A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commr.
Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr.
Bill Neron,
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, under his business, he may have an item that will require
Board action, but he will wait until they get to that point on the agenda to
add it, because he is waiting on further information.
MINUTE APPROVAL
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a
5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of January 25, 2005, Regular Meeting,
as presented.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a
5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of
In
regard to Tab 3, Commr. Hanson questioned whether staff had an update on the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars.
Mr.
Bill Neron,
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 2
through 20, as follows:
Interlocal Agreement/City of Tavares/Impact Fees
Request
from Budget for approval of Interlocal Agreement with City of
Community
Development Block Grant Partnership Agreement
Lake County Health Department
Request from Community Services for
approval of an Amendment to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Partnership Agreement with Lake County Health Department and authorize the
Chairman to sign the Amendment and execute the amended contract.
Proclamation/Step Up
Request from Community Services for
approval of Proclamation 2005-17 declaring
Utility Easement/Ford Commerce Park/Sumter Electric
Cooperative
Request from Economic Development
and Tourism for approval to relocate power poles into the utility easement
between Lots 29 and 30 in the
Grant/U.S. Department of Agriculture/Central Water
System/Shockley Heights
Request from Environmental Services
for approval to pursue a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural
Authority, in the amount of $1,000,000.00 to provide a central water system to
the residents of
Status Change/Environmental Services
Request from Environmental Services
for approval of status change of Part-time (1300 annual hours) to Full-time
(2080 annual hours) for the Office Associate II Position Number 0016 assigned
to the Department of Environmental Services.
Planning Periods/Comprehensive Plan Update
Request from Growth Management for
approval of recommended Planning Periods for Comprehensive Plan Update.
Corrected Satisfaction and Release of Fine/Stringham
Request from Growth Management for
approval and execution of a corrected Satisfaction and Release of Fine for
Marilyn and Jerry Stringham, due to an incorrect page number listed on the
previous release.
Award Contract/Long Range Plan of Services/Library
Development Solutions
Request from Procurement Services
for approval to award the contract for Long Range Plan of Services for
Libraries to Library Development Solutions in accordance with RFP Number 05-008
for $27,970.00.
Award Contract/Herbert Halback, Inc./VITETTA
Request from Procurement Services for approval
to award the contract for RSQ 04-096, On-Call Architectural and Engineering
Services, General Architecture and Planning Services to Herbert Halback, Inc.,
and for General Architecture to VITETTA, each task assignment on these
continuing contracts is limited to a maximum total cost of $50,000.00.
LifeStream
Behavioral Center, Inc./Lake
Transportation Disadvantaged Services
Request from Procurement Services
for approval to extend the contract with LifeStream Behavioral Center, Inc.
d/b/a/ Lake County Transit for transportation disadvantaged services for an
additional two months.
Letter of Credit for Performance/Lake Yale Woods
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Performance in the
amount of $38,060.00 posted for Lake Yale Woods. Lake Yale Woods consists of 40 lots –
Commission District 5.
Final
Plat/Deer park/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement/Design World, Inc.
Resolutions/Roads
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Deer Park and all areas
dedicated to the public as shown on the Deer Park plat; accept a letter of
Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $15,379.35; execute a Developer’s
Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and George Diez,
as President of Design World, Inc.; and execute Resolution 2005-18 accepting
the following roads into the County Road Maintenance System: Deer Park Avenue (County Road Number 7483A).
Performance
Bond/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s Agreement/Siena Home Corporation
Resolution/Roads
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Performance Bond in the amount of
$139,728.00; accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $13,365.58; execute a
Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and
Siena Home Corporation; and execute Resolution 2005-19 accepting the following
roads into the County Road Maintenance System: Pinyon Drive "Part"
(County Road Number 1046) and Moonflower Court "Part" (County Road
Number 1046D) all relating to Spring Valley Phase VIII. Spring Valley Phase
VIII consists of 50 lots – Commission District 2.
Request from Public Works for
approval and signature on Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief
Program Agreements (ERPA) for hurricane damage in
Final Plat/Overlook at Lake Louisa/Letter of
Credit/Developer’s Agreement
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to accept the final plat for the Overlook at Lake
Louisa, Phase I and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Overlook
at Lake Louisa, Phase I final plat; accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of
$298,465.00; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of
Improvements between Lake County and the Greater Construction Corporation. The
Overlook at
Final Plat/Plantation at Leesburg/Laurel Valley
Village
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Plantation at Leesburg,
Tract G, Phase 1, Laurel Valley Village and all areas dedicated to the public
as shown on the Plantation at Leesburg, Tract G, Phase 1, Laurel Valley Village
plat.
Resolution/Advertise Road Vacation Petition Number
1040/Cascades of Groveland
Request from Public Works for
approval and signature on Resolution 2005-20 to advertise public hearing for
Road Vacation Petition Number 1040 by Cascades of Groveland, Bowyer-Singleton
Associations, Inc. to vacate right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of
Libby Road Number 3, located in Section 26, Township 21 South, Range 25 East,
located in the Groveland area – Commission District 2.
Resolution/Advertise
Road Vacation Petition Number 1043/May & Whitaker Family
Plat of Sarah A. Schwer’s Subdivision
Request from Public Works for
approval and signature on Resolution 2005-21 to advertise public hearing for
Road Vacation Petition Number 1043 by May & Whitaker Family Partnership,
Ltd. to vacate the lots and rights of way in the Plat of Sarah A. Schwer's
Subdivision, located in Section 29, Township 18, Range 26, located in the Grand
Island area – Commission District 4.
PUBLIC HEARING - PREPUBLICATION PUBLIC HEARING OF
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2005
ACTION
PLAN
Ms.
Liz Eginton, Community Development Block Grant Director, addressed the Board
and stated that today’s hearing is the start of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding cycle, in preparation for the
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 Action Plan.
Ms. Eginton stated that the first step is to hold a public hearing prior
to publication of the Action Plan, and the intent of the hearing is to provide
opportunities for public comment on community needs, program performance, and
proposed uses of funds for the coming year.
First she will take a brief look at what has been accomplished to date,
and then she will present a preliminary budget concept for FY 2005-06. After the public has an opportunity to
comment on the concept budget, staff will be requesting the Board to approve
the budget so that Community Services may move forward to complete next year’s
Action Plan. Ms. Eginton presented an
overview of accomplishments noting projects with their urban county partners, and
she presented detailed information about their public service projects, and the
Community Enhancement Area (CEA) Program and Housing Rehabilitation noting that
next year they would like to build on this year’s successes by continuing with
their current activities and adding four new activities, Tavares West Main
Street Beautification, Astatula project, Lady Lake project, and CEA Paving
Assessment Assistance.
As
shown in the backup, Ms. Eginton stated that, for FY 2005-06, the entitlement
is estimated to be $1,056,606.00. They
are looking at taking just under $50,000.00 from Uncommitted Carryover funds
plus the new money to fund planned activities, program delivery costs, and
administration. Staff is requesting that
the Board approve the concept budget, which will allow them to proceed with
preparation of the FFY 2005 Action Plan. Ms. Eginton requested that the public hearing
be opened for comments.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. She recognized Ms. Gail Ash, City Council
member, City of
Mr.
Travis Whigham, Forest Hills Association, addressed the Board and asked whether
some of the grant moneys could be used to put shelters over the picnic tables
in the Lake Mack Park area. Mr. Whigham
stated that he has also been trying to get a fishing dock at the lake and, even
though their neighborhood is very heavily populated, the community does not
have the resources to get the things they need.
Commr.
Hanson felt that it would probably be a very good use of the funds, but Mr.
Whigham would probably have to coordinate his request with the District
Commissioner. Commr. Cadwell explained that he has talked with Mr. Whigham and
his requests can go through the Recreation Grant Program, or the regular budget
process for parks and recreation. He
noted that both of these items are on a list with the Parks and Recreation
Department, to try and get them in the budget this year.
Commr
Hanson stated that she realizes that the Board fears these dollars will be cut
in half and so much of these dollars go towards prescriptive drugs for people that
cannot afford them, which is a significant aid to the community, but the people
in this particular area cannot afford to help share in the cost of paving
roads.
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a
5-0 vote, the Board approved the proposed uses of FY 2005-06 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and the Concept Budget to complete the
FFY 2005 One Year Action Plan.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
RESOLUTIONS/HAYNES CREEK
Commr.
Stivender addressed the item regarding Haynes Creek and noted that Ms. Dottie
Keedy, City Administrator, City of
Ms.
Kamp addressed the Board and stated that Captain Melton Haynes was a much
respected member of the
Commr.
Stivender stated that she serves on the Upper Oklawaha Basin Working Group, and
there are certain organizations that have spelled it correctly over the years,
and she would like approval of a resolution correcting the spelling of Haynes
Creek.
Commr.
Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve and
authorize the proper signatures on Resolution 2005-23 correcting the spelling
of Haynes Creek.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hill stated that she appreciated the historical facts and the
renaming of the creek, but there is an area, in District 1, where the
businesses are recognized by that name “Haines Creek.” She wanted to know if they will be requiring
them to change their business names from “Haines” to “Haynes” and she wanted to
make sure they understood the financial burden, as well as the inconvenience
they were placing on everyone in that area, if they change the spelling of the
creek, and that it did not mean that the roads, or maps, or addresses will be
changed.
It
was clarified that the request is to correct the spelling of the name of the
creek only. Commr. Stivender noted that,
on the U.S. Geological survey, it is already spelled “Haynes”.
Through
further discussion, it was explained that the name will not be changed on
businesses, unless the business itself makes the change, and the name will not
be changed as far as 9-1-1 services. It
was noted that the Water Authority also has a Proclamation, to be sent along
with all of the others, to
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was approved unanimously by a 5-0
vote.
PUBLIC
HEARING – ROAD VACATION PETITION NUMBER 1042
ROBERT K. SEIDLE – CLERMONT AREA - DISTRICT 2
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss Petition
Number 1042, a request for approval and execution of Resolution for Robert K.
Seidle, by Representative Leonard H. Baird, to vacate a portion of a
non-exclusive easement, in South Lake County, located in Section 24, Township
23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission District 2. Mr. Stivender reviewed a Special Purpose
Survey and explained that the previous easement was vacated some years ago by
the Seidles who have a house on the property.
There have been some issues about the rest of the easement being vacated
and, because they are now the adjacent owners, there are no ingress or egress
issues from that side of the easement; therefore, staff recommends approval to
vacate that easement.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1042 and execution of
Resolution 2005-22 for Robert K. Seidle by Representative Leonard H. Baird, to
vacate a portion of a non-exclusive easement, in South Lake County, located in
Section 24, Township 23 South, Range 25 East, in the Clermont area – Commission
District 2.
REZONING – PUBLIC HEARINGS – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE
Mr.
Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, informed
the Board that staff had received two written requests for continuance. One request was included in the backup for
Rezoning Case PH#15-05-4, Rouselle & Dorothy Sutton, Jack Spillane, Dennis
Benbow, Natalie Windsor & Barn, LLP/Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, for a 30 day
continuance, until March 29, 2005, due
to some scheduling conflicts with key witnesses. The other pertains to Rezoning Case
CUP#05/2/1-2, Mohan and Dora Sawh, a request for a 30 day continuance, until
March 29, 2005.
REZONING
CASE PH#
JACK
SPILLANE – DENNIS BENBOW – NATALIE WINDSOR & BARN, LLP
CECELIA
BONIFAY, ESQUIRE – REPRESENTATIVE – A TO A-1-20
TRACKING #18-05-TDR/Z
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, even though Rezoning Case PH#15-05-4 (Barn LLP), as noted,
is not in his district, there are certainly a lot of people here today, and
everybody is aware of the case, so he feels they should move forward and hear
it.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she did not have a problem hearing the case today. She was not sure what was going to change in
this case in 30 days that would be different or what the scheduling problems were
that staff referred to earlier.
Ms.
Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman Senterfitt, addressed the Board and stated that she is
here on behalf of Barn LLP, which is the entity that owns the subject
property. Ms. Bonifay explained that
there are a number of reasons for their request for continuance, and the first
reason they would like to submit is due to medical reasons that both the
Rossman family, and the Cole family, have experienced recently, therefore, they
will not be in attendance today. Ms.
Bonifay stated that she and Mr. Wade L. Hopping, as counsel and co-counsel for
Barn, LLP, attended all of the Wekiva hearings, but Mr. Hopping was unable to attend
the Zoning Board hearing. She asked him
to be present at this hearing, but today she has a letter from him indicating
that he will be unable to attend and testify as an expert witness to many of
the
“I think that it is surprising, unusual and unfair for
any public body to refuse an applicant’s request to postpone consideration of
its land use issues to a later date, especially when such failure to postpone
will prevent co-counsel for the developer to attend the meeting and argue in
favor of the developer’s position.”
Ms.
Bonifay stated that, in addition, there are some environmental issues that were
never raised, discussed, or presented in the staff report and, since there were
only about three weeks between the Zoning Board meeting and the meeting today
and, since those issues were raised by the opposition, they felt it was
necessary to protect their clients’ interest to do some additional work on those
issues. In the staff report, these were
clearly not issues, however, at least one or more opponents was highly critical
of County staff, as well as the applicant, for not having provided additional
environmental data on the record. Ms. Bonifay submitted Mr. Hopping’s letter to
the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant.
Ms.
Bonifay stated that she would like to call Ms.
Ms.
Commr.
Hill stated that she understood they were establishing Ms. Allison’s position
with Akerman Senterfitt, and the Board hears continuances all the time, and the
Board usually grants them, but there have been times when they have not granted
them, so they will establish that fact.
Ms.
Bonifay stressed that it is very important to establish this point, because the
request for postponement is the only issue before them right now, and it is the
practice that is usually employed by this Board.
Commr.
Hill stated that she does not find the postponement of another case to be relevant
to this case, and Ms. Bonifay interjected that, at some point, this may be for
a court to decide, especially when, in this number of years, and with hundreds
and thousands of cases, there has only been one example of a case that she has
been involved in where it was denied for the very same reason; a key witness
was not available; it was a highly visible case; the Board denied it and made
them go forward; and it was appealed and won.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out that, one, the Chairman has ruled
as to the relevance but, two, he does not know that the Sugarloaf case was
appealed on the basis of the denial of the continuance; it was actually on the
merits. In her response, Ms. Bonifay agreed
that the case was denied partly on the merits, and part of that had to do with
the witnesses, but Mr. Minkoff pointed out that the appeal was not reversed
because the continuance was not granted.
Ms.
Bonifay stated that they have established that this will be prejudicial to the
client and, in her opinion, it will involve an abrogation of their right of due
process; they will not have those people here today to give all of the needed
testimony, which they think is important, and on which this Board should make a
fair and considerate opinion in this case.
Ms. Bonifay stated that they will again ask for the continuance.
Commr.
Cadwell pointed out, in his review of the Zoning Board minutes, that the extent
of Ms. Nancy Rossman’s testimony was limited to her explaining that Ms. Bonifay
was representing them for land use, and Mr. Cary Gaylord was their attorney and
contact with the Expressway Authority.
Ms. Bonifay interjected and explained that, at that particular point,
there had been other issues raised regarding factual allegations made in the
press, and there was the question of whether or not the Board had been
influenced by them and, even though these individuals did not testify in the
Zoning Board hearing, they would be called to testify today, along with Mr.
Hopping. She also pointed out that there
were a number of issues and allegations that were raised by the opponent, if
they were to look at the Zoning Board transcript, and Mr. Hopping would be able
to address or refute those.
Commr.
Cadwell established that the Board has allowed continuances in the past and, if
not for 30 days, to a day certain. He questioned whether there was a shorter
time period that would be acceptable.
Ms. Bonifay responded that, if the Board wants to entertain this
proposal, she would need to check with Mr. Hopping not knowing his schedule. Commr. Cadwell affirmed that he hopes the
Board will hear the case today but, if they are not going to hear it, then he
hopes they will not wait 30 days.
Commr.
Hill stated that she was of the opinion, if the applicants have serious illnesses,
the Board could wait until after the Comprehensive Plan is completed and hear
the case next year, or at least wait until after the legislative session,
because she understands that this is one of the properties in the Wekiva to be
purchased by the State, but Ms. Bonifay interjected that this has nothing to do
with the Comprehensive Plan; it is a rezoning and a transfer of development
rights, and the reference made to the illnesses would be a very specious argument.
Commr.
Hanson stated that this is an important case, and the Board should go ahead and
hear it. She explained that she put her
mother in the hospital this morning, so she understands the circumstances, but she
is here today. She stated that Ms.
Bonifay knows everything about this case and, having been involved with the
Wekiva process, she has concerns with it and, even though it is a tough issue,
she does not know that they would gain anything by postponing it.
Commr.
Hill informed the Board that her first choice would be not to postpone the case
but, if they have to, they need to designate a specific time, because she did
not want to see the applicant come back and ask for another 30 day
postponement.
Ms.
Bonifay explained that the first time a request for continuance is made, there
are always issues and, with the one exception, as she mentioned earlier, it has
always been clear that the Board has denied second and third time requests. She pointed out that their letter requesting
a postponement was submitted February 15, 2005, and it has been posted on the
County’s web site since that time.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for
postponement.
Mr.
Egor Emery stated that he was here two weeks ago for the Zoning Board hearing,
and he is a little stunned that the applicant’s case is falling apart to such a
great extent since that time. Mr. Emery stated that, in the nearly 20 years
that he has been coming to these meetings, he has seen very few continuances denied,
even though he took the time to come to the meeting today. He wonders sometimes
which comes first, the public interest, or the need for a continuance. He stated that it seems like the two are
sometimes related; the more people that show up, the more a continuance is
needed. He personally would like to
spend his tax money to see the Board defend their position in court, if
necessary, and he would really like this case heard today.
Mr.
Keith Schue stated that he is the Wekiva Issue Chairperson for the Central
Florida Sierra Club, and they would request that the Board not continue this
item, and the reason is that they have all of the information they will ever
need to make a proper decision today. He
stated that Section 14.03.03(i) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) asks
whether the proposed zoning will be in conflict with the public interest and,
whether the Board considers this today, or sometime in the future, the answer
to that question is going to be the same.
Mr. Schue stated that it cannot possibly be in the public interest to
rezone this property and increase its development potential. For the past three years, state agencies,
elected leaders throughout this entire region including the Board members,
environmentalists, and developers have worked together diligently to forge an
unprecedented agreement, which is now part of the Wekiva Parkway Protection Act,
that says they must build the Wekiva Parkway and that they must buy certain
lands within the Wekiva Basin around the Parkway for preservation. It specifically names in the Statute this
piece of property,
Mr.
Charles Lee, Senior Vice President, Florida Audubon Society, addressed the
Board and explained that personally it will be very difficult for him to get
back here in 30 days, because they will be in the middle of a legislative
session, and hopefully, during that session, they will be advocating for a
little bit more money to be directed to purchasing land in the Wekiva, to
possibly help fulfill that commitment, the $25 million offer the Expressway
Authority has extended to the Rossmans and Coles, to purchase that
property.
Ms.
Jennifer McMurtray, Transportation and Wildlife Ecology Coordinator, Defenders
of Wildlife, addressed the Board
and explained how difficult it is for individuals to make arrangements so they
can attend a meeting, and sometimes they have to keep making arrangements when
items are rescheduled or postponed for different reasons. She felt it would be advantageous for the
County to have a notification system for the general public, because the
average citizen really does not know how the process works. Ms. McMurtray stated that average citizens
would not know that some letter is on the web site and, even if they did, it
does not mean they know what the Board’s decision is going to be without coming
here today, so it really does put the public at a disadvantage. She requested that the Board deny the
continuance.
Mr.
Scott Taylor,
Ms.
Priscilla Bernardo,
Mr.
Paul Trembley,
Mr.
Fred Antonio addressed the Board and stated that he is the second property
owner to the west of the receiving property in question, and he would like to
voice his opinion and say that they should proceed with this matter. They all know that all of the governmental
bodies and others have been very involved with the whole
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment on the postponement. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request for a continuance and approved to
hear the following case today: Rezoning
Case PH#15-05-4, Rouselle & Dorothy Sutton, Jack Spillane, Dennis Benbow,
Natalie Windsor & Barn, LLP/Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, a request to rezone
from A (Agriculture) to A-1-20, Tracking #18-05-TDR/Z.
Ms.
Bonifay addressed the Board and explained that she will need to obtain a court
reporter for the hearing, and the Chairman noted that they will accommodate her
by placing the case at the end of the zoning agenda.
REZONING
CASE CUP#05/2/1-2 – MOHAN & DORA SAWH - CUP IN A
TRACKING #20-05-CUP
Mr.
Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, informed
the Board that staff has received a request from, Mr. Mohan Sawh, the
applicant, for a 30 day postponement, in Rezoning Case CUP#05/2/1-2. He explained that the applicant is working
with the
Commr.
Pool pointed out that, in the applicant’s letter, it indicates that he is in
the process of getting contracts for the purchase of chickens and disposal of
the manure from respective companies, but he would not suggest that they buy
chickens, at this point. Mr. Richardson clarified
that staff has explained this to the applicant, and he has had a couple of
meetings with staff, as well as the agent at the
Commr.
Pool stated that he did not mind a 30 day continuance, if there are some issues
that the applicant can bring back before them, but he is not going to approve a
continuance, so that the applicant can look for chickens.
Mr.
Richardson noted that this is not a current code case, and right now there is
nothing on the property except for an existing residential structure.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request for
a 30 day continuance. It was noted that
the applicant, or representative, was not present.
Mr.
Jeff Rice addressed the Board in opposition to the request for a
continuance. Mr. Rice stated that the
Zoning Board and staff have denied the request because of the acreage, and he
did not see how they would benefit from a 30 day continuance. He has a petition signed by over 30 people who
are opposed to this chicken farm, whether the applicant has one acre, or 50
acres. He clarified that the applicant
wants to put 1,200 chickens on 2.5 acres and build a 1,000 foot chicken coup.
Mr.
Richardson stated that staff has some clarification to offer to the Board, in
regards to the applicant’s request for continuance. Mr. John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and
Development Services, has been working with an agent at the Agricultural
Extension Center, and the applicant, and they have requested that the applicant
establish a manure disposal plan ahead of time, so this is what the applicant is
attempting to explain in his letter.
Commr.
Pool stated that, even though they must have chickens and eggs, he would not
want a chicken farm nearby, and they need to be in the right location.
Commr.
Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to deny the request
for a 30 day continuance of Rezoning Case CUP#05/2/1-2, Mohan and Dora Sawh,
CUP in A, Tracking #20-05-CUP, and to hear the case today.
Under
discussion, Ms. Jean Bogart addressed the Board and stated that she lives right
across the street from the proposed chicken house. Ms. Bogart stated that she has lived there
for 24 years, and five different families have lived on the subject property,
and she has never complained about any of them.
Ms. Bogart explained that she is very sickly and is not financially able
to move from her home, but she would move if the applicant puts a chicken house
in that location. She explained that the
applicant has 40 acres further down the highway with cows on it, and she wanted
to know why the applicant could not put the chicken coup on that same
acreage. The applicant has already told
people that he is not going to live on the property and that he is going to
push the house down. Ms. Bogart stated
that she moved from Mascotte because of the smell and the flies due to a
similar situation.
Commr.
Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0
vote, to hear the case today, as noted.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At
REZONING PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED)
At
COMMISSIONERS
It was noted that Commr. Hanson was
not present for the meeting.
REZONING
CASE PH#
TIM HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE – R-1 TO R-2 – TRACKING
#10-05-Z
Ms.
Jennifer Dubois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning
Case PH#5-05-3, John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust, Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke, Tracking
#10-05-Z, a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-2 (Estate
Residential), a 48 acre parcel, for the creation of a single family residential
subdivision. Ms. Dubois explained that the
property is located in the Tavares area south of the intersection of Old 441
and
COMMISSIONERS
At
REZONING CASE PH#
TIM
HOBAN AND CARL LUDECKE – R-1 TO R-2 – TRACKING #10-05-Z
(CONTINUED)
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Tim Hoban, Attorney representing Mr. Jack Nelson and Mr. Carl Ludecke,
addressed the Board and stated that they are asking to rezone from R-1 to R-2,
and to be allowed to develop on private wells and septic tanks. Mr. Hoban noted that there are a number of
neighbors here today with concerns. He
explained that, based on the wetlands, and based on half acre lots with private
wells and septic tanks, they estimate about 63 lots on 48 acres, or about 1.3
lots per acre. In looking at the map, as
shown on the monitor, Mr. Hoban explained that the northern boundary is Old
441; the neighbors to the west are on half acre lots with private well and
septic tanks; the southern boundary has some wetlands and undeveloped property;
and the neighbors to the east are on private wells and septic tanks on half
acre lots. In July, 2003, this Board
approved a future land use map change, and a rezoning to R-2 on the northern
part of the Ludecke property. During that
public hearing, they stated that the Ludecke property was partly in urban,
partly in urban expansion, and the property was not within 1,000 feet of
Tavares central sewer, or 300 feet of Tavares central water, and this Board
determined that the Ludecke property could be developed with private wells and
septic tanks. Mr. Hoban noted that a
copy of those minutes were included in the backup. He stated that, in reliance on that
determination, they submitted construction plans, which
Mr.
Hoban stated that, when Mr. Ludecke first discussed with him the idea of
putting an entrance in that would go over the railroad tracks to Old 441, he explained
to him that the railroad would never give them permission to do this but, after
talking with Mr. Bruce Duncan, Potter, Clement, Lowery & Duncan, it was his
understanding that the railroad could give its permission, and Mr. Duncan asked
him speak to Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works. Since that time, Mr. Stivender has spoken to
the railroad representative, and it is very possible to get permission to cross
the tracks at the location of a non-freight railroad crossing similar to the
one at
Commr.
Stivender disclosed that she met with the residents in the neighborhood and
their attorney, Mr. Bruce Duncan. Her
major concern, as described by Mr. Hoban, was the 18 foot right-of-way on
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know what Mr. Hoban was going to do if the railroad should
deny their request, and Mr. Hoban explained that Mr. Nelson’s only legal access
is the 30 foot strip through the railroad; he has no access to the south. Commr. Cadwell noted that the petitions from
the residents show that their only concern is the access, and many are in
support of the request but, when they leave here today, the Board needs to make
sure they have assurances.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that this is a straight zoning case
and, as they found out just recently in another subdivision, any assurances
today are not worth anything so, the only way to insist on access, or to
guarantee, for that matter, water and sewer, would be through the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) process. The Board has
no authority to say they could use wells and septic tanks because, if the
Comprehensive Plan and Code says that they have to use central water and sewer,
they have to use central water and sewer; the Board has no authority in a
zoning to say that they use access one way or the other because, if they meet
the plan for access, they are entitled to it.
So the only way to restrict those things is through a PUD and,
regardless of what the minutes say, if the Code and Comprehensive Plan say that
they have to have central sewer, they have to have central sewer. In response to the access question relating
to
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of
Public Works, were present to answer questions.
Mr.
Stivender addressed the railroad issue and explained that, in his discussions
with Mr. Ben Biscan, Vice President and
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know if the improvement costs would be included in the
applicant’s construction costs, or if the applicant was looking to the County
to get this done, and Mr. Hoban
explained that they had anticipated funding the full amount of construction
costs, either at
Mr.
Bruce Duncan, Attorney with Potter, Clement, Lowery & Duncan, stated that
he is representing many of the residents that live along
Mr.
Egor Emery,
Commr.
Hanson stated that she thinks the
Mr.
Minkoff stated that, when making changes in the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs,
the Board can establish these types of requirements.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she realizes that this request is 48 acres, but they may
want to go a little bit smaller and not have quite as strenuous requirements
for both sets of PUDs. She does not
object to the postponement, because of the access issue.
Mr.
Hoban stressed that the applicant would definitely prefer a postponement rather
than the PUD process, or a denial, but they still would like some certainty noting
that, in the previous case where they have approved wells and septic, the water
and sewer were not there, and they are still not there.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that the applicant can apply for preliminary plat approval
now and get an answer in writing from staff about the requirements for wells
and septic tanks, but the Board cannot give him that answer. The only way the Board can give them that
certainty is if they come through the PUD process.
Commr.
Hanson stated that, even though this is not a PUD, she would like to see more
provisions for open space.
Mr.
Hoban stated that they have existing wetlands on the property, so they will be
doing a conservation easement over that property and tie it into their open
space calculations. In terms of
clustering, the problem is, with septic tanks, you either get low density or
high density and this is infield property; they have neighbors on all sides.
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether 30 days was enough time for the applicant to work
out an agreement with Mr. Biscan, and Mr. Stivender indicated that it would be
sufficient time. The County already has
many crossings in need of improvements, so they will work with him on that
issue.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a 30 day postponement for Rezoning Case PH#5-05-3,
John Nelson/Nelson Family Trust, Tim Hoban and Carl Ludecke, Tracking #10-05-Z,
to allow the applicants time to get with the railroad representatives.
COMMISSIONERS
At
REZONING CASE CUP#05/2/2-5 –
WILLIAM AND ANNA RHODES – CUP IN A
TRACKING
#19-05-CUP
Ms.
Jennifer Dubois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning
Case CUP#05/2/2-5, William and Anna Rhodes, a request for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture). Ms.
Dubois explained that the owners are currently utilizing the 13.79 acre parcel
for a beekeeping operation, and an agricultural exemption has been granted for
this use by the Lake County Property Appraiser.
The property is located in the Umatilla area approximately one-eighth of
a mile west of the intersection of CR 450-A and CR 44-A. The mobile home currently on the property is
being used as a caretaker’s residence, and the owners wish to add a second
mobile home for the same purpose, as the occupants of both homes will be
actively involved in the daily operation of the beekeeping facility. Because the use of the property is consistent
with both the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan,
staff is recommending approval of the request.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms.
Anna Rhodes addressed the Board and explained their need for another caretaker
and residence noting that this type of business requires an individual to
handle the bees at very specific times.
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-0 vote,
the Board approved to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve
Rezoning Case CUP#05/2/2-5, William and Anna Rhodes, a request for a CUP in A,
to allow two mobile homes to be utilized as caretakers’ residences for an
existing beekeeping operation, Tracking #19-05-CUP, Ordinance 2005-16.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
COMMISSIONERS
At
REZONING CASE CUP#05/2/1-2 –
MOHAN & DORA SAWH – CUP IN A
TRACKING
#20-05-CUP
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case CUP#05/2/1-2, Mohan and Dora Sawh, a request for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) to allow the raising of chickens, ducks and
other small poultry on their farm. The size
of their farm is 2.65 acres, as shown on the map included in the backup. Mr. Kruse explained that, under Table 3.01.03
of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), general agriculture is permitted in
the agriculture zoning district, however, the applicants would like to keep up
to 500 chickens and 800 ducks on the property.
Due to the intense number of birds and the small size of the farm, the
operation may resemble a chicken/poultry farm.
Under Table 3.01.03, a chicken farm is permitted in the agriculture
zoning district through a CUP. The
applicants have indicated that the birds would be raised in houses, and the
waste generated from the birds would be used on their garden. The backup contained a picture of the
existing house on site, and the proposed area for the chicken house.
Mr. Kruse explained that the letter from Mr.
Sawh requesting a continuance was to allow the applicant time to get a contract
for someone to take the birds on a regular basis, and to set up a contract with
someone to clean the manure from the site.
The applicant does anticipate occasional retail traffic from
customers. Mr. Kruse stated that, after
consulting with Mr. Bill Price, Lake County Extension Agent, it was determined
that, due to the small size of the parcel, the total number of birds should be
limited to 1,000. It was also recommended that Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be used to control odors, flies, and vermin problems. A plan detailing those practices that will be
used on the farm shall be prepared in conjunction with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Lake County Soil and Water Conservation
Service, and the
Commr.
Pool stated that the key issue for him is not the number of birds, but the
location of the birds. In his opinion, he
felt that this location is too close to the residents who live there
permanently, and he knows that those people will smell this and that it needs
to be further away. He does not have a
problem with this as a hobby, but he does have a problem with a commercial
operation, when there are nearby residents that will have to deal with it every
day, and there will be a fly issue. He reminded
the Board members that they denied an expansion of an existing facility and that
this type of operation can be offensive.
Mr.
Kruse explained that he has discussed this application with the applicant, and
he does have some additional acreage, but there is still the question of how
many birds you can have on site, and Commr. Pool stressed that it is not the
number of birds; it is how close they will be to the homes that really matters
to him.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not
present.
Mr.
Jeff Rice,
Mr. Rice stated that staff denied the request, the Zoning Board denied the
request, and he believes it would be in the best interest of everybody in the
area if the Board denied it, too. He
stated that there are wetlands on the property in question, because he lives
right next door to it, and there is only about two and a half acres of usable
land. The petitions were submitted to
the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition.
Ms.
Jean Bogart addressed the Board and explained that the applicant has hauled 72
loads of dirt and filled in the wetlands on the property, and he only has three
and a half acres; she has six and a half acres directly across from the
applicant. She noted that he will not
have much usable land for a chicken farm.
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
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 Zoning Board and
denied Rezoning Case CUP#05/2/1-2, Mohan and Dora Sawh, a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in A (Agriculture) to allow the raising of
chickens, ducks and other small poultry on their farm, Tracking #20-05-CUP.
REZONING CASE MSP#05/1/1-3 –
DORIS H. HURLEY, ET AL – MSP
TRACKING
#15-05-MSP
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case MSP#05/1/1-3, Doris H. Hurley, et al, a request for a Mining Site
Plan (MSP) in Agriculture for a peat mining operation.
Commr.
Stivender stated that, before Mr. Kruse continues with his presentation, she wanted
to disclose that she met with the applicant and the applicant’s representative
on this case, and the next case, Rezoning Case MSP#05/2/1-3, C & C Peat
Company, Inc. Commr. Hill disclosed the
same, and Commr. Pool disclosed that he met with the applicant’s attorney on the
Hurley case.
Mr.
Kruse stated that the applicant is requesting a MSP for a peat mine on the
subject parcel that is currently being used for sod production; it was
historically used for agricultural production.
It is approximately 581 acres in size; 372 acres are being proposed for
peat mining. The remaining acreage will
either remain in sod production or another existing use. Mr. Kruse stated that the information
provided in the application indicates that there will be very little change, if
any, to the existing truck traffic volumes or patterns, since the mining
operation will be replacing a portion of the sod production operation. It is estimated that a total of ten trucks
per day will haul the material off-site to a processing facility or end
user. There are no additional buildings
proposed as part of the operation, and the peat will only be harvested, stocked
piled and dried prior to hauling off-site.
No processing will occur at the facility, and the hours of operation
will be
·
Amend condition
2.8 to read: 8. A Ground and Surface
Water Monitoring Plan that establishes standards for both water levels
and quality shall be submitted to and approved by the County, after
review and comment by
·
Add a new
condition 9 to read: 9. The mining
activities shall be conducted in compliance with the standards established in
the Ground and Surface Water Monitoring Plan.
Mr.
Kruse stated that he would like to include the following language that was
received from the Water Resource Management Department that addresses dikes,
which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked as Exhibit C-2 for the
County, and he noted that it has been presented to the applicant:
“All existing dikes that are part of the project and lying
adjacent to waters of the state must be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical
engineer for stability and structural integrity prior to start of mining
activities. Any reconstruction
or reinforcement of the dikes must be done according to the design provided by
the geotechnical engineer. Any
new dikes or berms must be constructed per the ACOE dike design and approved as
part of the ERP Permit. All
dikes and berms within the active mining area must be inspected monthly by a
qualified professional engineer or a person under the direct supervision or
that professional engineer. The results
of the inspections will be in written form and will be summarized and included
in the annual report for the facility.”
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, stated that he is going to
invite Mr. Ted Wicks to come forward and make the presentation today, and he
will be available to answer any questions.
Mr. Richey stated that they worked together with staff on developing the
additional conditions and information provided to them, to clarify the wording,
and they have no problem with that language being added.
Mr.
Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, addressed the Board and stated that they
are providing the project engineering, and today they have with them Mr. Ed Murawski,
LPG Environmental, Mr. and Mrs. Hurley, and Mr. Keith Trumbull from
In
response to questions from Mr. Richey, Mr. Wicks explained that this is a
request for the land use approval with conditions, and they will also be working
with three other agencies, the U.S. Army Core of Engineers, the SJRWMD, and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Mr. Wicks explained that they cannot obtain
their County operations permit until those permits are in hand, so those will
be inter-laced together as operating conditions; this MSP requires them to
comply with all agencies and be in compliance with those permits.
Commr.
Stivender noted that there were individuals at the Zoning Board meeting who
pointed out concerns with the hours of operation and the odor, but Mr. Wicks
explained that the current MSP provides for a
Mr.
David Pelton stated that he lives directly in front of the sod farm, and he is
concerned because there seems to be no plan.
The residents had one meeting with the group, but they could not tell
them how the property is going to look.
They understand that this is going to lower the land levels anywhere
from one to 20 feet in areas, so it will have peaks and valleys
everywhere. He stated that it is going
to be marshland, which breeds alligators, mosquitoes, and other things and
creates a bunch of problems for this whole area, which is developing as residential
property. His neighbor to the east is also
opposed to it. He has asked the engineer
to submit to him other developments that he has done, so that he can see what
he considers as a “pleasant” area, because he does not want this to ruin his
home. Mr. Pelton stated that right now
it is a productive sod farm, and a beautiful area, but they want to make it a marshland.
Commr.
Pool explained that he thought the SJRWMD had flooded an area, which will be an
exact scenario of what is going to happen here, but Mr. Pelton explained that the
SJRWMD purchased the land and basically abandoned it, until they develop the
other land that is more towards the Apopka area. Commr. Pool explained that he attended a
conference the other day where they talked about excavating material and two other
options, but the SJRWMD actually wants to flood that location and restore it
back to its natural habitat. He stated
that it is going to be a wetland and marshland to the south. Mr. Pelton explained that, when the SJRWMD
let the area flood initially after they purchased it, they were inundated with
mice, dead birds, etc., and they have had alligators removed from the channel
behind their house. This is going to
give them a 500 acre breeding ground for alligators, and the land is going to
smell, and the mosquitoes are going to make their deposits. Mr. Pelton stressed
that it is going to make that land totally undesirable and make their property
totally undesirable.
Mr.
Egor Emery addressed the Board and stated that, even though the current density
on the overlay of that property is one to five, he is concerned about some of
the issues that have been brought up today.
Mr. Emery asked the Board to talk to the applicant about changing the
density overlay on this property, to go to something closer to what agriculture
should be, something like one to ten, or one to 40, because he is concerned
about this particular parcel coming back to the Board in the future for other
uses. He would like to see the Board
take the opportunity to ensure that it is wetlands and take the potential
density off of that parcel and save it for the public rather than for perhaps
potential commercial uses in the future.
Mr.
Richey stated that the MSP application and all of the information with regard
to the reclamation was provided to the neighbors and folks that wanted to read
it. The engineering information is
included in it, and staff has reviewed it and found it to be sufficient for
purposes of this level. He explained
that none of the reclaimed mines that have gone through this process, and through
the SJRWMD, the DEP, and the U.S. Core of Engineers, have resulted in the kinds
of things that Mr. Pelton has indicated as concerns; the safeguards are in place. He stated that this is a positive opportunity
to take a farming operation, which does discharge and has the potential of some
adverse environmental affects, and to convert that, over the next several years,
into a positive system. Mr. Richey
requested that the Board allow them this first step, as they go back through
that permitting process.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the County has a very stringent mining ordinance, and he
wanted to make sure that Mr. Richey has not asked for any variances in this MSP
application.
Mr.
Richey explained that the request follows the ordinance, and they have not
asked for any variances. He noted that
the residential development in the area is one to five or greater, as he explained,
and the five acre subdivision across the
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being done, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-0
vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Rezoning Case MSP#05/1/1-3, Hurley Peat Extraction, Mining Site Plan in
Agriculture, Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting Services, Tracking #15-05-MSP,
Ordinance 2005-17, with the additional staff requirements from the St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and from staff, as noted.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
Commr.
Hill announced that the Board will hear the next case and then break for lunch
and hopefully Commr. Hanson will be present.
It was noted that the Board will hear the Rezoning Case PH315-05-4, Barn
LLP (Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney), at
REZONING CASE MSP#05/2/1-3 – C
& C PEAT COMPANY, INC.
AMEND
EXISTING MSP – TRACKING #16-05-MSP/AMD
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case MSP#05/2/1-3, C & C Peat Company, Inc., a request to amend
the existing Mining Site Plan, to add 80 acres to the mining site boundary, and
to re-establish mining areas 3, 4, and 5 that were previously removed under the
last amendment. The applicant is also
requesting that the permit be issued for a period of ten years expiring in
2015. As shown on the map in the backup,
the boundary outlined in yellow is the current MSP. The northern boundary outlined in blue is the
expansion parcel (80 acres). The
operation was originally permitted under MSP#93/9/2-2 in 1993 and, in 2000, the
MSP was amended to include additional land, and to remove mining areas 3, 4,
and 5. Only 18.1 acres of the additional
80 acres will be mined. The three areas,
3, 4, and 5, are already in the permitted mining site boundary to be mined, and
the three areas represent an increase of approximately 30 acres to be mined. The total wetland area disturbed/excavated from
mining areas 3, 4, 5 and 9 with the amended plan will be approximately 48
acres. The applicant is proposing
setback distances in portions of the mine to be reduced. The applicant is also requesting that the
singlewide trailer currently used as an office is replaced with a doublewide
trailer to be used as the new office, and there will be no changes to the
existing truck traffic volumes or patterns.
The hours of operation will remain the same,
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that
the buffer is located between lands that are owned by the very same parties,
and these lands are not a part of it; that is why they are asking for the
variance. When they did their
reclamation plans, they had deleted some land, and then they re-did their plan,
and it was approved by all agencies. He
noted that Mr. Ed Murawski, LPG Permitting, is present and can answer detailed
questions.
Commr.
Pool disclosed that he met with the applicant prior to hearing the case.
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-0
vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Rezoning Case MSP#05/2/1-3, C & C Peat Company, Inc., a request to amend
the existing Mining Site Plan, Tracking #16-05-MSP/AMD, Ordinance 2005-18, with
conditions, as follows: to add 80 acres
to the mining site boundary, which includes 18.1 acres to be mined and the
re-establishment of mining area 3, 4 and 5; staff also recommends expiration of
the permit in 2015 and replacement of the singlewide trailer with a doublewide
trailer; the reduced setbacks, as depicted on Figure 3, dated 01/12/05 of the
MSP application.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
POLK
PROPERTY/NORTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK/GROVE CARE
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, in the plan for the
Mr.
Minkoff explained that staff did not bid this because there is a current contract
for grove maintenance, for a one year period, and it made sense to just to stay
with the current maintenance company.
Commr.
Hill stated that it appears that the cost is coming from General Fund Reserves
for Operations, and she wanted to know if there was any other place they could
pull those funds, because they are getting very low.
Mr.
Bill Neron,
Commr.
Stivender requested that staff tag this item in the General Fund Reserves, so that
they will know where the funds came from for this item.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-0 vote,
the Board approved the request from Public Works for approval and continuation
of grove care, to include property maintenance, and upkeep for appearance
purposes of the newly purchased orange grove (Polk Property). This property
will be used in the future as a site for the
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
OTHER
BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS/INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Commr.
Cadwell made a motion to approve the reappointment of Greg Nelson, Margo Odom
and Glenn Tyre to the Industrial Development Authority (IDA); the appointment
of Richard Joyce to replace Tom Bacsik; and the reappointment of Scott Strong –
Lake County School Board; Dr. Charles Mojock –
Under
discussion, Commr. Cadwell noted that staff is working on an ordinance to add a
member from the
Commr.
Pool seconded the motion.
Commr.
Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-0 vote.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
APPOINTMENTS/LIBRARY
ADVISORY BOARD
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-0
vote, the Board approved the reappointment of Barbara Newman (District 1) and
Roy Hunter (District 5) to the Library Advisory Board.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS
–
VAN
DEE MEDICAL BUILDING/LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Stivender wanted to know which Health Department was being replaced with this
space, and Mr. Minkoff explained that the Umatilla clinic is occupying most of
it. Commr. Stivender thought they were
going to redo the Umatilla Health Department and add on to it, but Mr. Minkoff
pointed out that this is the plan, but they have not started yet.
Mr.
Bill Neron,
Commr.
Stivender stated that the people in Umatilla need a facility in Umatilla and,
even though staff has assured Commr. Cadwell that it will be re-opened, she
wanted to know when this was going to happen.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that, for the purposes of the lease, it does have a
cancellation clause so, while it is a three year lease, they can cancel early
if something else becomes accessible.
Commr.
Stivender stated that they were doing another “band-aid” approach and she would
like a memo to find out what is actually going on with this item.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 3-1 vote,
the Board approved the request for approval to lease office and clinical space
at Van Dee Medical Building from Jeanne B. Van Dellen for the Lake County
Health Department.
Commr.
Stivender voted “no”.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
ADDENDUM
NO. 1
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT/PUBLIX
SUPER MARKETS, INC.
SUMMERBAY
SHOPPING CENTER/CITRUS RIDGE LIBRARY
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether this was the library they were trying to get other
counties to help build, and Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, explained that
staff has had discussions and believes that Osceola County, at one time, had a
line item and a proposed bond referendum to help support this project. Mr. Neron explained that they never sold the
bonds, so right now, per his conversations with the
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether the County has funds allocated to build the
library, because she knows that the County spent $400,000 on architectural
plans.
Mr.
Neron stated that $4.5 million has been budgeted for this project, the Citrus
Ridge Library, and they will know how much they will actually need when the
bids come in but they do not have funds to replace the Cooper Memorial Library.
He noted that they do have funds
budgeted in the Local Option Sales Tax for the Four Corners Library.
Commr.
Pool pointed out that the Board may want to rescind the opportunity for
utilization of the facility, if Lake County builds it, funds it, and maintains
it, because he would prefer not to have everybody from other counties utilizing
it, if they do not participate it its funding; Commr. Stivender agreed.
Commr.
Cadwell noted that he has had discussions with Osceola County in regards to
finding another source, and Mr. Neron noted that staff has had discussions with
Polk County.
Mr.
Minkoff pointed out that there is also
Commr.
Pool stated that there are other library users that are not on either boundary
and, if they are not participating, he doubts that they are using their
libraries, so he would like to make sure they are participants.
Mr.
Neron stated that, before the holidays, staff met with the managers from the
four counties, and they are still in discussions, so he will put something in
writing to them. It was noted that, at
the Board’s workshop on Monday, they will be talking about all of these issues.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-0 vote,
the Board approved the request from the County Attorney for approval of Second
Amendment to Lease Agreement with Publix Super Markets, Inc. and Lake County, for
lease of space at Summerbay Shopping Center for Citrus Ridge Library.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS
–
MASTER
SPACE STUDY/BOARD RETREAT
Mr.
Bill Neron,
Mr.
Neron stated that March 8, 2005 was going to be a workshop on dirt road paving
and, because of FEMA issues, staff has not completed the work on this item, so
the Board can consider canceling that meeting.
He noted that the dirt road paving discussion will be rescheduled
sometime in April.
On
a motion by Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-0 vote, the
Board approved to place the item regarding the cancellation of the
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 4-0
vote, the Board approved to cancel the
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the vote.
Mr.
Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, addressed
the Board and stated that staff had scheduled, on the March 15, 2005 agenda,
the second public hearing on the Clermont Land Development Regulations (LDRs),
which is the same night that staff is going to be doing the Minneola Town
meeting.
It
was noted that the item brought forth by Mr. Welstead has been addressed by
staff and the Board did not need to take action on it.
Commr.
Hill clarified the Board’s schedule, as follows:
It
was noted that staff had not planned on filming the Board Retreat on
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT #5
BOND
FAMILY/
Commr.
Cadwell explained that the Bond family, in south Umatilla, runs an after school
tutoring group, and they have also given the County right-of-way on several
occasions for drainage and other things, and they want to do a lot split on
this piece of property. He asked the
Board to entertain waiving the lot split fee for them, and to place this item
on the agenda. He noted that the Bonds
know they have to do their own surveys,.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-0
vote, the Board approved to place the item regarding the Bond family, as noted,
on the agenda.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
Commr.
Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to approve to
waive the lot split fee for the Bond family in Umatilla.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hill questioned the amount of the fee, with staff noting
that it would be about $80.
Commr.
Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-0 vote.
Commr.
Hanson was not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT #2
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION MEETING
Commr.
Pool informed the Board that the Department of Transportation will have a
meeting on
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
PARADES/CITY
OF EUSTIS
Commr.
Stivender noted that the
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
WOLF
BRANCH WALK
Commr.
Hill informed the Board that she has received an invitation for the Board to
participate in the “Wolf Branch Walk” this Saturday, and it will include a
discussion.
It
was noted that staff will verify the number of Commissioners attending the
event and advertise, if necessary.
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At
COMMISSIONERS
At
1:00 p.m., it was noted that all Commissioners were present for the afternoon
session.
ADDENDUM
NO. 1
PEAR
PARK/GRANT/FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mr.
Bill Neron,
Mr.
Gary Saltzman addressed the Board and stated that he is the President of the
PEAR Association, the volunteer group that is working at the Park, and he
wanted to briefly say that they greatly appreciate the request and hope that
the Board will approve it. They also look
forward to working with Mr. John Bringard, Outsourcing Contracts Manager,
Public Works, Road Operations Division.
Commr.
Hill stated that the Board certainly appreciates all of the volunteers.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 5-0
vote, the Board approved the request from Public Works for approval to submit a
Land and Water Conservation Program Grant application for Phase I development
at PEAR Park; approval to commit $200,000.00 as matching funds to support the
application and approval to provide $400,000.00 up front for project expenses
for which $200,000.00 would be reimbursed to the County at completion of the
project; approval to add PEAR Park Phase I development to the Five Year Capital
Improvement Program, for action within two years; and approval for the County
Manager to forward a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection
certifying that the Five Year Capital Improvement Program schedule is
officially adopted and a funding source indicated.
REZONING
(CONTINUED)
REZONING CASE PH#
JACK SPILLANE, DENNIS BENBOW,
NATALIE WINDSOR & BARN LLP
CECELIA
BONIFAY, ESQ. – A TO A-1-20 – TRACKING #18-05-TDR/Z
Mr.
Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#15-05-4, Rouselle and Dorothy Sutton, Jack Spillane, Dennis
Benbow, Natalie Windsor and Barn LLP, Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, a request to
rezone from A (Agriculture) to A-1-20 (Wekiva River Protection Overlay District
Two). Mr. Richardson explained that this
is a four part request; there are three sending areas and one receiving
area. Staff did not find any issue with
the transfer of development rights being sent off the properties, however, staff
is unable to support a positive recommendation as to the receiving property and
is recommending denial on all of the cases.
Mr. Richardson referred to the maps in the backup noting the location of
each parcel identified as follows:
Sending Parcel A – Natalie E. Windsor; Sending Parcel B – Rouselle A.
and Dorothy Sutton, et al; Sending Parcel C – Wekiva River Mitigation Bank,
LLC; and Receiving Parcel D – Barn LLP.
He explained that the information he will be providing to the Board is
basically centered on the receiving parcel, and staff does not necessarily have
an issue with the sending parcels and the development rights being sent off of
those; it is more of where they are asking them to be placed on that receiving
parcel.
Mr.
Richardson stated that the subject parcel, which is the receiving parcel, is
located in Receiving Area #2, which is in the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Urban
Compact Node, and it is also within the Wekiva River Protection Area
boundary. The property is approximately
298 acres in size, and it currently has R-1 zoning, which would allow for an
existing maximum density of 197 dwelling units.
The applicant is proposing to acquire a total of 326 development rights
from the Sending Properties. If the
transfer is approved, the Receiving Property will have the right to develop 523
units at a density of 2.65 units per acre.
Mr. Richardson explained that this is a request for R-6 zoning. Staff
did discuss a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as an alternative for the
rezoning, which would allow the Board to place conditions. Staff did not identify any major issues with
the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) regarding the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDRs), or the Comprehensive Plan; however, there are several issues
under other factors, and it goes back to a consistency issue. They include the provision of central water
and sewer to the property at a density of approximately 2.6 dwelling units per
acre and also being located within the
To
summarize the recommendation for denial, Mr. Richardson explained that, even
though the applicant has made a valid effort to work within the rules
established by the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs and utilize the TDR program for
the development of this site, the override in public interest factors have
necessitated staff making a recommendation of denial of this particular
property. Mr. Richardson stated that, as
noted, during the Zoning Board hearing, the issue is not with the TDR program,
or the effect of that program, but it is where these TDRs are being applied and
the issue of appropriateness and, at this time, this property is not appropriate
and this consideration is not appropriate.
Commr.
Hill disclosed that she spoke to supporters and Ms. Bonifay, and people who
have opposed this application and, before the Board opens the public hearing,
she stated that a lot of attention has been given to this particular item and
emotions can run high. At this time, she
explained the procedure the Board will use for taking public comment.
Commr.
Hanson disclosed that she had talked to those individuals in favor and who
oppose the application, and Commr. Stivender and Commr. Pool disclosed the
same. Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he
only spoke to individuals who were opposed to it.
Ms.
Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman Senterfitt, addressed the Board and stated that she is
here today on behalf of Barn LLP, the owners of the property that is the
subject of this rezoning request. Ms.
Bonifay pointed out that Mr. Richardson has presented some new information
today, and it was not included in any of the information that she has received;
she only has the original staff report.
She wanted the record to note that today was the first time they have
heard that and, since they have no witnesses and experts to refute that, she
will just have to provide some additional information.
Ms.
Bonifay pointed out that, as Mr. Richardson concluded in his presentation, they
were not questioning the application of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to
TDRs; it is just that this is not an appropriate site, or it is not an
appropriate site at this time, but none of that was rationale that was included
in any of the staff reports on record.
Before she begins, she would like the record to note that they would ask
that the staff reports be made a part of that record, as well as the minutes of
the Zoning Board meeting. Ms. Bonifay explained
that the entire process is the issue, and the entire procedure that this Board
spelled out in its Comprehensive Plan a number of years ago, in terms of how
they were going to compensate people and deal with property rights in the
Ms. Bonifay submitted an Evaluation
of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Groundwater Consumptive Use,
and a resume from Eric Krebill, P.G., which were marked as Exhibit A-2 and A-3 consecutively
for the Applicant. She noted that Mr.
Krebill is the Senior Geologist responsible for working on the consumptive use
permit that was done some time ago and is still pending before the St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD).
She pointed out that, when Mr. Krebill started on the permit, it was at
the direction of the City of
Ms. Bonifay stated that the issue today
is density, and they have shown that there is no impact and, as stated by Mr.
Richardson, he did not base his statements on any environmental evaluation, or any
other evaluation undertaken by the County.
She explained that this is a piece of property that has been in
agricultural use over a long period of time, and the lakes on
Ms. Bonifay referred to the TDRs and
stated that Lake County may have been ahead of its time because, when they
reduced the density so severely in the Wekiva River area, it allowed the
development to go forward fairly unchecked in Seminole County and Orange
County, until recent history, and it made Lake County the conservation,
preservation, recreation area for the State.
There will be no State money forthcoming to help with the requirements and
that was not part of the final recommendation.
A system was put into place for the sending and receiving areas and, as
shown, the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node was developed that will
allow densities up to 5.5 units per acre.
Ms. Bonifay stated that is how they justified to all of those folks in
the sending areas that lost their density and lost their property rights that
they ultimately would be compensated because people would buy those TDRs. As the County knows, it has been a very slow
process, and the market is now there, and TDRs are being transferred and, as
she indicated, the Board will be seeing other applications for TDRs. She referred to the language in the
Comprehensive Plan and LDRs that defines the TDR system, and the application for
a transfer permit, which gets processed simultaneously with a rezoning
application, and noted that there are four applications pending, three from the
sending, and one for the receiving. It
was clarified that the density would be taken away from the sending areas, and
it would be allocated to the receiving area.
She addressed the issue of transportation and noted that, because the
County has done nothing to take care of its transportation problem on SR 46 and
has been waiting for the
Ms. Bonifay referred to the minutes
from the Zoning Board meeting, which reflects that the offer from the
Expressway Authority “was an invitation to negotiate, but it did not have the
central terms required to begin discussions.”
She stated that, even though Mr. Lee has indicated that there is a $25
million offer on the table, Ms. Bonifay clarified that he has not been privy to
discussions with her client. She noted
that, based on the last letter that was sent to Ms. Rossman and Mr. Cole from
the Expressway Authority, they did not believe that it constituted an offer; it
did not have the material terms necessary to constitute one. Ms. Bonifay stated that Mr. Lee will probably
tell the Board like he told the Zoning Board, the law says these have to be
purchased, and he will site the Wekiva River Protection Act. She stated that she reviewed the Wekiva River
Protection Act and it says that, as of December, 2004, they were going to begin
negotiations, and they have until 2010 to actually acquire any of the
properties that are outlined (four properties), so there is no timeframe. She stated that the idea that this is going
to happen quickly, that there is plenty of money, she thinks is a
misrepresentation of what is going to happen in this particular case and,
again, if the State so desires, they can always take it. Ms. Bonifay stated that, at no point, in any
of the discussions about the TDR program, was there a motion to remove the
In response to Commr. Hanson’s
question about whether the applicant has responded to the letter from the
Expressway Authority to begin discussions, Ms. Bonifay stated that she has
talked to their eminent domain counsel this morning, and she believes they
responded last week, but she does not know if it has been received and she is
not aware of the content of that response.
Commr. Cadwell requested that Ms.
Bonifay characterize her client’s participation in the Wekiva River Basin
Coordinating Committee.
Ms. Bonifay stated that their
participation was along with several others; she represented a number of
different property owners. Mr. Wade
Hopping who could not be here today was their primary counsel throughout the
entire
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in the
legislation itself, where it designates the Orlando-Orange County Expressway
Authority to act as the acquisition agent, he wanted to know if Ms. Bonifay’s clients
protested their names actually being listed in the Executive Order, and in the
legislation.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her clients
absolutely did not protest because they had made it known that they had already
been working on their consumptive use permit, which was known by all of the
members, because this County took an action in opposition. It was discussed at the meeting that they
were going forward with the development of their property; they were going to
acquire TDRs; but they were going to do it in a very sensitive manner and meet
any and all environmental controls that were necessary and, if that affected
density, so be it.
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing
and called for public comment.
Mr. James Homich, City Councilman for
the City of Mount Dora, addressed the Board and stated that he is here on
behalf of the City Council, and the approximately 10,500 residents in the City
of Mount Dora. Mr. Homich stated that
the City Council unanimously passed a Resolution, which he read into the
record:
RESOLUTION NO.
2005-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WHEREAS, as participants in the Wekiva River Basin
Coordinating Committee appointed by the Governor, Mount Dora and Lake County,
in cooperation with numerous other local governments and state agencies,
developed a set of recommendations which were adopted by the state legislature
in 2004; and
WHEREAS, the
WHEREAS, the City of Mount Dora remains committed to
the successful implementation of this legislation, which we believe to be vital
to protecting the natural resources and economic health of our region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mount Dora recognizes that
efforts to acquire conservation lands specified by the
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF
Section 1. The
City of Mount Dora urges the Board of County Commissioners of
Section 2. The
City of Mount Dora urges
Section 3. This
resolution shall take effect immediately upon its final adoption by the City
Council.
PASSED AND RESOLVED this 15th day of
February, 2005, by the City Council of the City of Mount Dora, Florida.
Mr.
Homich submitted the copy of Resolution 2005-06 to the Deputy Clerk, and it was
marked as Exhibit O-1 for the opposition.
Commr.
Hanson stated that there has been some discussion dealing with TDRs, as far as
opening up other areas to transfer that density away from the Wekiva River, and
she questioned whether the City of Mount Dora would be receptive to looking at
requiring those TDRs to be purchased, to get the higher densities in Mount Dora
and in the joint planning area.
Mr.
Homich stated that he feels there are much more appropriate areas in
Commr.
Hanson clarified that she was not talking about expanding their borders, but
within their borders to get a higher density. She
stated that there are areas between US Highway 441 and
Mr.
Homich explained that the City of Mount Dora has annexed almost all of the
urban/urban expansion area adjacent to the City of Mount Dora, at this point,
and Commr. Hanson explained that this is where those TDRs should go, in an
urban area, either in the City of Mount Dora, or the City of
Mr.
Charles Lee, representing Audubon of Florida, addressed the Board and stated
that he really believes that this case comes down to some straight forward and
simple issues relating to the operation of the County’s very excellent TDR
system, which he believes is one of the leading systems in the State of
Florida. When that system was created,
it was clear that the TDRs and their use were not going to be automatic and
that it was going to be subject to the LDRs and Code and requirements of
rezoning where you are increasing the allowable uses on a given piece of land;
therefore, they are here in a joint proceeding involving a rezoning, and a
request to move the TDRs, as outlined.
Mr. Lee noted that, in the Code, Section 14.03.03(i) relates to public
interest considerations and Sections 14.03.02(c) and 14.03.03(f) relate to
consideration of environmental impacts.
Mr. Lee stated that last year the legislature acted to adopt statements
of legislative policy, which they suggest would directly come to bear on the
public interest, and the environmental impact determinations, the Board has to
make as to whether or not this is an appropriate rezoning. Mr. Lee stated that they agree with staff;
staff has made an excellent presentation to the Board; it is an excellent
written report; and their recommendation of denial against this project is right
on point. The essential facts are in the
legislation that relates to the Barn LLP piece, known as
369.317(6)(a) Acquisition of the land described in this
section is required to provide right-of-way for the Wekiva Parkway, a limited
access roadway linking State Road 429 to Interstate 4, an essential component
in meeting regional transportation needs to provide regional connectivity,
improve safety, accommodate projected population and economic growth, and satisfy
critical transportation requirements caused by increasing traffic volume growth
and travel demands.
369.317(6)(b) Acquisition of lands described in this
section is also required to protect the surface water and groundwater resources
of Lake, Orange, and Seminole counties, otherwise known as the Wekiva Study
Area, including recharge within the springshed that provides for the Wekiva
River system. Protection of this area is
crucial to the long term viability of the
Mr.
Lee stated that the Expressway Authority feels that these are the ultimate
results of the work product that came from two task forces (Wekiva Basin Area
Task Force and Wekiva River Basin Coordinating Committee) appointed by the
Executive Order of Governor Jeb Bush, and they are paramount in terms of
considering the effects of this rezoning, and they would suggest to the Board
that this would not be the thing to do at this point in time. He stated that clearly the
Mr.
Lee pointed out that the legislation that was signed into law by the Governor
directed the Expressway Authority to begin land acquisition negotiations in December,
2004 and, in less than 30 days, a letter was sent to the eminent domain counsel
of Barn LLP (S. Cary Gaylord), from the counsel for the Expressway Authority,
which stated the following:
“After a review of the facts and the status of
potential entitlements to the subject property, we are prepared to recommend
the sum of $25,000,000.00 for the acquisition of the fee simple interest in the
property together with all entitlements, rights and interest that may exist or
by operation of any statutory or ordinance provisions accrue to the property as
they may be described. This purchase
price is based upon our analysis which is approximately 1,000 acres of
developable uplands at $25,000.00 per acre.”
Mr.
Lee explained that this is an offer of $25,000 per acre for developable upland
acres and obviously that is going to adjust according to the survey; this could
be a $30 million offer. The bottom line
is that it is a real offer; it was made within 30 days of the trigger point in
the Statute; the land acquisition is ongoing; and he hopes that the Board
recognizes it as such. Mr. Lee submitted
to the Deputy Clerk the letter dated February 1, 2005, from Broad and
In
conclusion, Mr. Lee thanked the Board for their efforts to protect the Wekiva,
and for the good efforts that Commr. Hanson expended for quite awhile on the
Wekiva River Basin Coordinating Committee and continues to expend on the Wekiva
River Basin Commission recreated by the legislation. He hopes that the Board will support the
staff recommendation and deny the proposed rezoning and transfers presented today.
Commr.
Hanson referred to Exhibit O-2 and stated that, as a point of discussion, much
of the southern part of the “pink” area is almost all built out in low density
subdivisions. Her concern is that they
need to evaluate how much it there, where there is an opportunity to transfer
those development rights, and look at State owned properties. She has brought up several times that the
State needs to extinguish their development rights in the State owned
properties, because you can see a significant amount of property has been
purchased by the State, and those development rights are still there. They need to do some sort of evaluation of
how many they are looking at and what the opportunities are for those that are
left to participate in the TDRs. They
also need to look at whether there are changes that need to occur, should there
be a banker, a third party, because most of those that succeed have a third
party, a bank or broker, that holds them until there is a need, or a demand.
Mr.
Lee stated that those are good points, but there is one other item worth noting
with regard to this particular TDR proposal that is somewhat troubling. There is a very substantial amount of the
TDRs that are proposed to be transferred from the property known as New Garden
Coal, also known as Wekiva Mitigation Bank but, while on one hand the
developers of the Wekiva Mitigation Bank are trying to maximize the number of
mitigation credits they get approved by the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to sell, on the other hand they are proposing to transfer
these development rights off the property to Neighborhood Lakes and make money
by that transaction. He believes that
the transferring of the TDR off of this property to
Mr.
Scott Taylor,
COMMISSIONERS
At 2:10 p.m., it was noted that Commr.
Stivender left the meeting.
REZONING CASE PH#
JACK SPILLANE, DENNIS BENBOW,
NATALIE WINDSOR & BARN LLP
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. – A TO
A-1-20 – TRACKING #18-05-TDR/Z
(CONTINUED)
Ms.
Jeanne Etter, resident of Mount Plymouth, addressed the Board and submitted to
the Deputy Clerk the letter from Broad and Cassel dated February 1, 2005, with
specific paragraphs highlighted in yellow, and a document from the DEP
regarding their intent to issue a permit for the Wekiva River Mitigation Bank
property, which were marked as Exhibit O-4 and O-5 consecutively for the Opposition. Ms. Etter explained that, as a resident, she
has been before the Board quite a few times regarding this particular parcel of
land. Through the efforts of the
Commissioners,
Ms.
Priscilla Bernard, resident of
COMMISSIONERS
At 2:18 p.m., it was noted that
Commr. Stivender returned to the meeting.
REZONING CASE PH#
JACK SPILLANE, DENNIS BENBOW,
NATALIE WINDSOR & BARN LLP
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. – A TO
A-1-20 – TRACKING #18-05-TDR/Z
(CONTINUED)
Ms.
Bernard explained that this request has been denied by the Cities of Eustis,
Mount Dora, Clermont, the Zoning Board, through the County’s own Resolution,
through Florida State law, and the public, and she is outraged at the applicant
for putting Lake County and its citizens in this awkward position, in a final effort
to get everything they want without compromise and, in her opinion, to put them
in this position was very disrespectful.
She stated that it was the public who compromised in their discussions
of a toll road and, in return, they asked Barn LLP to compromise and sell that
property to the State. She certainly
feels that $25 million is adequate and, even though Ms. Bonifay would establish
that her client has the right to get up zoned, in her opinion, even though one
has an option, it does not make that option the right one to pursue. Ms. Bernard asked the Board to support the
public in this matter, and the courageous actions of the City, and deny this
rezoning request and go even a step further and submit verbally to the record all
of the multitude of reasons, the number one reason being this overriding public
interest to deny this rezoning.
Ms.
Gail Ash, City of
Mr.
Paul Trembly, resident of
Mr.
Egor Emery stated that the Lake County Conservation Council has asked him to
come here today and speak once again for protecting the Wekiva. They have been involved in the process and,
since 1987, with the Wekiva Protection Act, and they would like to urge the
Board to do everything possible to protect the Wekiva. Mr. Emery stated that the compromise that has
been put forward is one of the best solutions, which they actively developed
over the last three years. They believe
it is a very good solution to many problems in that area, and he believes that
they need to do everything possible to protect the Wekiva. He personally asked the Board members to not
pass up this opportunity to avoid the mistakes that have been made in the past;
set a trend; protect the Wekiva for now and forever.
Mr.
Fred Antonio addressed the Board and stated that he works at the Central
Florida Zoo, and he is the second landowner west of the receiving area being
discussed today. Mr. Antonio stated
that, as far as what is represented in this area, he thinks they all recognize
the importance of wildlife corridors, preserved area, and buffer zones that
help protect the ecosystems, which are quite fragile. He explained that his yard is located very
close to the property in question, and he has seen many different species of wildlife,
far more than just a couple of gopher tortoises.
Mr.
Keith Schue, Central Florida Sierra Club, addressed the Board and stated that
he would like to reiterate that the most compelling reason the Board has to
reject this rezoning is that it is not in the public interest, pursuant to the
land development code of
Ms.
Nadine Foley, Chairman of the Public Land Acquisition Advisory Council,
addressed the Board and stated that they are looking forward to the exciting
prospect of being able to acquire some additional conservation and
environmentally sensitive lands in
Ms.
Jennifer McMurtray, Transportation and Wildlife Ecology Coordinator, Defenders
of Wildlife, stated that she
wanted to note that this is a very critical point and that this decision today will
decide whether or not the whole Wekiva Protection and Preservation Plan will
thrive. She stressed that the
environmental impacts are very real and the hydrology is critical, because
these are high recharge lands, and there has been enough data on the
hydrology. She stated that the Wekiva
Basin Area Task Force would not have developed these recommendations that this
property be purchased, if it were not incredibly important and, if the Board is
interested in any of that information, it can probably be located on the DCA
web site. The property is disturbed but
it is not bereft of environmental value even above the ground and, as Mr.
Antonio has said, there is a lot of wildlife there. She wanted to point out that the burrowing
owls are terribly under represented in the
Mr.
Wayne Rich, Esquire, Broad and
Commr.
Pool wanted to know whether or not the $25 million was actually classified and
considered as an offer, and Mr. Rich explained that they are in the position,
as the firm representing all of these entities, to make recommendations. They have had a response from
Mr. Gaylord asking for further clarification as to whether the State has the
money, and the timeframe, and they have responded to say that the agencies of
the State obviously have resources, and they feel there is a process that is
set forth in their tri-party agreement where appraisals have to be submitted
and, depending on which agency is funding it, it has to go to the Cabinet for
approval. To follow up with Mr. Lee’s
comment, Mr. Rich explained that they are trying to run at break-neck for
government agencies, and he thinks they have the ability, if they can get
something negotiated at the table, to not only get the appraisal process
completed but close within a reasonable period of time. They are not trying to be restrictive in a
way to this party’s interest; they recognize they have certain entitlements;
and that is why their letter addressed those entitlements. Their study has shown this to be a realistic
approach to the acquisition of this property, and now they are waiting to start
serious negotiations. They have pledged
to Mr. Gaylord that, if they get a reasonable negotiation going, they will move
with all due speed.
Commr.
Stivender noted that, pursuant to a request from Commr. Hanson, as Chairman of
the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), she sent a letter
from the MPO asking for assistance from the legislature in this matter and, as
clarified by Mr. Rich, it does not actually go to them; it goes to the Cabinet.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she appreciated the action taken by the MPO, and she appreciates
Mr. Rich being here today. She stated
that she is assuming this piece of property has the priority of the four that
were listed.
Mr.
Rich clarified that they really are making a “full blown” effort on all of
them, and they have to be able to have face-to-face negotiations and
discussions with the landowner, but they are making a good faith effort on all
of them; this one has a priority; but then they all have priorities; and they
have taken note that the one before them today is this Board’s priority.
Ms.
Sue Angermeir addressed the Board and stated that she lives in Double Run near
Astatula and, after listening to all of these people, she wanted to say that
she has lived in
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At
2:47 p.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board would take a 15 minute break.
REZONING CASE PH#
JACK SPILLANE, DENNIS BENBOW,
NATALIE WINDSOR & BARN LLP
CECELIA BONIFAY, ESQ. – A TO
A-1-20 – TRACKING #18-05-TDR/Z
(CONTINUED)
At
3 p.m., Commr. Hill reconvened the meeting and asked Ms. Bonifay if she would
like to follow up with any questions.
Ms.
Bonifay stated that she would to rebut and try to summarize a few of the issues
that were brought to the Board, in terms of rationale, or reason for
opposition. She stated that their
premise is that the way the entire TDR program was structured in Lake County
was really more of a transfer development permit, as outlined in the LDRs, and
that the zoning was the methodology by which they showed the transfer, by
taking it from one parcel, rezoning it and taking those off, and then assigning
them to the new parcel of property, as they have shown today. After hearing the opponents who were finding
great fault with the TDR process before the Zoning Board, they are not
heralding it again as a wonderful thing that the Board has done, and it was
very novel and certainly very progressive for its time; however, they just do
not want it applied in this instance.
Ms. Bonifay explained that they have spent almost a year debating Senator
Lee Constantine’s proposal, to make TDRs mostly jurisdictional, which is one of
the suggestions that Mr. Lee made today, and that they should just transfer
them to other areas in the County. She
explained that this Board’s predecessors never wanted to do that so what is on
the books today is the same thing that has been on the books since it was
adopted and, in every Comprehensive Plan change, they have determined that the
Board will not change that program. On
behalf of Barn LLP, Ms. Bonifay stated that she approached County staff about
eight or ten months ago and presented all of the information from a TDR sale,
which involved two Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) at that time, and she reviewed
all of the forms with them and made them aware that they were in the process of
acquiring TDRs and would be moving forward with them. Ms. Bonifay stated that she found it
interesting that they keep talking about the public purpose, or the will of the
people, and she thinks that the only will that they have seen here is an
attempt to depress the value of the property, so that it can be acquired more
cheaply. They went through this with the
State when the Wekiva River Protection Act was first done; the State kept
saying it was going to buy lands, but the State said that it would not come
through with the money until they actually put bulldozers on the site. Ms. Bonifay referred to Exhibit O-2 and the
testimony presented by Mr. Lee that, if you take this one off of the books,
there was no need to worry, because there are plenty of receiving areas, but
they are not in the urban node where the Board chose to go up to 5.5 units per
acre. She stated that his Board has not
changed that at any time while they were modifying their Comprehensive Plan,
and they have not recommended that through the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Study; in
fact, they have eliminated this property from the study area. She pointed out that at no time during any of
those Wekiva meetings was it ever indicated that TDRs were appropriate
everywhere but just not in
Ms.
Bonifay addressed Exhibit O-7, which Mr. Schue proffered on the record as
rationale to deny this request and noted that it is an attachment to a
document. She explained that it is so
old that it is talking about the State wanting to acquire the Kitteridge
property, which is now Sorrento Hills and has central water and sewer from the
City of
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the Board has been very strong in its backing for the State
to purchase this land, since 2001, and that the Resolution, which Ms. Etter had
asked her to bring forward, came about as she attempted to create a Mount
Plymouth-Sorrento Citizens Advisory Committee in the area. The Resolution was brought forward and the
Board supported it, and they have supported it several times, and she does not
think anything has changed, and the Board still supports that effort, as they
did throughout the Wekiva Basin Area Task Force meetings, and the Board
meetings. In working with the Wekiva
Basin Area Task Force and the Board, there was a commitment that there would be
no taking situations created and that is the intent of the legislation. Senator Constantine even cautioned against it
at their last meeting, and the potential of inverse condemnations. She does not think this creates that
situation, but she thinks that it is certainly something that they are very
cognizant of. If the property were to be
developed, or any part of it, which could happen, it is possible that the State
will not buy all of it, or buys none of it but, after the concerns and
indications they have been given today, a PUD would be preferable to straight
zoning, if that were to happen. The
applicant can move forward today and plat in one acre tracts, and that would
not be good at all. They also need to
remember that those densities that are attempting to be transferred are still
in the Wekiva and are in the protection area, and in a more sensitive area that
can be built on, and she is not in favor of increasing the density today. She has known all along that the one acre
density is there, or certainly no more than that and it is still an appropriate
zoning at this time. She thinks that R-6
is much too high a zoning and not an appropriate zoning, and then it leaves it open
to what is the real intent, with the question still being the intent to have
5.5 units per acre, which could be obtained; and the utilities are not
currently available.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that it is real apparent to him that this Board needs to sit
down and have a discussion outside of a particular zoning case, in regards to
the TDRs, and to look at the ones that have either been government purchased or
mitigation purchased, because it has got to affect the price or value of those. The Board needs to have a policy discussion
on how they are going to handle those outside of a particular zoning case, and
they need to do this soon. In regards to
his decision today, Commr. Cadwell stated that it is certainly based on
everything that has happened. Ms.
Bonifay has said that the Board passed a Resolution not really having any
scientific facts, and he thinks that the Wekiva River Basin Commission took in
enough evidence, and Commr. Hanson, who represented them on that board, was
able to inform them that there were enough facts to base that Resolution, and
to base their support on what is happening, and he thinks there is a growing
awareness of what is going on. He
pointed out that Ms. Bonifay was right when she said that, under the original
Wekiva Act, the State did not buy any of that property until the bulldozers
were there, but there is a lot more interest in this project, because of the
transportation elements, and that is one of the smartest things that the
environmental community could have done, attach their wagon to this road
project. Commr. Cadwell stated that, based
on the evidence that he has heard today, and the actions of this Board in the
past, he would certainly hope that they would deny this application.
Commr.
Hanson stated that this is a very unusual situation, and there are a lot of
different aspects of it that have to be considered and, as far as looking at
the TDRs, it was brought up when the Wekiva River Basin Commission met and they
felt that it should remain as it is because they were afraid that it might
undermine the whole system, but she thinks that today they need to look at that
and direct staff.
Commr.
Pool stated, when he was sitting on the SR 429 Expressway Committee, and they
were talking about the road, there was a lot of dialogue about what would
happen with this transportation corridor, and they have an opportunity to put a
road through and ensure that the rest of the property is protected, an offer
that ensures that the State is interested and concerned about the
property. He stated that Ms. Bonifay has
put forth a gallant effort today trying to explain the TDRs, and the entire
process but, with this offer forthcoming, and what he thinks is a legitimate
offer, he thinks that it would be prudent on their part to deny the rezoning
request at this time, until such final offers are made but he thinks this offer
today is legitimate; he thinks that the needs will be met by the traveling
public; the environmental community will be able to protect the Wekiva Basin;
and the landowners will receive a fair compensation in the long run for their
property, so he will not be able to support the rezoning.
Commr.
Hill stated that she agrees with everything that has already been said but she
really does feel, as a Board, that they have made a real major decision in 2001
to identify this as an environmental impact of this property and, not for only
this property, but that entire area, and they sent a message to the
legislature, a pretty strong one, and they have maintained that and held fast
to that Resolution. She appreciates
Commr. Hanson’s leadership and her role on the Wekiva Basin Area Task Force,
and she sincerely believes that they will take care of the TDR question, maybe
through the Comprehensive Plan process, or by policy decision, and hopefully
the Cabinet will address this and have a solid answer for purchase in this up
and coming session and, with them looking at what this Board has done today,
she hopes it will help in their decision.
Commr.
Stivender noted that she had no further comments but she feels that the Board
members have said it all.
Commr.
Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the
recommendation of the Zoning Board and deny Rezoning Case PH#15-05-4, Rouselle
and Dorothy Sutton, Jacks Spillane, Dennis Benbow, Natalie Windsor and Barn,
LLP, Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire, a request from A (Agriculture) to A-1-20,
Tracking #18-05-TDR/Z.
Under
discussion, Commr. Cadwell questioned whether this motion takes care of all of
the applications, with staff noting that the action will cover all four cases.
Commr.
Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0
vote.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
___________________________
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK