/or processing of peat was continuing, using materials brought from the applicant’s permitted O’Brien mine site and that processing materials brought from off site was considered an industrial use and not allowed under the applicant’s MSP, which was issued only for mining. He stated that what was happening was that, instead of processing the inventory that the applicant had accumulated from the mining area on the site, he was bringing in materials from off site and processing those instead, which was not allowed, because the facility is not an industrially zoned facility, it is only supposed to be used for on site materials.
Mr. Woodward referred to a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit D), dated April 4, 2003, from Mr. Allan Hewitt, Department of Growth Management, to Mr. Jack Reiner, Reliable Peat Company, which states that, on March 20, 2003, staff sent Mr. Reiner a letter regarding complaints about noise and truck traffic from his operation and that, since that time, they had received an additional complaint from a different party, who stated that noise coming from the facility continually woke them up prior to 5:30 a.m. and, in addition, they mentioned that trucks hauling peat from the facility were using Austin Merritt Road, which is a dirt road that is posted “No Thru” trucks. It was further mentioned that a maintenance bond is required for all proposed routes over county maintained roads and questioned whether it had been provided to the County. He stated that the letter indicated that Condition 2.5 of the MSP states that the Operation Plan from the present mine shall be updated and revised to include the parcel in question, yet the County does not have an Operation Plan on file for the facility. He displayed a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit E), dated May 8, 2003, from Mr. Allan Hewitt, Department of Growth Management, to Mr. Jack Reiner, Reliable Peat Company, stating that it was a second notice of violation (referencing the letter dated February 28, 2003) and that, in order to bring the MSP into compliance, the processing facility must be shut down and removed from the property. He stated that the facility is one that never had any business processing off site material and was supposed to be shut down and removed, as soon as the material that was mined at the site was processed. He stated that, instead of that happening, material from off site was brought in and processed, leaving an excuse to continue having the processing facility on the site, with the excuse being that it was the remaining inventory of material mined on site that was set aside, while off site material was being processed.
Mr. Woodward questioned what material the processing facility was processing - was it still claiming that it was processing an inventory of material that built up and remained after the site had been completely mined out in the year 2000 - that the applicant still has not processed all that, or were they talking about processing material from off site, which county staff has pointed out is not proper, because it would only be proper if the site was an industrial facility in an industrial zoning district. He suggested that the processing facility be shut down now, noting that Mr. Adkins does not have a problem with allowing the mining to go forward, if Reliable Peat Company wants to mine the other area and build up an inventory there that could be processed later, after they get the processing facility relocated, but the facility should not be where it is currently located and should not have been operating there for some years. He stated that it is in violation and the applicant has been notified of that fact twice by county staff. He stated that it is not doing anybody a favor for the applicant to be given a longer period of time, stating that he will move the facility eventually. He stated that one of the problems with the time frame that Mr. Duncan proposed is that there is a great deal of elasticity to it, noting that, if there is a time frame that states an applicant must apply for a permit in 60 days, and then, after the applicant obtains the permit, they will have 90 days to follow through and relocate, there is an in between time from the time the initial application is made until the time the permit is issued, which can be a very elastic time, noting that, when one applies to the Department of Community Affairs for any sort of permit, it is not like they just mail it in and wait for the permit to come back in the mail - there is usually a lot of give and take, request for additional information, etc., He stated that, in this case, for whatever reason, Reliable Peat likes the processing facility on the site where it is now and wants to continue using it.
Mr. Woodward stated that the conditions the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed to be added to the request was (1) a traffic management condition, and (2) a modification of Condition 1, as proposed by staff, which is that the processing plant shall be removed and located away from residences and be located in close proximity to the new area being mined, if economically feasible. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was not happy with the statement, “if economically feasible” and made it clear that they were not about to approve, even conditionally, the MSP amendment, unless that was changed to something more definite, so the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a period of six months for a time period to relocate the processing facility, which he noted Mr. Reiner agreed to. He requested the Board, on behalf of Mr. Adkins and his family, to do one of two things - either deny the permit altogether and wait for an applicant to come along who can be relied upon to follow through with the conditions of the permit and obey them, or, if they chose to grant the amendment to the MSP, put Reliable Peat Company on a very short lease and make the processing facility cease operations at once, as a condition of permit issuance, noting that the facility should have ceased operation years ago. He stated that the applicant is in violation and should not be rewarded for his behavior, at the expense of people like Mr. Adkins and his family, who have to put up with the noise, the traffic, and the dirt from the operation.
Mr. Adkins addressed the Board, stating that his main purpose for coming before them was to welcome the relocating of Reliable Peat Company’s processing facility to its new location, noting that it is in an isolated area and an ideal place to mine. He stated that he was just trying to get them to take the mixing facility with them. He stated that Mr. Reiner has wiggled around and stalled over the past three years, noting that he is very consistent with ignoring anything anybody has to do with regard to his facility. He stated that Mr. Reiner works his facility and comes and goes when he wants to. He addressed the fact that he had a mobile home for rent on a parcel of property that he owns close to the facility, however, noted that he had to remove it from the site, because of the noise, which cost him his rental money. He stated that the applicant put a dike across the wetlands and flooded him out and even after showing the applicant where the dike was flooding his property, it took him a year to get the dike removed.
Mr. Adkins addressed the fact that the applicant does not have an operational plan or reclamation plan for his facility and that he is hauling material from off site to the processing plant, at which time he displayed various (6) photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit F) showing dump trucks unloading material at the site, flooding of his property, etc., which were submitted, for the record. He stated that he has followed the applicant’s trucks to O’Brien Road and back to the facility, noting that that is where the applicant is getting his peat and processing it. He stated that the applicant doubled the size of the processing plant on property that he does not have under the current CUP or MSP and, when he did so, he took half of the sound barrier away from the property located between the facility and his property and the other homes on the north side of the site. He stated that it was done without any permits and noted that the applicant removed some trees from the property, without having a permit to do so, as well. He stated that the applicant added an additional 40 acres that he owns to the current MSP and was supposed to deed to the County a conservation easement around the 40 acres, but, it cannot be found in the public records. He stated that he would like to come to some sort of an agreement with the applicant, regarding the current processing facility. He then answered questions from the Board, regarding the case.
Mr. Troy Adkins, son of Mr. Paul Adkins, addressed the Board and displayed an aerial photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit G) that was taken in 1998, which he compared with the aerial photograph contained in the Board’s backup material, pointing out a large clump of trees that have since been removed from the site, located outside the current MSP. He then addressed the issue of the police report that was filed, due to the altercation between Mr. Adkins and Reliable Peat Company employees, which he noted occurred at 3:45 a.m. He stated that the applicant is bringing peat from the O’Brien Mine, so he is breaking the law, because the property is not zoned industrial. He stated that the applicant has been in violation of the County for three and a half years, however, noted that his father would be willing to give him six more months, if he could have the processing plant removed in that period of time, but he was not in favor of giving him another year to do so.
Mr. Joe Rayl, a resident of Austin Merritt Road, who lives directly across the road from Mr. Paul Adkins, addressed the Board stating that he is a roofing contractor and has to abide by certain guidelines and rules and, when he steps beyond those rules, he gets a violation tag and has to make things right and has to make them right within a certain period of time, or he has action taken against him. He stated that no action has been taken against Mr. Reiner, because he feels he has figured out a way to manipulate the system. He stated that anytime someone has complained about the facility, nothing has ever been done. He stated that the matter should have been turned over to the County’s Code Enforcement Department so long ago that he feels it may now be such an embarrassment that nobody wants to turn it over to them. He stated that the Board is the only hope they have to put an end to the problem. He stated that he did not feel anyone that lives in the area of the processing plant is against the mining of peat, they are against the continuing nonsense that has been going on with Reliable Peat over the years. He stated that he does not feel the applicant is going to do anything to try to resolve the problem. He stated that, if the Board allows him to continue to do what he has been doing and gives him even the slightest crack to manipulate and worm around, without giving him an absolute deadline, with no light at the end of the tunnel, he and the other neighbors in the area will be back before them again and everyone will have egg on their faces. He addressed the issue of the petition that was submitted by the applicant containing signatures from surrounding residents, noting that he understands there was only one that signed off on the petition, stating that Reliable Peat was a good neighbor. He stated that all the other residents that signed the petition live off of Austin Merritt Road, some being as much as one and a half miles off the road. He stated that the residents that are closest to the facility are the ones that are so upset about it, not the ones that live far away from it. At this time, he read a couple of letters (Opposition’s Exhibit H) into the record from two neighbors who could not be present at this meeting, in opposition to the request, one from Ms. Dolly Butler, Groveland, and the other one from Ms. Christy Ward, Groveland.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and rebutted the comments made by those individuals who appeared before the Board in opposition to the request, at which time he asked Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, to address the Board and questioned him about the case. He addressed the issues of the signatures on the petition that was submitted, for the record, in support of the request; the fact that perhaps Mr. Reiner has been operating within the rules for the past 22 years and that is why he has never been brought before the Code Enforcement Board; the off site peat that is brought to the facility; the fact that there is a substantial stockpile of peat on the site that can be processed; the fact that an operating plan cannot be found for the facility, because it involves a vested situation; an area on the existing MSP that it is said is being utilized by Mr. Reiner, but is not included in the original MSP site plan; and the fact that he was not aware of any operations for Reliable Peat that are located outside the MSP. He then answered questions from the Board regarding how the mining of peat utilizes water; why there was not an operational plan for the facility on file with the County; whether the facility will be operating under the new Mining Ordinance, as it should be, with the amendment; and whether the applicant will be able to circumvent any of the existing rules that are under the County’s current Mining Ordinance.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that there is a question about bringing peat in from other facilities for processing, which is different than bringing in the materials necessary to process the peat from this mine. He stated that the current ordinance will not allow the applicant to dig peat from 10 miles away and bring it to the facility for processing, unless the property was zoned industrial, however, noted that it would allow the applicant to bring in those materials that are necessary to process the peat.
Mr. Duncan stated that it was his understanding that the peat that is brought from the O’Brien site and the peat that is taken out of the existing facility is mixed together, which is the whole purpose of it. He stated that the applicant is proposing, as far as the drop dead date, to keep the same terms and conditions that he alluded to during his presentation and give the applicant 60 days to file the application and 90 days from the date that the permit is issued to actually move the facility, but to also include language stating that none of it shall extend beyond a 12 month period of time - that the processing facility will be gone in 12 months, whether the applicant has received a permit or not.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not have a problem with the applicant continuing the peat mining operation, but feels that the processing plant needs to be relocated.
Commr. Hanson stated that, if the Board did decide to move forward with that time frame, she would like to have reports given to the Board, as to how the relocation process is moving along.
Mr. Allan Hewitt, Water Resource Management, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board and was questioned as to how long it takes to get an application processed through the Department of Environmental Protection, to which he responded that they have 30 days from the time that they receive the application to review it and then another 15 to 30 days after that to issue the permit.
It was clarified that nine months would be more than sufficient time for the applicant to get his application processed with DEP.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-95, Charles Bradshaw, Reliable Peat/ Wicks Consulting Services, Rezoning Case No. MSP03/8/1-3, Tracking No. 72-03-MSP/AMD, a request to amend MSP89A/5/1-2, to include additional land for peat mining, with a stipulation that the processing plant be relocated to another site within nine months of approval, or the applicant will not be allowed to continue his operation at the site; and that an operational plan be prepared, approved by staff, and filed with the County.
Commr. Hanson seconded the motion, for discussion.
Under discussion, she questioned whether the current mine had been reclaimed and was informed that meetings are being held regarding the matter, but it has not yet been signed off on. She stated that she felt just as strongly as Commr. Stivender about the processing plant being relocated to another site, noting that, if it was a new mine, a whole new facility would have been placed on the property.
Commr. Cadwell questioned how many days of work would be required to eliminate the stockpile that is currently on the site.
Mr. Jack Reiner, Owner, Reliable Peat Company, addressed the Board stating that it would depend on the type of material, noting that he keeps from three months to a year’s worth of inventory in different materials at the site. He stated that they bring in different types of material to blend with the peat and, as far as the peat stockpiles was concerned, he could not say exactly how many days or months worth are in those stockpiles. He stated that the current inventory has been supplemented, however, noted that he would agree to having the processing plant relocated to the new site in nine months. He addressed the issue of the Board stating, “when the reclamation is done”, noting that that has been the whole issue. He stated that, in the County’s requirements, they have finished the reclamation, however, noted that they do not have successful criteria until the plant vegetation has grown back - for Lake County 70% and for DEP 80%. He stated that, until he has that coverage, he cannot vacate the premises, because they destroy it. He stated that final monitoring of the site was done last week and he hopes he has reached successful criteria, so that he can be released from the mining project.
Commr. Hanson clarified that part of Commr. Stivender’s motion was to utilize the existing peat that has been mined, without adding new peat - that there is a quantity of peat on hand that has been mined from that location and, once it is gone, everything stops. No additional peat is to be brought in.
Commr. Stivender amended her motion to include the fact that no additional peat is to be delivered to the site in question from the O’Brien mine, or anywhere else, only the additives that are needed to process the peat that is currently at the site.
It was noted that Mr. Duncan indicated the applicant will use CR 48 to access the new facility, which is to be included in the Ordinance, as well as the fact that, on Page 3 of the Ordinance, under Item 19, the hours of operation needed to be corrected to read 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8 A.M. to 12:00 Noon on Saturday, with no hauling of material on Sundays.
Commr. Pool stated that, in the event the applicant has completed the processing of the peat that is currently on the site in six months, he did not want to tie him down to nine months for relocating the processing plant to the new location. He stated that he did not want the applicant to be on the site for nine months, just to be there.
Commr. Cadwell stated that that problem could be taken care of by stating that the applicant can only mine the peat that is currently on the site.
Mr. Reiner readdressed the Board stating that he would need to bring in enough material to use the peat that is currently on the site, noting that they prescription blend soil, so they may have stockpiles of material that get called for use every day, as well as product that gets called for use every month. He stated that they have 300 custom blended types of peat.
Commr. Hill stated that she felt the applicant was just prolonging the process, by claiming that he needs to bring other materials to the site, to mix with the peat. She stated that she would go along with the six months, noting that she feels the applicant can get the peat off the site in that length of time. She stated that she feels the applicant is in violation of the MSP, with regard to the processing plant, as well as removal of the trees, and would like staff to check into the matter.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Hill voted “No”.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP02/5/4-3 - CUP IN A - BARBARA SHELLEY
SHELLEY’S SEPTIC /STEVEN J. RICHEY - TRACKING NO. 42-02-CUP
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture). He stated that the Staff Report states that it is for a 500,000 gallons per day residual management facility, but that has been removed from the request and it is now only asking for land application of residuals on site. He stated that the existing zoning is Agriculture and the future land use is Rural. He stated that the site in question is located in the Okahumpka area to the west of CR 48, along the Sumter County line. He stated that the surrounding land use to the north is pasture, to the south is wetlands, to the east is agriculture, and to the west is the residual spreading site. He stated that the site in question consists of 614 acres, with approximately 181 acres to be utilized for land application. He stated that the primary crops identified in the Agricultural use plan is hay. He stated that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has regulatory jurisdiction over the residuals applied at the site and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has federal jurisdiction, under Title 40 CFR, Part 503. He stated that the application residuals is an acceptable practice, under strict guidance, for use in fertilization of agricultural crops.
Mr. Kruse stated that, as far as environmental issues were concerned, staff was asking for an Operational Plan, to address any environmental factors, with regard to the land application. He stated that staff was recommending approval, with conditions, as outlined in the Ordinance. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, by a 10-0 vote, with the following conditions: Mr. Richey meet with the City of Leesburg, to establish some mutually agreeable conditions, prior to the Board of County Commissioner’s public hearing, which he noted Mr. Richey had done; that the Conditional Use Permit be valid for five (5) years, concurrent with the Department of Environmental Protection’s approval; and that the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that what the applicant is proposing is an agricultural use - the spreading of Class B treated material. He stated that the applicant will be gathering material from Lake County, which will be treated and neutralized through the process that the Department of Environmental Protection requires and then spread on the property in question. He stated that the 614 acres, with the buffers and setbacks, results in the spreading of only 181 acres of actual application. He stated that the City of Leesburg had some concerns, because they are on the north end of the property, near the new Turnpike exchange, however, noted that he met with them and discovered that they had received some misinformation. He stated that they were concerned about the treatment facility, because they thought raw sewage was going to be spread on the property, which would have an adverse affect on future residential uses in that are. He stated that he met with the Public Facilities Water and Wastewater Director and the Director of Planning and Zoning, who filed a letter indicating that the applicant would be developing the MSP, as proposed, with a 100 foot setback on the north end of the property.
Mr. Richey stated that the DEP rules state that, if anything other than agricultural uses take place on any surrounding land, it converts to residential, then the setback goes to 300 feet, which was acceptable to the City of Leesburg, based on the pre-treatment that the applicant would be doing to the material. He stated that the City understands that this is a five year permit, with an automatic renewal, if DEP renews it, and, as part of that renewal, the setbacks and all those things will be addressed in the DEP permit, because those are DEP requirements. He stated that there were some concerns raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting about traffic, however, noted that it was determined that there was plenty of capacity on CR 48 and that, as part of his client filing an operating permit, he would be dealing with any road improvements that the County may require - any accel /decel, or turn lanes, which would be in conjunction with the prior case (Reliable Peat Company) that the Board approved. He stated that the reason he was bringing the matter to the Board’s attention at this time was due to the fact that Mr. Don Buckner, a businessman in the area, approached him regarding some concerns he has about the traffic on CR 48.
Mr. David Shelley, Owner, Shelley’s Septic, addressed the Board and answered questions from Mr. Richey about his request, with regard to the spreading of residual on 181 acres out of a 600 acre parcel; how he proposes to do so; his setbacks from the wetlands - internal and external; the fact that he rotates his fields; that he is trying to keep up with a growing need in Lake County for his type of service; the fact that septic tanks are increasing in Lake County, so there is a need for said use; the fact that he is running out of room to spread the residual, so the property involved with this request is needed; the process that is used to neutralize the residual; other counties where he operates and the fact that he tries to keep every county’s sludge in their respective counties; and that he has limited his hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., in order to assure the general public that they are not doing anything they are not supposed to be doing. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Mr. Don Buckner, a resident of Lake County and businessman in Okahumpka, addressed the Board stating that he was in opposition to this request for a number of reasons, being that he was concerned about where the material that the applicant distributes comes from; the treatment process that the applicant uses; how often the hay will be cut; is it to be used for animal consumption; how far the drive is from the current facility to the field where the residual is distributed; and how much fuel is actually being used by the trucks that carry and distribute the residual. He stated that he felt the request should not be approved for the following reasons: (1) noise; (2) 500,000 gallons of residual being transferred across Lake County per day, by way of CR 48; odor from the field where the residual is being dumped; political reasons - takes away possible tonnage from the incinerator, which the County needs for income; it adds fuel to those petitioning for the regional landfill; a potential for spillage, at which time he displayed various (18) photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit A) showing the applicant’s trucks crossing the Lake Harris Bridge, the Lake Apopka Bridge, and the Palatlakaha Bridge, creating a potential hazard for spillage into said waterways; approximately 166 of the applicant’s trucks traveling across Lake County, spewing diesel smoke into the atmosphere; the fact that his trucks travel down CR 48, which is a narrow road and hazardous for said trucks to be traveling down; the fact that there are three huge dips in the Howey Bridge that were not there a year ago, which he feels may have been caused by an excess number of trucks traveling across it; what backup plan is in place, should the bridge collapse or need to be repaired, due to the excess weight; and the volume of sewage that will have been dumped on the property in question over the next five years, being 600,000,000 gallons, equivalent to a lake of sewage 10 feet deep covering the 181 acres. He stated that it amounts to an approximate $48,000,000 operation for the life of the CUP.
Mr. Buckner stated that he sees a solution in every problem, at which time he offered the following suggestions: (1) have the applicant find land in his home county for distribution of the sludge; (2) take the material to a municipal treatment plant to be disposed of; and (3) have the County build a treatment plant and have Mr. Shelley run it, for profit, which could offset some of the costs of the incinerator. He stated that, if the Board approved the request, it would not benefit Lake County in any way, but would damage the County’s roads, bridges, environment, residents, and political stance. He stated that the word “Okahumpka” is beginning to mean “pile of dung” and asked that the Board not allow that to continue. He submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition’s Exhibit B) containing the information he reviewed with the Board regarding this case.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Department of Public Works, addressed the Board, upon their request, and answered questions regarding the condition of CR 48 and what the County is planning to do about it. He stated that it is a major collector road and currently carries approximately 3,000 daily trips, which is well below its capacity. He stated that it has 9 foot lanes, which is narrow, indicating that the standard lane width on that type of road is 12 feet, at which time he noted that the County plans to widen it in the future to 12 foot lanes, with three foot paved shoulders, from CR 33, west of the Sumter County line, at a cost of approximately $1.25 million, but, staff has not yet found a funding source to do so. He stated that, with regard to additional trips being made by trucks traveling SR 19 and across the Howey Bridge, it is an arterial road, which is built for truck traffic carrying 80,000 pounds, which is the legal load limit in the State of Florida. He stated that trucks in general cause deterioration of the roads and bridges, but the roads and bridges in question have been built for that type of traffic. He stated that there is nothing the County can do to eliminate or minimize truck traffic on any of the roads alluded to and a spill from said trucks would be very rare, if it even occurred. He stated that the State did an inspection of the Howey Bridge, because people were concerned about settling, and found that it is stable, in good shape, and should last quite a few more years.
At this time, Mr. Richey, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and rebutted the comments made by Mr. Buckner, at which time he submitted, for the record, a copy of a letter (Applicant’s Exhibit A) from the City of Leesburg to the Board of County Commissioners, dated October 27, 2003, in which they indicate conditions that they would like the Board to have the applicant meet, should they decide to approve the request, which he addressed, noting that it was correcting a previous letter that the City had sent to the Board, in which they stated that it was raw sewage that would be applied to the property in question, rather than the Class B treated wastewater residual that it is. He reiterated the fact that the hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which he noted is not reflected in the Ordinance, but is reflected in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. He stated that the request is something Lake County needs and asked the Board to approve it.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Hill to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-96, Barbara Shelley/Shelley’s Septic, Rezoning Case No. CUP02/5/4-3,Tracking No. 42-02-CUP, a request for a CUP in A (Agriculture) for 181 acres to be utilized for residual application, with the following conditions: The Conditional Use Permit is to be valid for five (5) years, concurrent with the Department of Environmental Protection approval; the hours of operation are to be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and a 300 foot buffer is to be required at the time of residential development around the project.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board instructed him to write a letter to Sumter County, with regard to their proposed landfill, and in that letter it states that CR 48 is classified as a collector road; however, it is currently of substandard design for that classification and that the County has received numerous complaints, including some from Sumter County residents, about the narrow width of the road and unsafe conditions to truck traffic. He stated that the letter further states that additional traffic, especially heavy trucks, could further impede traffic flow and may reduce the level of service.
Commrs. Hanson and Stivender stated that the concerns noted in the letter still hold.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the Board approved this request, it would be putting even more traffic on that road and he wanted to bring that fact to their attention.
Commr. Stivender stated that that was the reason she brought up the fact that the County is working on CR 48 and needs to come up with a funding source to fix it.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Cadwell voted “No”.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. MSP03/3/1-5 - MINING SITE PLAN IN A - FLORIDA ROCK
INDUSTRIES/RONALD AND MEI MOSS/MARION SAND PLANT/STEVEN J.
RICHEY, P.A.
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Department of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for a Mining Site Plan in A (Agriculture) for extraction of commercial grade sand. He stated that the existing zoning is Agriculture and the size of the parcel is 208 acres, at which time he displayed an aerial photograph (contained in the Board’s backup material) of the property in question. He stated that to the north of the property is an existing sand mine, the Marion County Sand Mine; to the south is wetlands; to the east is single family residential and pasture; and to the west is single family residential and pasture. He stated that the surrounding area is zoned Agriculture. He stated that the applicant is seeking a Mining Site Plan on the subject parcel for the expansion of an existing sand mine operation to the north, which is located in Marion County, which is operated by Florida Rock Industries. He stated that the addition of the subject parcel, if permitted, will last approximately 14 years. He stated that excavation of the sand will be via a floating electric dredge, where the sand will be pumped through a pipeline to the processing plant, which is located in Marion County. He stated that there are no physical structures being proposed on the expansion site, except for the electric powered dredge.
Mr. Kruse stated that the applicant has submitted a petition to vacate Umatilla Road, between Rigdon Road and CR 450, to run concurrent with the rezoning. He stated that a 46 acre lake in the northern portion of the proposed expansion area will be created, as a result of the mining, and, once the mining is completed, the mined slopes will be returned to more natural contours during reclamation. He stated that an associated littoral zone will be planted with herbaceous wetland species and appropriate upland species will also be planted. He stated that there will be no impact to the wetland areas on the site and no significant or permanent impacts to the surficial and Floridan aquifer will occur. He stated that the proposed mining operation shall comply with county regulations, including Land Development Regulations Chapter VI - Resource Protection Standards, and permitting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be required at the time that mining commences, for scrub jays that were observed in the area. He stated that staff reviewed the request with the Standards for Review and found that the MSP is in compliance with all requirements and is consistent with the general purpose goals and objectives of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, contained in the Staff Report, there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that go into detail about the applicant’s request and staff’s findings and, based on those findings, staff was recommending approval of the request, with conditions. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request, by a 5-1 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, addressed the Board stating that she wanted to register again the petition that was presented to them two months ago at the public hearing that was postponed until this date, being a petition to deny hearing this case, based on the principle of res judicata. She stated that, at that time, she read the petition into the record, stating that this application is the same application that was presented to the Board in 1999 and was denied by a vote of 5-0, therefore, should not be heard by the Board again. She stated that it has been a very costly procedure for the people that are in opposition to the request and she understood that, at the last hearing, the Board indicated they wanted to take testimony and evidence and would make a determination at that time as to whether to deliberate on the case and whether res judicata would apply and she wanted to make sure that the record reflected the fact that she wanted the Board to take said facts into consideration, as they hear the testimony and evidence being presented this date.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, Florida Rock Industries - Marion Sand Mine, addressed the Board stating that he would be presenting a substantial amount of information to them, which would deal with not only the application that the applicant is proposing, but the issue that was discussed before the Board, when the motion was filed by Ms. Campione, involving a change of circumstance that justifies the reapplication. He stated that his presentation would include information upon which that basis of determination can be made. He stated that the Board continued this case for 60 days, to allow for some additional site specific evaluations, due to the fact that Ms. Campione’s expert raised questions about the general information that was filed by the applicant and a request by staff to provide some additional site specific information. He stated that the written comments and reports have been filed and should be contained in the Board’s backup material.
Commr. Cadwell noted, for the record, that the Board would be addressing Ms. Campione’s concern regarding res judicata, as it pertains to this case, later in the meeting.
Mr. Richey stated that the request before them this date was for the extension of a facility that has served Lake County for 24 years, at which time he introduced the following employees of Florida Rock Industries, who presented to the Board reasons why they felt the Board should approve the request for the extension of the Marion Sand Mine into Lake County: Mr. Raymond Raczkowski, Director of Sand Operations; Mr. Frank Klein, Plant Manager, South Lake County Plant; and Mr. Damon Riggins, Manager, Marion and Weirsdale Sand Plants. Some of the reasons they gave was that Florida Rock Industries has a big impact on Lake County, in that it is one of the County’s largest employers and a lot of its employees live in the County; it is a good neighbor to the County; there are various companies in the County that use their sand, employing hundreds of people; they are very active in the community; and the sand from their mines is used in over 1,000 various applications. A booklet (Applicant’s Exhibit A) about Florida Rock Industries, showing how it supports the Lake County community and is active in the community, was presented to the Board, for the record.
Mr. Steve Adams, President, Land Planning Group Environmental and Permitting Services, addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and presented environmental and technical testimony regarding the Marion Sand Plant and the fact that it meets the requirements of the Mining Site Plan and the rules and regulations pertaining to it, noting that his company did the environmental analysis, in terms of the land use, habitats, and protected species, as well as coordination of the MSP’s submittal application. He then answered questions from Mr. Richey about the request. A booklet (Applicant’s Exhibit B), containing various aerial maps, photographs, sketches, and a Reclamation Plan and Post-Mining Topography Map of the mine in question, as well as photographs of other mine sites that were reclaimed by Florida Rock Industries, was submitted, for the record.
It was noted that the Board accepted Mr. Adams as a qualified expert in the field of biology and environmental issues.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Adams about the Lake Sand Mine and whether Florida Rock Industries extracts DOT quality sand at that plant; the fact that the Ft. Pierce mine is still open and Florida Rock Industries extracts lime rock from it; the fact that the Caloosa Sand Mine is closed and has been reclaimed; the fact that hay or pine trees will be planted on the balance of the property that is not Lake County property, allowing the applicant to claim an agricultural exemption on said property; how long it will take for the trees planted on the berm to get to the height illustrated in a sketch that was displayed to the Board; whether there was anything different about this application, in comparison to the 1999 application; whether he had worked on any other sand mine applications in the Central Florida area; and the fact that Florida Rock Industries is currently in mediation with Marion County involving the Weirsdale Plant extension; and whether he was involved in said mediation.
Mr. Robert Kirkner, President, Water and Earth Sciences, Lake Wales, Florida, addressed the Board stating that he was a professional geologist, licensed in Florida and Georgia, and has 26 years of experience working in Florida on projects such as the one before the Board this date.
It was noted that Mr. Kirkner had appeared before the Board previously and they would accept him as an expert in his field.
Mr. Kirkner’s resume (Applicant’s Exhibit C) was submitted to the Board, for the record.
Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Kirkner regarding the fact that he has been involved with the property in question for a long time, at which time he had Mr. Kirkner inform the Board as to his evaluation of the property; what he has done since the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, with regard to said property; and what was found on the property. Mr. Kirkner then reviewed various maps and charts contained in a handout (Applicant’s Exhibit D) that was submitted to the Board, for the record, at which time he discussed the topography of the site in question, noting that it was not just a sand hill, but contains open water bodies and upland areas. He stated that he was unable to find any significant impacts at the on site monitoring points; therefore, one cannot expect to see impacts off site. He discussed precipitation and evapotranspiration of the site and recharge to the Floridan aquifer and pointed out those areas of on site and off site surface water runoff, noting that there is 2.4 inches of runoff from the site on an annual basis. He pointed out those areas of groundwater outflow and capture and discussed recharge estimates, noting that county staff has claimed that 20 inches of rainfall per year can move into the sink features of the property in question; however, he disagrees with that statement, noting that in his professional opinion it cannot. He noted that he had covered six sources of information, most of which are site specific, in terms of the evaluation of recharge on the site and that the ten (10) inches per year of criteria is met - the site is not a high recharge area.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Kirkner about the fact that he was involved in this case when it came before the Board in 1999 and that he was the party that was responsible for preparing information for the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), for the Consumptive Use Permit for the Marion Plant, and that said permit was to the point where it would be expiring and he was currently going through a renewal process. She clarified the fact that Mr. Kirkner had stated that he would be reducing the amount of volume that he would be extracting from the Floridan aquifer, with regard to water that is being utilized for the dredge pit, by 50%; that the methodology he is using has not yet been signed off on by the SJRWMD; that, as far as the expansion of the Marion Plant was concerned, he had not yet submitted documentation to the SJRWMD that would allow mining of the property in question; the fact that he had performed an analysis of recharge on the site and had the opportunity to plug in a leakance coefficient that had been generated for purposes of getting the Marion County Plant’s Consumptive Use Permit, but he chose not to plug that number in, because it would give a recharge rate that would be preposterously high; that he had gone back to the SJRWMD and changed the modeling that he did, whereby, he used the leakance coefficient; that, in evaluating the permit application, the SJRWMD relied on information that he had given them, including the leakance coefficient, that showed leakance factors on the Marion County side. She stated that she had a problem with the fact that Mr. Kirkner showed the SJRWMD that he had a really high recharge area in Marion County, because it supported his argument that what was taken out of the aquifer was replaced and now he is in Lake County, which has a requirement that there be no mining in high recharge areas, so he is forgetting the fact that the site in question has karst features and may have hidden sink holes, but, they are going to throw that out and all they are going to look at is the permeability of the confining layer. She asked whether the county line changed the geology of the properties, questioning how there could be a leakage value in Marion County and in Lake County it is thrown out.
Ms. Campione questioned what evapotranspiration number Mr. Kirkner used, when he did the water balance analysis, and was informed that the use of evapotranspiration and precipitation to determine recharge as a residual is not an appropriate method, when one can do specific testing on the confining unit material and get specific water levels on site, get the corrected aquifer performance test data, and directly measure recharge. She questioned him further regarding the issue of surface water runoff.
Commr. Pool clarified the fact that the request before the Board this date, with regard to the Consumptive Use Permit, is for one-half of what is currently being used at the Marion Sand Mine.
Mr. Richey questioned Mr. Kirkner regarding the fact that the mine’s current Consumptive Use Permit is for 375 million gallons and he has represented to the Board, county staff, and the SJRWMD that he is going to request an amendment to that CUP, for the extension of the mine, which would reduce the allocation down to at least half that much. He stated that the actual water use so far this year is down and they are operating with one-third of the water that has been used historically, or 115 million gallons per year, which is based on what is actually being done at the site at the present time and that their ability to do so was based on the fact that they had to reconfigure the mine, in order to be able to have the filtering, settling, etc., which is why it has taken a couple of years to reconfigure it, so that they could conserve the amount of water from the Floridan aquifer. He noted that the extension of the mine will be using the same Consumptive Use Permit - it will not be under a separate permit.
Mr. Thomas M. Missimer, a licensed professional geologist in the State of Florida, as well as five other states, addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, at which time his resume (Applicant’s Exhibit E) was submitted, for the record. He stated that he has practiced as a hydrogeologist in the State for 30 years and has published four (4) books and approximately 190 technical papers on the hydrogeology and geology of Florida. He stated that he was Chairman of the Board of Professional Geologists that regulate geology and the practice of geology in Florida, having served on that Board for six years. He stated that he is currently Vice President of Camp, Dresser and McKee, noting that he handles nationwide problems involving groundwater resources and groundwater management and has taught environmental hydrogeology and groundwater hydrologics at the University of Miami, on the graduate level. He further elaborated on his qualifications and experience. He then answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding the fact that he was retained by Florida Rock Industries to look at all the hydrologic issues associated with the extension of the Marion Sand Mine; that he had had an opportunity to look at what Mr. Kirkner had done before, what Ms. Campione’s expert had provided, the PEAR reviews, and things that staff had done, such as their Staff Report, as part of his evaluation, which he elaborated on. He stated that he and Mr. Kirkner prepared a joint Executive Summary of Opinions on Recharge Rates for the Future Expansion of the Florida Rock Industries Marion Sand Mine (Applicant’s Exhibit F), which was submitted, for the record, at which time he discussed their findings, displaying and reviewing various maps and charts contained in Exhibit C. He stated that, if the Board were to look at all the methodologies that he reviewed, the numbers could go from 2.6 to 9.1 inches per year, with the average being 5.6 inches per year. He stated that one cannot operate a mine in a high recharge area, using a hydrologic dredge, without adding a lot of extra water to keep the dredge floating. He stated that there are examples of this in some other mining areas around Florida, where huge amounts of water has to be pumped from the Floridan aquifer into the water table to float the barge, so that there is enough water to allow the mining operation to occur. He stated that it is his opinion, as well as the opinion of Mr. Kirkner, that the area in question is not a high recharge area.
Mr. Richey informed the Board that the applicant did a Comparison of CUP Allocations as of March, 2003 (Applicant’s Exhibit G), which was submitted, for the record. He reviewed said chart with the Board, noting that the Tarmac Sand Mine, which is located in a high recharge area, was on the chart, which is indicative of what Mr. Missimer stated during his presentation.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and questioned whether Mr. Missimer believed the water balance analysis was an appropriate method for determining recharge on a particular site and whether they had not come up with an average for the area, due to the fact that there are a lot of lakes, marshes, and wetland areas in the County.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, Inc., addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, and submitted, for the record, a Comprehensive Plan Analysis (Applicant’s Exhibit H), which he reviewed with the Board.
It was noted that the Board would accept Mr. Beliveau as an expert in his field.
Mr. Beliveau was questioned by Mr. Richey regarding the fact that he was involved in evaluating the site in question, with regard to the prior application. He stated that he concurred with county staff that the application is in compliance with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs), noting that they identified some policies within their Staff Report, which he elaborated on, being Policy 1-1.15, which states that mining operations cannot occur in any of the County’s high intensity or urban land uses. He stated that it states that mining is prohibited in the Urban, Urban Expansion, Suburban, and Employment Center categories. He stated that outside the Green Swamp, the only land use category for mining operations to exist is in the Rural land use category. He stated that mining is not considered by the County’s Comprehensive Plan, nor is it defined as being an industrial type use, or a commercial type use, but is identified to be consistent and compatible with the Rural land use category. He stated that a mining operation is not allowed in industrial parks, or areas that are high intensity. He stated that the request before the Board this date is a temporary impact to the site, not a permanent one, as testified by Mr. Adams, noting that the site will be utilized for 14 years and then reclaimed. He stated that a nursery will remain on the site, as well as a home, which, along with the buffers, will account for 40 acres, or almost one-quarter of the site that will remain in uses other than mining. He stated that wetlands account for 5% of the site, so almost one-third of the site is not going to be utilized for mining. He stated that the only long-term impact to the property is the creation of a lake of approximately 46 acres.
Mr. Beliveau then addressed the policy that reinforces positive rural lifestyles, noting that the property will be buffered with 100 foot buffers, so that no line of sight can be seen into the activities. He stated that buffering is an acceptable way in Lake County to have a method of different land uses that are allowed within the same land use category, which is a way of providing compatibility between land uses. He stated that another policy deals with mitigation of impacts from adjacent developments, at which time he noted that the site is required to have a buffer, which the applicant has provided. He stated that another issue involves the fact that the site in question is in an area that has a degree of residential development, noting that the applicant conducted an analysis, utilizing two thresholds within 500 feet of the property, as well as within one-half mile of the property, which was done as a requirement to look at whether the property is in an area that meets the test for residential development, which is one unit per acre. He stated that staff does not feel, and the applicant concurs, that Rural densities at one unit per acre constitutes residential development, noting that the test is for residential development, not rural. He stated that they identified existing home sites in the area and there are currently six homes that lie within 500 feet of the site and twenty-one that lie within one-half mile of it, which he pointed out on the aerial on display (contained in the Board’s backup material). He pointed out the fact that it is not a highly residential area, in fact, there are only three properties that abut the property in question. He stated that the natural vegetation is going to remain on the site, supplemental plantings will be on the property, and a 12 foot visual berm is being placed on the site, as well. He noted that a wetlands system also exists on the site.
Mr. Beliveau stated that they looked at the Conservation Element of the LDRs, at which time he noted that the site in question is not in a high recharge area and it does not impact the Floridan aquifer negatively. He stated that, with regard to protecting existing natural preservations, the site is in excess of 1,200 feet of the preserve, after having moved the property boundary for mining. He stated that the existing mining operation has been in effect for over 24 years and has shown no impact to the preserve. He stated that they are not mining in any of the areas addressed in the Conservation Element that deal with prohibition of mining in specified areas. He reiterated the fact that they are mining in an area that is designated as Rural and Agriculture. He addressed Policy 7-13.3 - Mining in Prime and High Recharge Areas, stating that it requires all mining proposals to submit a hydrological report to determine recharge potential of the site and noted that said report has been submitted, which is dated September, 2003, for the Marion Sand Mine extension, which illustrates that the site is not in a high recharge area.
Mr. Beliveau addressed another component in the Conservation Element, being the Protection of Mining Resources, noting that a ridge runs through the State of Florida and they took an overlay that was provided to them by the Florida Lime Rock and Aggregate Institute in Tallahassee and superimposed it upon Lake County and discovered that the County is a phenomenal resource for the grade of sand needed for this type of operation, in fact it is one of the two counties in the State that have some of the largest resources available for this type of operation. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that the County is supposed to be preserving and protecting those areas, for utilization as mining sites. He stated that they looked at the Economic Element, which provides for creating desirable business environments, ensuring environmentally safe businesses and industries, retaining and expanding existing businesses and industry, and developing business retention and expansion programs and evaluated how many haulers were utilizing the Marion Sand Mine plant that lived in Lake County and ran their operations out of the County. He displayed a chart (Applicant’s Exhibit I), which was submitted, for the record, that shows that the existing sand mine operations account for a total of $12.8 million in annual impact to Lake County in direct funds, not including the Marion Sand Mine extension. He stated that the Marion extension is another $4.8 million of new and continued revenues for the County, for a total of $17.7 million in annual revenue to the County, on direct dollar for dollar spending. He stated that, if one were to factor in the multiplier, the current Lake County operation comes up to almost $30 million annually, with the Marion Sand Mine extension adding another $11.4 million, with a total economic engine for Florida Rock Industries, for just the sand mining operations, of $41.2 million annually, including the roll-over funds, so it is a huge economic engine that deals just with the sand mine operation. He noted that that does not include the fact that there are other vendors who buy directly from Florida Rock Industries, who employ their own people, creating their own annual sales.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Beliveau regarding the fact that he indicated that it was his opinion that a sand mine is always a compatible and consistent use in a Rural and Agriculturally zoned area, however, clarified that he agreed that the area would still have to be evaluated - that it was not a given that one would get to mine an area, because they had a Rural designation in an Agricultural zoning; that he had stated that the impact to the area would not be a permanent one, but temporary, lasting only 14 years; that the landscape would be forever changed; and that the 45 acres of lake, upon the land being restored, would be forever taken off the County’s tax roll. She questioned Mr. Beliveau about what other options the reclamation plan would provide to the County, noting that it would be done without any retrofitting whatsoever. She stated that she wanted the record to clearly reflect that the property in question would be reclaimed after the 14 years, without any retrofitting whatsoever, and that Florida Rock Industries indicated to Mr. Beliveau that it was alright for him to represent that fact on the record. She questioned where Mr. Beliveau got the information contained in Applicant’s Exhibit I, which he presented to the Board, and was informed that he got it from Florida Rock Industries. She displayed two St. Johns River Water Management District Recharge Maps, which had been reduced, showing the property in question as being in the 12 inches or more of recharge category, noting that they were the maps that got Florida Rock Industries where it is today, before the Board. She questioned whether Mr. Beliveau was familiar with Section 6.09.02 of the Lake County Code - Standards for Protecting Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas, and was informed that he was not, off the top of his head. She stated that said Section states, “At the applicant’s request, the County shall, at the applicant’s expense, seek a site specific determination by an independent, state registered geologist, as to whether a site lies within a bonafide prime aquifer recharge area and that, should the site be determined to not meet the criteria of a prime aquifer recharge area, as specified in the Florida Statutes or the Florida Administrative Code, the County and the applicant may petition the applicable water management district, to have the prime aquifer recharge map amended.” , at which time she questioned whether Florida Rock Industries and Lake County had petitioned the SJRWMD to amend the recharge map and was informed that they had not, at this point in time.
It was noted that the map has an asterisk that states it is not site specific.
Ms. Campione stated that, if one wanted to get the map changed, they would have to go to the SJRWMD and prove that the site is not a prime recharge area and, on top of that, they would have to hire an independent geologist to state that the property is not in a high recharge area - that the applicant does not hire their own consultant.
Mr. Beliveau interjected that the map before the Board this date was not an official map, because it has not been adopted.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 6:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. MSP03/3/1-5 - MINING SITE PLAN IN A - FLORIDA ROCK
INDUSTRIES/RONALD AND MEI MOSS/MARION SAND PLANT/STEVEN J.
RICHEY, P.A. (CONT’D.)
Mr. Bob O’Brien, President, Sand Division/Vice President, Aggregate Group, Florida Rock Industries, addressed the Board, as requested by Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, and answered questions from him regarding testimony that Mr. Beliveau had given, in which he indicated that he had received certain information from Florida Rock Industries, with regard to the economic benefit that their various mines provide to Lake County, clarifying that said information was provided to Mr. Beliveau from their Accounting Department’s official records; that Florida Rock Industries is a public corporation and their books are audited; how the Accounting Department came up with the figures that Mr. Beliveau alluded to during his presentation; the issue of mediation regarding the Weirsdale mine expansion, and whether it has any effect on the excavation operation of the mining for the site in question.
Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. O’Brien regarding whether the sand from the Marion Sand Mine serves northeast Lake County and DuraStress exclusively; how he would quantify what is going to Lake and Marion counties, versus what is leaving said counties; how many counties a thin ridge of sand that Mr. O’Brien referred to spans, throughout the State; how many of said counties Florida Rock Industries has plants in; and what width buffers Florida Rock Industries agreed upon for the Weirsdale mine.
Ms. Allison Brezenski, a resident of Orlando, representing Children for Central Florida, addressed the Board, in support of the request, stating that she was representing several scholarship organizations throughout the State. She stated that she has been working with Florida Rock Industries for over a year and has found that their commitment to the communities in which they serve is tremendous. She then listed contributions that they have made to various organizations throughout the State, noting that, of 241 children that will be recipients of scholarships that they provide, 76 live in Lake County, which equates to $250,000 of said scholarship funds to the County. She stated that they are a great corporate partner and are very strict about the fact that the monies they donate be used only in those areas where they have a vested interest in the communities, because they feel so strongly about that fact.
Sherie Lindh, a resident of the community where the Marion Sand Mine Plant is located, addressed the Board, in support of the request, stating that she has lived in said area all her life and is very familiar with the sand operation. She stated that she was present representing the residents of the community who support the mine and its expansion, at which time she submitted, for the record, a petition (Applicant’s Exhibit J) containing 87signatures of residents in the area who support the expansion. She then submitted four letters (Applicant’s Exhibit K) from property owners who live immediately adjacent to the mine, in support of the request, noting that they indicate in their letters that they have not had any adverse impacts to their properties, as a result of the mining activities. She stated that the residents in the area need Florida Rock Industries for various reasons, which she covered, therefore, were requesting that the Board approve the request.
Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Growth Management Department, readdressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, Attorney, and answered questions she presented regarding his presentation about this case; whether he was familiar with evaluating land use changes; whether it was customary, when doing CUPs and site plans, according to the LDRs, that he would be required to look at the impacts of a proposed land use change on the surrounding property values; that, in the Staff Report and in his findings, he indicated that it was staff’s position that the land use change would not have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties. She asked that, while she questioned the other witnesses, he pull up the section of the LDRs that deals with the review of these types of applications, to find out if there is a requirement that staff look at property values and impacts on property values, noting that she would like to make a determination as to whether that is something that has to be looked at. She then questioned whether Mr. Kruse was familiar with Chapter 6 of the LDRs, which addresses the requirement that, in order to change the SJRWMD’s designated areas, one must hire an independent geologist, paid for by the applicant, and actually have the SJRWMD change the map, when a change is being requested. She stated that it appeared that was not the procedure followed by staff, in getting the map modified, and questioned whether he felt there was a problem with it.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, and answered questions regarding a memorandum, dated October 21, 2003, from Mr. Walter Wood, Growth Management Department, to him, in which he indicates that he did not attempt to verify the calculations, or perform a flow net analysis, with regard to this request; and that, just prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, the issue came up that the opposition’s consultant had reviewed Florida Rock Industries consultant’s material and that Mr. Wood did not feel qualified to perform his own analysis, so he authorized the use of an independent consultant to review Florida Rock Industries’ documents.
At this time, Ms. Campione gave her opening remarks, noting that she felt the Board had been given a lot of information and she felt said information needed to be sifted through. She stated that she was not comfortable with the conclusions that had been reached and that she felt, once the Board had a chance to hear her clients’ testimony and listen to the evidence that they would be presenting, the Board would reach a position contrary to what had been presented to them by Florida Rock Industries. She stated that the Board would have a tough decision to make, with regard to this case, however, noted that it comes down to answering two questions, being: (1) what negative impacts approval of the request would have on the surrounding properties, and (2) what Florida Rock Industries is really doing at the site in question and bringing to Lake County, which she elaborated on. She asked that the Board keep in mind the fact that Florida Rock Industries has been mining at the Marion site for the past 23 years and, if the site in question was one that they wanted to mine in the future, they could have acquired the property sooner, or leased it sooner, if it was truly part of a long-term business plan. She stated that, in 1999, they asked the Board to change the land use and the Board voted not to do so. She stated that, since that time, a lot of development occurred in the area, because people thought that Lake County did not want the mine at the location in question. She stated that the County allows Florida Rock Industries to mine in other places in the County, so they are not shutting the door on them. She stated that the property in question is just not the right location for the expansion and she would be presenting testimony and evidence to that effect. She questioned why Lake County would allow Florida Rock Industries to mine the property, when the County receives no benefit to justify the hits that the people in the area will take, if the Board lets the mine expand into that particular location. She stated that the County’s Comprehensive Plan and its LDRs state that the County is not to permit new mines where there are predominantly residential development patterns. She stated that, with regard to the issue of recharge, they believe that the area is a high recharge area - that the SJRWMD’s maps show it to be a high recharge area and that the burden is on Florida Rock Industries to prove emphatically that it is not a high recharge area. She reiterated the fact that the County’s Comprehensive Plan states that one is required to go to the SJRWMD to have a map changed, which is something that Florida Rock Industries has not done. She stated that she did not understand why said fact did not come up in any of staff’s reports, or in any of the analyses, noting that it was never even mentioned, which she feels is problematic and something that the Board needs to take a look at.
Mr. Stephen R. Boyes, President, GeoSolutions, Inc., addressed the Board, as requested by Ms. Campione, in opposition to the request, at which time his resume (Opposition’s Exhibit B) was submitted, for the record.
It was noted that the Board qualified Mr. Boyes as an expert in his field.
Mr. Boyes answered questions from Ms. Campione and submitted, for the record, a composite exhibit (Opposition’s Exhibit C), containing various charts, maps, and aerials, as well as a photograph of the existing mine, which he reviewed with the Board, noting that the property in question is a sand hill, thus, the reason the applicant wants to make a sand mine out of it. He described the hydrologic cycle and how water gets into the surficial aquifer and the sand. He stated that the soils at the sand hill are characterized as being the most permeable in the County and noted that the SJRWMD indicates that the site is one of high recharge, 12 inches or more per year; it is a remnant of the Mt. Dora ridge, and is surrounded by a lot of surface water. He stated that the amount of surface water surrounding the sand hill is significant and that there are a number of sinkholes on the site, as apparent on the topographic map. He stated that the sink holes are significant, because they indicate that the confining materials in place that separate the surficial aquifer from the Floridan aquifer are breached by karst development. He stated that, upon examining the actual sands of the sand hill, they are coarse and quite permeable and show no indications of significant runoff cuts, or erosional features into the sand. He stated that the sand hill has extremely conductive sands and extremely deep water tables. He stated that it is his estimation that more than 12 inches per year of rainfall goes into the Floridan aquifer at the site in question, from karst perforations. He displayed a photograph of the existing mine, which was taken north of the road. He stated that, where the Florida Rock Industries’ consultants fall short is that they do not say where the water goes, because they do not have an adequate explanation. He stated that, without an adequate explanation of where the water is going, the consultants have failed in their analysis and investigation to tell the Board exactly what is happening at the property.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Boyes regarding Lake County Comprehensive Plan Policy 7-13.3 - Mining in Prime and High Recharge Areas, alluded to earlier by Ms. Campione, and as to whether he was aware of the fact that the SJRWMD, through its adoption process, has adopted a map that was done pursuant to Florida Statute 737.0395(3), noting that the map Mr. Boyes referred to during his presentation did not indicate how it was adopted, or if it was adopted, pursuant to said Statute; whether he was familiar with the SJRWMD’s Rules and Regulations and the Administrative Code that they operate under; whether it would make sense that the reason Lake County does not make people go through all the gyrations that Ms. Campione talked about, with regard to this map, is that it has not been adopted, pursuant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and the fact that the Consumptive Use Permit that Florida Rock Industries currently has for water consumption provides that they can extract from the Floridan aquifer 375 million gallons of water per year and that they will be reducing that consumption to 115 million gallons per year, and whether Mr. Boyes would find that to be a significant reduction in water coming out of the Floridan aquifer.
Ms. Margaret (Peggy) Stevenot, a resident of Umatilla and the owner of a parcel of property located west of the property in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, as requested by Ms. Campione, at which time she answered questions regarding where her property was located, in proximity to the proposed sand mine; how long she had lived at said location; whether she owned any other property in the area; whether she was aware of the sand mine in Marion County, when she purchased her property; whether she was involved in this case, when it came before the Board in 1999; how she was involved with the case; and whether it was her impression that, after the vote that was taken by the Board in 1999, she would be back before them again regarding this case. At this time, Ms. Stevenot submitted, for the record, 19 photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit D) of various homes along CR 450, in the area surrounding the proposed sand mine expansion, including her own, as well as 16 photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit E) of homes and small businesses along CR 42, in the area of the proposed sand mine, which shows low income properties, noting that it shows the type of development that occurs after 25 years of having a sand mine in the area, which is quite a bit of difference from the homes along CR 450. She stated that, if anybody thinks having a sand mine in a particular area does not affect land values, all they have to do is take a drive out to the area in question and see for themselves. At this time, she read into the record a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit F) from Ms. Ashley Lowe, Broker/Owner, Dave Lowe Realty, Inc., in which she states that she is currently marketing a 25 acre home site, which her office has marketed for the past five months, and has received good inquiries, however, noted that on more than one occasion a potential buyer has mentioned the land owned by Florida Rock Industries and has indicated that they thought the sand mine was unappealing and impacted negatively on the subject property and were not interested whatsoever in considering the property as a future home, which resulted in the loss of the sale. She requested the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board and questioned Ms. Stevenot about whether she was aware of the fact that the Lake County Code, at the time that the case came before the Board in 1999, provided that a rezoning case could be filed again in 12 months, automatically, without a change in circumstances; whether she just assumed the case would not be coming back before the Board at a later date; whether, if she had known the Code would allow the case to be refiled in 12 months, without special circumstances, or a change in conditions, she would have done anything differently than what she has done over the past few years; whether anybody had disclosed to her the issue of the mine at the time that she purchased her property; and whether the mine being in close proximity to her property prohibited her from buying said property.
Ms. Lynn Gagnon, a realtor in Mt. Dora, addressed the Board, in opposition to this request, as requested by Ms. Campione, stating that she has been a licensed real estate agent in Lake County since 1984 and a resident since 1980. She stated that she works full time as a realtor and, to date, has sold approximately $8.4 million in real estate. She stated that she sells between 50 to 75 homes per year and is familiar with the property in question, as well as the surrounding area. She answered questions from Ms. Campione regarding whether she felt the sand mine expansion, should it be approved by the Board, would have any impact on the value or marketability of properties in the area, in the future; and whether property in the area would be marketable, if it were divided into five and ten acre tracts. She then answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding various sales that she had conducted in and around the area in question.
Mr. Brent Silvernago, a realtor in the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, as requested by Ms. Campione, and answered questions regarding whether he was familiar with the property in question; how he obtained knowledge about said property; and whether, based on his experience, the sand mine would have a negative impact on the future sale of properties in the area, if the request before the Board is approved.
Mr. Ron Stevenot, a land surveyor, with a practice in Eustis, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, as requested by Ms. Campione, at which time he answered questions regarding his relationship to the property in question. He submitted, for the record, a plat (Opposition’s Exhibit G) of the property, showing the Sawgrass Preserve, the existing sand mine, the proposed sand mine expansion, and development patterns in the area (residential homes and vacant properties).
Mr. Robert Babcock, a real estate appraiser, who has been appraising property for the past 25 years, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, as requested by Ms. Campione, at which time his resume (Opposition’s Exhibit H) was submitted, for the record, and he answered questions regarding whether he had performed appraisals in litigation proceedings, or done work with FDOT; and whether he had served in any capacity, with regard to Value Adjustment Boards, or anything of that nature. It was noted that Mr. Babcock had been asked to take a look at the proposed mine site, the existing mine site, and the neighborhood adjacent to the existing mine site, from the standpoint of evaluating potential impacts of the proposed land use change, at which time he informed the Board about his personal observations of said sites.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Babcock regarding whether he had reviewed the rules under which the current mine is operating; whether he was aware of what kind of buffer was required, to know what kind of neighbor the mine was and to comply with the rules that existed 24 years ago, when the mine was put in; whether he had reviewed the Marion County Code, to know what the requirements are for the mine that currently exists, or whether he had reviewed the Lake County Code, with regard to the setbacks and the requirements of the proposed mine; whether he had gone to Mr. Stevenot’s house in Marion County, and whether he found it to be in proximity to the mine that is in Marion County; whether it was a nice house; whether there were other nice houses in that area, in addition to the houses he found in Lake County, that he did not feel were so nice; and whether it was not true that there are houses in Marion County that are nice houses that have been built over the last 24 years.
Mr. Claude E. (Gene) Boles, Jr., a land planning consultant from Gainesville, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, as requested by Ms. Campione, at which time his resume (Opposition’s Exhibit I) was submitted, for the record. He addressed the Board regarding land use issues, as requested by Ms. Campione, noting that he considers his expertise to lie in general planning, but also in the application of planning policy, specifically complex environmental issues, which he elaborated on, noting that part of his testimony would address rural character and how it should be treated. He answered questions from Ms. Campione regarding whether he had had a chance to look at the property in question; whether he had looked at the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Lake County Land Development Regulations; whether he did an assessment of the area, with regard to whether he found the general vicinity to be predominantly a residential area, as opposed to predominantly agricultural, or predominantly any other land use, at which time he submitted, for the record, Composite Exhibit J, containing various charts and maps pertaining to the Marion Sand Mine, with respect to its existing land use; its proposed land use; ownership patterns in the area; a topographic profile; annual ad valorem taxes per acre; a build out of the area with the sand plant, versus without it; and ad valorem comparisons dealing with agricultural property in the area, the sand plant, and rural residential properties, which he reviewed with the Board, noting that the issue involved with this request is that the sand mine is not on the edge of the community, but absolutely in the center of it. He stated that it takes the heart out of the area and, in his judgment, is clearly incompatible with it, because it permanently alters the neighborhood that it sits within. He discussed the extensive magnitude of the excavation that is occurring at the site, noting that it is a fundamental change that he could not possibly look at as being compatible and clearly has an impact on the quality and character of the neighborhood that surrounds it. He stated that every action that is taken must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and discussed the fact that there is a provision that deals with the identification of prime recharge areas and the fact that there might be site specific issues that would suggest that the area should not be in a prime recharge area, noting that there is a procedure by which to determine that.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Boles regarding the fact that, when he said the Board would be approving a CUP he understood that it was a mining site plan, which is a whole separate ordinance that they were following under a CUP, noting that the mining site plan and the mining ordinance itself is a very specific ordinance, having very specific requirements; and whether he understood that general requirements that one would look at for CUPs have an economic element of adverse effect, based on money and property values, but the same criteria that is in the Code, and to look at a mining site plan does not include that; that he did not take into consideration the fact that, at the completion of the mine, there would be a 47 acre lake and the rest of the property would be left in a rehabilitative state that could be used for pasture, pine trees, and other uses allowed in an agricultural zoning, which would include residential, and that some of the lots would be lakefront; the fact that he had not looked at the reclamation plan for the site in question, which he further elaborated on; and that the existing mine has not undermined residential development in the area.
Ms. Melanie Young, the owner of approximately 10 acres in the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she has owned said property since 1978 and is beginning to regret buying it. She stated that her property lies immediately east and adjacent to the proposed sand mine and that she feels several property owners in the area will be more adversely affected by the expansion of the sand mine than other Lake County property owners; however, she is convinced that all of them will be affected, if the expansion is allowed. She stated that over two decades ago she was led to believe that the existing sand mine would have exhausted its resources in 20 to 25 years after its inception, which has been a source of hope, but has almost been extinguished, because of recent proposals to mine the property. She stated that she could not help but ask herself, if the proposed expansion is approved, whether Florida Rock Industries would continue to expand, until the mine literally consumes all the properties that contain what they seek and that border on the chain of lakes. She asked the Board to deny the request and protect her neighborhood from the type of land use that, in her opinion, should be located elsewhere and that is far removed from an area that is being used for residential purposes.
Ms. Ruth Collins, a resident of the area where the expansion is being proposed, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that 33 years ago she and her husband decided to return to the Umatilla area and looked and looked for a place with a rural atmosphere, where they could finish raising their children and retire. She stated that they purchased property off CR 450 and have enjoyed living there, noting that there is an abundance of wildlife, beautiful lakes, wetlands, and preserves and many other natural resources that she feels would be adversely affected by the expansion of the sand mine. She stated that she and her neighbors never dreamed that an industrial or commercial activity, such as a sand mine, would come in and destroy the area. She stated that she did not feel Lake County would gain anything from the proposed expansion, except destruction of the natural landscape, and the residents in the area feel it will decrease their property values. She stated that she did not think it was fair for the property owners in the area to have to keep coming back before the Board and fighting the mine, noting that they bought their homes in a rural, country area thinking that it would remain that way and they do not feel that it should be turned into an industrial area. She stated that the request for the expansion has already been denied twice - once by the Planning and Zoning Commission and once by the Board. She stated that they have been told by experts that the area in question is not the proper setting for a sand mine; therefore, they would appeal to the Board not to let the mine come in and destroy their rural neighborhood.
Mr. Rod Sayres, a resident of Umatilla, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he is planning to build an expensive home in the area of the proposed sand mine expansion and needed the Board’s vote to do the right thing and stop the expansion. He stated that he has lived in the area for five years and would like to remain there, therefore, asked the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Louis Carrillo, the owner of approximately 700 acres in the area in question, on Ella Lake, addressed the Board stating that he purchased his property in 1994. He stated that he has been buying and selling real estate since he was in his 20s, however, noted that he is not a realtor. He stated that he did a lot of research, before moving into Lake County and purchasing his property, Oak Hill Plantation, which is located at the dead end of Rigdon Road. He stated that he does not have the slightest bit of doubt that, if Florida Rock Industries crosses Rigdon Road, property values will be affected. He stated that he was told the mine located near his property was expected to be gone in five years. He stated that, when this case was heard by the Board in 1999, his wife submitted a letter of opposition to the request, noting that he was in Europe and unable to attend the meeting. He stated that he recently found said letter and, while reading it, noticed that not one thing that he addressed as a concern in his letter at that time has changed - a concern regarding the mine operations trucks, dust, lights, and the huge hole that is currently in the ground. He stated that the residents in the area have their lives invested in their properties, so they were pleading with the Board to please consider their plight and deny the request.
Ms. Campione readdressed the Board, stating that they were presented with testimony on both sides of the technical issues and reiterated the fact that they have been entrusted to make decisions that protect Lake County and its residents. She stated that the Board heard this date from people who are afraid that the mine expansion is going to hurt them and that evidence shows that it will have impacts. She stated that Florida Rock Industries has opportunities to mine in other places in Lake County and in other places in the State of Florida. She stated that the area in question is not the right place to do it, noting that the County’s Comprehensive Plan states that, when an area is predominantly residential, a sand mine should not be introduced into the area. She stated that the Board did not have anything to do with the sand mine that is located in Marion County and it is not obligated to let them expand another 200 acres into Lake County, but, what they are obligated to do is to hear what their constituents have to say, take that into account, and make the right decision for everybody in Lake County.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and gave his closing remarks, at which time he asked Mr. Missimer (his expert witness) to readdress the Board and questioned him regarding the issue of recharge and prime recharge areas, in rebuttal to Mr. Boles’ (Ms. Campione’s expert witness) comments regarding the matter. He addressed the issue of why Florida Rock Industries came back before the Board with the application being presented this date, being that they have an existing mine in Marion County, but the flow of the resource comes into Lake County. He stated that there are very few areas that have said resources and Florida Rock Industries was under pressure from its major provider of sand in Lake County, DuraStress, to provide them with a source of sand that would allow them to continue to be competitive in the market that they are in, thus, the reason the approached Florida Rock Industries, suggesting that they once again pursue the mining application before the Board this date. He stated that there was a concern about water consumption, however, noted that Florida Rock Industries has, through technology that they have developed, reduced the water consumption and developed techniques to use in Marion County. He stated that the technology evolved, the need was there, the resource is limited, and where they can mine is limited. He stated that the property in question has moderate recharge, noting that, if it was a high recharge area, they would not be allowed to mine it, even if the resource was present. He stated that the proposed mine meets the Lake County Mining Site Plan Ordinance, which is one of the most stringent mining ordinances in the State of Florida. He stated that the mine plan puts buffering around the project; it cannot be seen from its exterior; the processing is done at the current facility; the 28 homes in the area cannot see it; there will be no noise, because it is an electric powered dredge; it has no lights that are going off site; buffering has been proposed around the entire site, which will be installed before the mining is started; and the Mining Site Plan deals with environmental issues, just as Florida Rock Industries has always done, which is why county staff recommended approval of the request. He stated that the proposed mine is an economic engine for Lake County; it is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan; consistent with the rural nature of the area; it will last for approximately 14 years and then be restored to five acre tracts, with water access and water use, or planted in pasture or pine trees; and Lake County gets the benefit of the economic engine, with no adverse effects at all.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, at this time, the Board would be addressing the res judicata issue that was brought to their attention by Ms. Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the res judicata argument presented by Ms. Campione.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt nothing had changed in the area, since the case was brought before the Board in 1999, noting that the development pattern that is occurring in the area is exactly what the County’s Comprehensive Plan calls for. He stated that it is one of the few areas in the County that has developed in a healthy manner, exactly the way that the County planned. He stated that the large amount of wetlands is adjacent to the property in question and that he would fall on the side of precaution, in protecting the area and the development pattern that has occurred there. He stated that it is beautiful place and people have invested a lot of money in the area; therefore, he felt that denying the request would help protect the area and help it continue to develop in the way that it has.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed with Commr. Cadwell that the area in question is a beautiful one. She asked that Ms. Blanche Girardin, a professional geologist and member of the County’s staff, address the Board, at which time she questioned her about the recharge issue. She stated that the Board was told, if they moved forward with the request and approved it, they would be passing over the requirements of the State, with regard to the SJRWMD and modifying their map, and questioned whether Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, had an opinion regarding it.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not know whether the map was adopted or not, noting that there was no testimony confirming that it was, so it would be hard for him to say that the Board would be violating the State law, without knowing that information.
At this time, Ms. Campione registered a complaint, noting that a county staff member, Ms. Girardin, was called to bring in evidence after the public hearing was closed and she did not have an opportunity to question her, or find out if she had actually done any calculations on the information that was provided. She stated that she felt Ms. Girardin’s testimony was going to have an affect on at least one of the votes and she did not have a chance to do anything about it, from a due process standpoint; therefore, she wanted to make sure that the record showed that she objected strenuously to the testimony from Ms. Girardin, noting that she did not feel it was right and that her clients’ rights were being affected significantly and adversely because of it.
Commr. Hanson stated that, as far as she was concerned, she was obtaining information from staff.
Mr. Minkoff interjected that the Board would need to give the objection the weight that they feel they needed to give it.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Stivender to overturn the recommendation of denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2003-97, Florida Rock Ind./Ronald and Mei Moss/Marion Sand Plant, Steven J. Richey, P.A.,Rezoning Case No. MSP03/3/1-5,Tracking No. 31-03-MSP, a request for a Mining Site Plan in A (Agriculture), for the extraction of commercial grade sand, with monitoring, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool clarified that the mine, if approved, would not be seen by any residents, due to the buffer that is being required for the site. He then addressed the reduction in water consumption that is being proposed by the applicant, noting that they will be taking 375 million gallons of water per year and reducing it to 115 million gallons, which is substantial. He stated that not a well went dry in the area, while the water consumption was at 375 million gallons. He stated that it was not an easy decision for the Board to make, however, felt that they would try to do what is right.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to approve the request, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Cadwell and Hill voted “No”.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 9:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 5 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING - ROAD CLOSING
PETITION NO. 1004 - RONALD AND MEI B. MOSS - UMATILLA AREA
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that Rigdon Road runs uphill along the Marion County line of CR 450, so the request is to vacate all the lots in the subdivision. He stated that staff is recommending not to just vacate the rights of way that are paved, but also the rights of way where the County road is. He stated that the road is a clay road that is very expensive to maintain, because it goes uphill. He stated that the County is constantly trying to keep the clay out of the inlets at the bottom of the hill.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that the portion of Rigdon Road that has been surface treated will remain open, so the property owners in the area will actually be driving through the middle of the sand mine.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and displayed a photograph of the road being asked to be vacated, which shows the problem that the County is having with said road.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing the opposition, addressed the Board stating that the photograph that was just shown to the Board shows Umatilla Road in a condition where it has not been maintained, because the County decided to take care of Rigdon Road and leave Umatilla Road alone, until it was determined what the Board would do, with regard to the request before them this date. She stated that the road was probably not in good shape at this time, however, noted that a number of the people that she was representing use Umatilla Road. She stated that, if said road is vacated, it will cost said individuals more money, because they will have to utilize CR 450 to go into Umatilla. She stated that she checked the County’s records and found that there is nothing that indicates how much money has been spent in the past, in maintaining Umatilla Road. She stated that she was told the County did not have such records; therefore, she did not know where the information came from that was presented to the Board this date. She stated that, with regard to safety and accident reports, there are none to show that there is a problem with said road, or that there has been a problem in the past. She stated that she feels the reason for the request is to allow the owners of the property to have more land to lease to Florida Rock Industries, so that they can mine the property. She stated that the road is not being vacated in the interest of the public, or because it will serve a public purpose, as required by law, but for a private purpose. She stated that the road should not be vacated, noting that she feels, if Florida Rock Industries has to work around it, they will have to work around it. She stated that people use that road and there is no reason why they should have to change their way of life, spend more money on gas, and be inconvenienced, because Florida Rock Industries wants more land to mine.
Mr. Richey readdressed the Board stating that the photographs he displayed earlier show the maintenance problem that Mr. Stivender alluded to in his Staff Report, noting that it is a continuing problem and does not have anything to do with the request before the Board this date. He stated that said pictures were taken before the applicants filed their petition to vacate the road. He stated that it is in the public’s interest to do away with an unnecessary expense of maintaining the road and the Moss family would appreciate the road being vacated. He stated that it is their property that is being split by said road. He noted that, if the Board decided not to approve the road vacation, the property would still be mined and the mining site plan would proceed on. He noted that his clients have agreed to do improvements on the other end of the road, as part of the vacation.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the sole purpose of the request was to enhance the applicant’s ability to mine their property, so he was against it.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried, by a 4-1 vote, the Board denied Petition No. 1004, by Ronald and Mei B. Moss, to vacate and cease maintenance on a portion of Umatilla Road (8047), but approved the vacation of 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.
Commr. Cadwell voted “No”.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEETING
Commr. Hanson was asked to attend the St. Johns River Water Management District Meeting, scheduled to be held in the Training Room (Room 233), on the second floor of the Lake County Administration Building, October 30, 2003, from 10:00 to 12:00 noon, on behalf of the Board, to discuss water issues, with regard to the East Central Florida Water Supply Planning Initiative, as requested by Commr. Cadwell, due to the fact that he will not be able to attend said meeting and Commr. Hanson has been involved in the County’s water issues.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
CENTRAL FLORIDA TRAUMA CENTER TASK FORCE
The Board appointed Mr. Bob McKee, Lake County Tax Collector, to represent Lake County on the Central Florida Trauma Center Task Force, as requested by Commr. Cadwell, which has been created to look at long range solutions to the Trauma Center problem.
Commr. Cadwell noted that the Committee asked that there be one appointment from each county and he had asked whether Mr. McKee would be willing to serve in that capacity, due to his economic background, and was informed that he would, if asked to do so.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
OPEN LETTER TO CITY OF LEESBURG PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION FROM LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF GEORGE KNUPP
Commr. Cadwell brought to the attention of the Board, for informational purposes, a letter that was sent to Mr. Ron Stock, City Manager, City of Leesburg, from Sheriff George Knupp, Jr., rebutting some comments that Mr. Stock made in an open letter to the City of Leesburg Planning and Zoning Commission, in which he states that the County does not provide an urban level of police protection in any area of the County and has not provided suitable funding for improvements to traffic safety, noting that said statements were without merit. The Sheriff further addressed the issue of residents in the Sunnyside area not wanting to be annexed into the City of Leesburg. Commr. Cadwell stated that the Sheriff wanted the Board to be aware of said letter.
It was noted that Commr. Hill has received calls from a lot of residents in the Sunnyside area who view annexation as a higher density and are concerned about the road structure in that area, as well as the fact that they understand neither the Sheriff nor the Fire Department will be protecting them, so they would rather not be annexed into the City of Leesburg.
Staff was directed to monitor the situation with the City of Leesburg and report any findings back to the Board.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5
COVANTA LAWSUIT
Commr. Cadwell thanked the Board for their resolve involving the Covanta issue, noting that it was due to their resolve that the County has gotten to the point where it is today. He thanked Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney; Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager; Ms. Cindy Hall, Assistant County Manager; Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director, Budget and Administrative Services; and Mr. Jeff Cooper, Support Services Director, Solid Waste Management Services, for their assistance in the matter, as well. He stated that, no matter what the outcome is, the document has a lot of blood and sweat in it and he appreciated everyone’s efforts.
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that last Thursday he tentatively agreed with Covanta’s attorney that the County would suspend the litigation it has against Covanta, because the meetings that were being held between county staff and their staff to try to reach a resolution were going well. He stated that the purpose of this disclosure was to publicly inform everyone that the trial that was set for next week, where the County was going to be litigating their case against Covanta, would not occur, noting that Covanta will use those dates to handle litigation they have with other parties that are involved in the agreement. He stated that the Board has been given a rough draft of a new operating agreement that staff feels, with some minor changes, can be made into a final agreement. He stated that any action the Board would be taking this date would not, by any means, be approval of a final settlement, noting that there are a lot of contingencies, including Covanta resolving any litigation they have with other individuals and confirmation of their bankruptcy plan. He stated that, once the Board receives a full set of documents and has a chance to review them, they will need to give final approval.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the process, as the Board has promised from day one, will involve a public information session and hearing, with public input, to make sure that everyone has an understanding of what the document states.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, when staff gets something that is a little closer to an agreement, he will send it to all the city attorneys, so they can review it, to try to make it a joint countywide effort. He requested the Board’s approval for staff to move forward in finalizing the documents involving Covanta; confirm the deal that was made to suspend litigation that the County has against Covanta, pending the ability to work out the details of the agreement; and to start the public process alluded to by Commr Cadwell. He stated that staff feels it would save the County a lot of money that is being spent in litigation, if they can move forward with the matter. He stated that, by the end of next week, staff should know whether Covanta’s litigation is resolved and where the County stands in the matter and be able to bring the Board up to date regarding it. He stated that he understood their adversary was asking for a delay, but the last word he heard was that the judge had not granted any delays.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Hill that the Board direct the County Attorney to move forward with finalizing the documents involving the Covanta incinerator case; confirm the deal that was made to suspend litigation between the County and Covanta, pending the ability to work out the details; and start the public process alluded to earlier.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she wanted to personally thank Mr. Minkoff and his leadership with staff, in getting the County to the point where it is today. She stated that it has been a long process and she thanked not only Mr. Minkoff, but the commitment of the Board and the Chairman, as well.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
_________________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK