The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 16, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Courthouse, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: C. W. "Chick" Gregg, Chairman; Thomas J. Windram; Richard Swartz; Michael J. Bakich; and Don Bailey. Others present were: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Robert K. McKee, Chief Deputy Clerk; Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney; Al Thelen, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Assistant to the County Manager; and Toni M. Austin, Deputy Clerk.
James C. Watkins, Clerk, gave the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commr. Windram.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of December 12, 1989, with the following corrections and amendments being made:
On Page 29 - Line 28 - "... the diagonal repose..." be corrected to read "...the angle of repose...".
On Page 7 - Line 28 - "Mr. James Scovil, appointed by District 4 Commissioner" be corrected to read "Mrs. Jane Scovil, appointed by District 5 Commissioner" with the following correction being made: (District 4 appointee to be announced later.)
On Page 8 - Addition beginning on Line 9 - "Commr. Bakich requested that the Committee bring back to the Board cost proposals to implement the program, with this being included in the resolution."
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of December 12, 1989, as corrected and amended.
CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Request for payment of Warrant #115900 through Warrant #116111, for the following accounts:
Landfills County Transportation Trust
Bassville Fire District Mt. Plymouth Fire District
General Revenue Countywide Library
Pasco Fire District Mosquito Control
Aquatic Weed Miscellaneous/Gas Fund
Emergency 911 Fund Countywide Fire District
Fine & Forfeiture Animal Shelter Trust Fund
South Lake Fire District Capital Outlay
Private Industry Council Northwest Fire District
Road Impact Paisley Fire District
Request to approve and signature authorization on the Satisfaction of Judgment, Case No. 89-930-CJ, Mark E. Stone, Juvenile, and Robert Stone and Sara Stone, Parents, in the amount of $50.00.
Request to approve and signature authorization on the Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for the following subdivisions:
Max and Joyce A. West $589.55
Dale E. & Thoma K. Kopplin 492.52
Jack D. Copeland $516.69
Jack D. Copeland 528.22
Stephen F. Morrison 837.25
Woodland Hills Subdivision
Travis Rowe & Bobby Smithey $335.34
Astor Forest Campsites
Clarence E. & Mary Thornburg $1,776.88
John A. Bennett & Becnice Thompson 1,733.53
Jack & Inas Boring 464.30
Haines Creek Heights
Efrem Barrientos $ 754.76
Warren J. Jacques 754.76
Jeffrey A. White 633.71
Mid-Florida Lakes, Inc. 861.60
John & Mary Ciko 861.60
John & Mary Ciko 861.60
Kenneth L. & Shirley Thieke 861.60
Sam & Gerline Flowers 1,211.63
Mid-Florida Lakes, Inc. 861.60
Mid-Florida Lakes, Inc. 1,211.63
Roger W. & Janet Ann Woods 861.60
Roger W. & Janet Ann Woods 861.60
Glenn R. & Susan L. Price 861.60
Abel L. & Ruth Funderburk 861.60
Abel L. & Ruth Funderburk 861.60
Katie S. Hartman 861.60
Katie S. Hartman 861.60
Raymond P. Elliott & Mary Joyce Linzy 861.60
Ricky E. & Kathy S. Worsham 861.60
Ruby G. Church 861.60
Ruby G. Church 861.60
Mid-Florida Lakes, Inc. 1,211.63
Daile D. & Joyce M. Lumbard 861.60
Daile D. & Joyce M. Lumbard 861.60
Charles L. & Margaret Seedorff 861.60
Garrett P. & Marilyn Tecburg 759.20
Alton B. & Dorothea E. Conkling and
David G. & Sylvia A. White 760.70
Timothy P. Chambers or Tecri L. Chambers $ 901.54
Robert W. & Betty Sumner Jr. $1,674.35
Joleen Estates Subdivision
Robert F. & Loretta Elmatti $931.14
Silver Lake Estates
Richard R. & Patsy L. Hall $879.64
Rufus B. & Jean P. Ward 3,041.41
Florida Fruitland Park
Robert J. & Carol J. Fedor $1,586.07
Birr Park Subdivision
Property & Development Inc., subject to
a contract in favor of Juan & Estela
Planning & Development/State Agencies
For Your Information Item - Notice of Public Hearing, The Land Acquisition Advisory Council, January 17, 1990, Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, 1:30 p.m., to consider the project design for the Wekiva-Ocala Connector Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) project, and to consider corrections and minor revisions to the text of the twelve new CARL project designs approved by the Advisory Council on December 1, 1989.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY PROPERTY
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to delete items from Fixed Assets, for the month of Janaury, 1990, in the amount of $4,467.37, as presented by Mr. Don Gullickson, Property Records Department.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:
Accounts Allowed/Private Industry Council
Request refund to Volusia, Lake, Flagler Private Industry Council, Inc., due to overpayment, in the amount of $12,423.75.
Accounts Allowed/Grants/Municipalities/Public Health
Request for approval of recommended allocation of Community Services Block Grant funds to the City of Eustis, Haven, and the Association for Retarded Citizens, Inc., in the total amount of $7,597.00.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/E-911
Request to transfer $144,300.00 budgeted in 9-l-l Machinery and Equipment, to Debt Service-Principal, to properly account for the principal payment on the lease purchase of the 9-l-l equipment from GTE Leasing
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions/Resolutions -- Roads-County & State
Request for final plat approval of Lake Louisa Estates; to accept a maintenance bond, in the amount of $2,367.80; and to accept Louisa Court (3-0749) into the County maintenance system.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Request release of a performance bond, in the amount of $1,247,856.00: to accept a maintenance bond, in the amount of $124,785.60; to accept the following roads into the County maintenance system: South Greater Hills Boulevard (3-1358), Lake Hodge Court (3-1358A), Sausalito Circle (3-1358B), Carriage Hill Court (3-1357), Charter Oaks Trail (3-1357A), Bay Lake Trail (3-1357B), Summerset Court (3-1356), Hidden Lake Circle (3-1458), and to accept a performance bond, in the amount of $10,394.00, in lieu of sodding tight-of-way. The project is located on U.S. 50 between Clermont and Winter Garden, just west of CR 455, in Commission District 3.
Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Request by property owners to change Barris Lane to Uncle Donald's Lane. This lane is in the Lady Lake area, Commission District 1.
Planning & Development
Request permission to advertise for May 15, 1990, Public Hearing on Sunchase Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
Request to award Bid #028-150-090, five (5) pairs of entrance doors for Old Courthouse, to Lake Glass and Mirror, in the amount of $10,659.00.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Public Works
Request to award Bid #029A-030-090, one (1) or more 100 ton condensers, to Lake Plumbing, Inc., in the amount of $29,982.00.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Request to release the following Murphy Act Deed Reservations: Deed No. 1270, Marjory McDonald, City of Eustis, Northshore Drive.
Deeds/Right-of-Ways, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Right-of-Way Deeds: Gregory L. and Suzanne L. Homan and James A. and Alene Lee, C-561.
Road Closings - Permission to Advertise
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 564, for Suzanne G. Dalin (c/o Sandy Minkoff, P.A.), to vacate road and lots in the plat of Lake Jem Villa Properties and Lake Gem Villa, Lake Jem area.
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 585, for Richard H. Langley, Attorney At Law, to vacate rights-of-way and lots in the plat of Groveland Farms, Groveland area.
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 588, for Greg L. Harrison to vacate unnamed road, Eustis area. Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 589, for Pharoah Silcox, Jr., or Allison H. Buchanan, to vacate unnamed alley and parcel in the plat of Spencer's Addition to Sorrento, Sorrento area.
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 590, for Lake County (c/o Dottie Keedy, Program Coordinator) to vacate streets and lots, Reeve's Subdivision, Sorrento area.
Request to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 591, for Rance Pearson (Eastern Marketing Group, Inc.), to vacate street, Mt. Plymouth, Section "A" Subdivision, Mt. Plymouth area.
COUNTY MANAGER/COUNTY ATTORNEY/ORDINANCES
Discussion occurred regarding the request to advertise for a public hearing for the proposed ordinances establishing the positions of County Manager and County Attorney.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she would like to include, on Page 3, of the proposed ordinance pertaining to County Attorney, Section 6. Duties and Responsibilities, "8. Represent the constitutional officers serving Lake County, upon the request, and at the direction, of the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Lustgarten stated that "number eight" presently shown on Page 3 will then be made number nine.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to advertise a public hearing for the proposed ordinance establishing the position of County Attorney, as amended above.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to advertise a public hearing for the proposed ordinance establishing the position of County Manager.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to advertise for.bids for the Special Assessment project for Mt. Plymouth II (Albia Avenue, Aberdovey Avenue, Alpena Street, Lido Avenue), at an estimated cost of $145,250.00.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board appcoved the request to accept change order #1 to Project #3-89, C-452A Extension, in the amount of $22,216.00.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to accept change order #2 to Project #9-89, Kings Cove Subdivision, Fifth and Sixth Additions, in the amount of $4,000.00.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/PUBLIC WORKS
On a motion by Commc. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board appcoved the request to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement between Lake County and Silver Springs Citrus Cooperative, for Road Improvements to Central Avenue, Howey-in-the-Hills, Lake County, Florida.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to award Project #l-90, C-48/SR-19 Intersection Improvement, to Trac Roadbuilders, Inc., in the amount of $113,000.00 (includes $2,000.00 concrete pole option).
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/ROAD PROJECTS
On a motion by Commc. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to accept change order #1 to Project #l-90, C-48/SR-19 Intersection Improvement, in the amount of $2,374.50.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/LANDFILLS/STATE AGENCIES
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, discussed the Resource Recovery Facility, and stated that, in September, 1989, the Board approved a draft form of an amendment, and a petition that was to be submitted to the Public Service Commission, in relation to the amendment to the agreement between the Florida Public Commission, Florida Power Corporation, and NRG, with the County becoming a party to the electric agreement. She stated that the petition to Public Service Commission has been signed by all parties, except Florida Power Corporation, and has been forwarded to the attorney representing Florida Power Corporation for execution, with directions from Piper & Marbury to file the executed document with the Public Service Commission.
COMMITTEES/COMMUNICATIONS/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS
Commr. Gregg discussed comments made in the newspapers concerning Lake County Cablevision, and the possibility of cost increases for service. He also discussed complaints being made against the company, and stated that he would like to see LakeCounty either plan workshops with the companies, or seek competition in this field of service.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that she would review the terms of the franchise agreement.
Commr. Gregg requested that Ms. Lustgarten submit a memorandum to the Board indicating the control that the County has over the cablevision service, and any alternatives the County can take to correct the situation.
Commr. Swartz stated that, one area of the contract the County has with Lake County Cablevision, deals with the fact that they must be competitive with other cable companies in Central Florida, in terms of price and quality of service. He suggested that staff conduct a survey of cable companies, in the Central Florida area, to be presented to the Board.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, informed the Board that the Lake County League of Cities appointed a special committee to review this type of service, to see whether or not the cities and the County might collaborate in their efforts to try and strengthen, not only the service, but the agreements. Mr. Thelen stated that a recommendation will be made in the next 60-90 days, as to whether or not this can be accomplished on a collective basis.
Commr. Swartz requested that the staff prepare a comparative.analysis, and have it available, and to schedule a meeting, as soon as possible, with Lake County Cablevision. Commr. Gregg stated that the add-on services also need to be compared.
Commr. Bakich informed the Board that he will not be able to attend the scheduled Lake County Legislative Delegation Luncheon January 22, 1990, and stated that Commr. Bailey will be attending, in behalf of the Board.
Commr. Bakich requested that Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, present the Board with an update on proposed ordinances, in order to become familiarized with the information before any scheduled hearings.
LAWS & LEGISLATION/WATER AUTHORITY
Mr. Will Davis, Director of Water Authority, appeared before the Board and stated that he had met with the Assistant County Attorney and discussed the House Bill proposed by Representative Stan Bainter regarding the restriction of boats on the Wekiva. Mr. Davis stated that airboats are the Water Authority's primacy use for aquatic plant control in lakes and rivers, and feels that, should airboats be banned, it may resrict their ability to do acquatic plant control in these areas. He requested that the Board carefully review the proposed Bill, which contains provisions that allow for governmental entities to utilize such, and also the definition being provided in the Bill pertaining to "emergency".
Commr. Bakich suggested that Mr. Davis communicate with Representative Bainter, in writing, informing him of his position on this issue.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - ROAD CLOSINGS
PETITION #573 - Waterwood, Inc. - Bassville Park Area
Mr. Fred Morrison, Attorney representing Waterwood, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that his client owns the entire subdivision and all of the lots within it. Mr. Morrison stated that currently none of the roads within the subdivision are being used, nor have they ever been improved, or utilized by the public, including this small portion of Willow Avenue. Mr. Morrison stated that the petition was filed after a letter was received in April, 1989, from Code Enforcement demanding that the property owner clean up garbage and trash on the property. The property owner had to spend $5,890.00 to dispose of garbage that had been dumped onto his property. Mr. Morrison presented photographs to the Board to review. He stated that a fence had been placed around the property, but was removed by the people dumping the trash. Mr. Morrison stated that Willow Avenue is the only entrance into the property, other than the entrance on the front at Haines Creek Road. The question was raised by staff whether o r not this should be granted, because of the right-of-way.
Mr. Allen Peters appeared before the Board and questioned whether or not the closing will affect his access to his property, with the staff indicating it will not.
No one appeared in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 573, for Waterwood, inc., c/o Robert J. Zahradnik, to vacate a portion of Willow Avenue, Haines Lake Estates, Bassville Park Area, as advertised.
PETITION #575 Elsie & Benjamin Rainey Paisley Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, informed the Board that the County would be retaining the drainage easement involved in this request.
No one appeared in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 575, for Elsie and Benjamin Rainey, to vacate road and lots, Plat of Lakeview Park, Paisley area, as advertised.
PETITION #578 Omer Schrock Tavaces Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, informed the Board that the request only involves the vacation of lots, and no roads.
No one appeared in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 578, for Omer Schrock (Hall, Farner & Associates, Inc.), to vacate portion of Plat, S. B. Hewitt's Land, Tavares area, as advertised.
PETITION #579 Elsie P. Attalla Altoona Area
Mr . Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, informed the Board of a question regarding the overlapping of plats.
Mr. Del Potter, representing Mrs. Attalla, appeared before the Board and presented copies of a plat for the Commissioners to review. He stated that he understood that the north half of North Road has previously been closed. He then presented photographs to the Board to review. Mr. Potter discussed the property being barricaded with wood and concrete, with no one using the road for access at this time. He further informed the Board that Park Lane provides access to the lake, and the closing of North Road will not affect anyone's access to the lake.
Mr. Steve Richey, representing Mr. and Mrs. Fain, and several other property owners in the area of Pine Acres Subdivision, appeared before the Board and presented a petition from the Fain's in opposition to the request, and another petition that represents 100% of the homeowners in this area. Mr. Richey stated that the property to the north is Rocking Horse Ranch, with the staff having a consent to the road vacation by Mrs. Viles. At this time, he presented a request from her to withdraw the peitition, because her neighbors are in opposition to the closing.
Mr. Richey stated that the property in question was platted in 1954 by his client's mother. The property was sold with the implication that they would be able to have access to the lake on
the 30 foot easement. He referred to Florida Statutes 177.101(3), in the terms of vacating plats, and "will not affect the ownership or right of convenient access". Mr. Richey stated that closing off North Road would be interferring with their convenient access. The 1954 plat has not been vacated, and the 30 feet is still, in fact, a legally created access. Mr. Richey stated that, the residents are not only concerned with the lake access, but also emergency services access.
Mrs. Gregory , owner of lots 24 and 25, appeared before the Board and stated that she just purchased property on West Road and built a house, under the condition that she would be able to use North Road as access to the lake.
Mr. Lou Fain, resident of Pine Acres, appeared in opposition to the request, and stated that he sold the lots with the understanding that they had access to the lake from North Road. He discussed the barricade that had been constructed, and stated that it was removed by request.
Ms. Pat Mueller, representing Mary Alice Hamlin, appeared before the Board and stated that Ms. Hamlin would be in favor of the road closing, and would be submitting a petition to close the balance of the road to the lake. She stated concerns with trees having grown in the right-of-way, increased traffic that could be a detriment to the lake, and liability, should someone become injured on her property.
Mr. Potter stated that the petitioner had filed the petition, in order to maintain the property, and to prevent the dumping and trespassing on her property. A fence could be constructed, but would present an eyesore to the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Stivender discussed the overlapping of the right-of-ways. He stated that the County does not maintain the road, and additional right-of-way would be required to special assess, or to build to County standards. Mr. Stivender stated that, if there are questions regarding the right-of-way, the request should be postponed. If there is only a questions of whether or not the road should be vacated, the Board should only consider this aspect.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board denied Petition No. 579 for Elsie P. Attalla, to vacate a portion of North Road, Pine Acres on Lake Dorr Subdivision, Altoona area, as adveetised, with the reason being given that there would be no public advantage to the closing.
PETITION #580 Eugene A. or Judith K. Hannu Clermont Area
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated that there had been a question proposed concerning the access to the lake. He.stated that the survey crew checked the site, and the location of the closing is not in relationship to the access to the lake.
No one appeared in opposition to the request.
Mr. Eugene Hannu, applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that this is a marsh and that no one has any use for it.
Mr. McDonald May appeared before the Board and called the Board's attention to an unnamed easement known as the northwest spir of J. Underwood Road. Mr. May questioned the width of the easement that the applicant has requested. He stated that, when he bought his property, he was told that he had access to the lake to fish. At this time, Mr. Stivender explained to Mr. May the policy used in determining the width of the right-of-way and the amount of right-of-way to be given to the applicant.
On a motion by Commr. Swactz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 580, for Eugene A. or Judith K. Hannu, to vacate a portion of unnamed easement, Plat of Green Acres, Clermont area, as advertised.
PETITION #581 Raymond W. or Dani DuPont Eustis Area
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 581, for Raymond W. or Dani DuPont, to vacate drainage ditch easement, Sorrento Shores, Eustis area, as advertised.
PETITION #582 David R. and Barbara Ann Fox Deland Area
Ms. Mary Isnor appeared before the Board and requested an explanation for the request.
Mr. David Fox, applicant, appeared before the Board and stated that this is a road cul-de-sac, which did not meet County specifications, and that he is presently maintaining it.
On a motion by Commr. Gregg, seconded by Commr. Windram and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 582, for David R. and Barbara Ann Fox, to vacate a portion of South Sequoia Way and Lots 17-21 inclusive, Deland area, as advertised.
PETITION #583 Kermit M. Clay/Edge Realty Co. Groveland Area
Ms. Gail Lowe, representing Lela Clay, Edge Realty, and herself, appeared before the Board to discuss the request. She discussed the traffic and crime within the area, and stated that
people have approached her and requested the closing of this road. She further stated that the road is being used as a drag strip, and discussed accidents that have occurred within this area. Ms. Lowe stated that this is a very high crime and drug dealing area. She further stated that, through research, she has found that this was never a legal or deeded easement, and is private property. The request is to close only twelve (12) feet.
Mr. Wayne Guy appeared before the Board and questioned how the closing will affect him, and the access to his property.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 583, for Kermit M. Clay, President, Edge Realty Company, to vacate unnamed road, Plat of Groveland Farms, Groveland area, except for the east twelve (12) feet discussed.
PETITION #584 Curtis W. & Bertha J. Lucas Town of Astor
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Windram, seconded by Commc. Gregg and carried, the Board approved Petition No. 584, for Curtis s W. and Bertha J. Lucas, to vacate a portion of Dora Street andd lots, in the plat of Town of Astor, as advertised.
Commr . Bailey was not present for the vote.
PETITION #586 Elaine Kopach Minneola Area
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swactz, seconded by Commr. Gregg and carried, the Board approved Petition No. 586, for Elaine Kopach, to vacate unnamed road, Lake Highlands, Minneola area, as advertised.
Commr. Bailey was not present for the vote.
PETITION #587 Lindeu & Constance Howell Sorcento-Mt. Dora
No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.
On a motion by Commc. Windram, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Petition No. 587, for Lindeu and Constance Howell, to vacate a portion of Daytona Street, Sunset Hills Subdivision, Sorrento-Mt. Dora area, as advertised.
LAWS & LEGISLATION/PUBLIC WORKS/HEALTH & GENERAL SERVICES
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, discussed the proposed House Bill from Representative Stan Baintec, and stated that Mt. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, and Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health and General Services, have submitted information to be considered. Mr. Thelen suggested combining the information that the Board selects, and submit it in one memorandum to Commr. Bailey, who will be representing the Board at the Lake County Legislative Delegation meeting. Mr. Thelen discussed a letter that was sent to the Lake County School Board, which they used to send to the cities regarding this issue. Mr. Thelen stated that another issue was presented to him by Commr. Swartz involving the homestead exemption.
Commr. Gregg stated that one topic that came up before the Transportation Committee, that he would like to see discussed, would be the turning over of more State roads to the County.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated that over 200 miles has been turned over by the State to the County, over the past 15 years, with some of those being turned over to the cities.
Mr. Thelen stated that he will be including the list Mr. Stivender has presented, which involves recommending additional funding for the "Enhanced" Five-Year Plan.
Commr. Bakich discussed provisions in the recycling law pertaining to tax advantage inducements for industries that create plants for recycling paper, etc.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, stated that this may not be contained in the existing law, but that a revision of this law is to be introduced to the Legislation this summer.
Commr. Bakich stated that he would like to see the Board promote this idea of recycling.
Mr. Findell stated that the Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) was given the responsibility for developing those markets, which will be addressed this year, and provide tax credits.
Mr. Lonnie Strickland, Director of Health and General Services, appeared before the Board and provided a memorandum containing the following items that he felt should be addressed by the Lake County Legislative Delegation:
1. Standardization of costs for purchase of records and updates from the provider telcos.
2. Penalties under State Statute for the misuse of the 9-1-l system.
3. Legislation for control guidelines by the Public Service Commission for County and telco data accuracy.
4. Provision for complaint taker positions, hired as a result of a system installation, to be funded from the 9-l-l funds.
5. Extension of the 18 month time frame for collection of the nonrecurring fee, or ability to collect more than 50 cents per month during the 18 month time frame, in order to give smaller counties the ability to afford a 9-l-l system.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt all of these are important issues to be presented to the Legislation Delegation, and discussed whether or not Lake County has contacted Sumter County on the issue of sharing the 9-l-l system.
Mr. Strickland stated that lately there has been no communication with Sumter County, but the County has been contacted by other counties about the present operation.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would not be opposed to sharing the system, if an arrangement could be developed where they share the cost of initially setting up out equipment.
Commr. Swartz discussed the issue of boats and motors on the Wekiva, and stated that he felt that the Board should modify its position in regards to airboats, such as Mr. Will Davis, Director of Water Authority, had stated earlier, and secondly the extreme position of outlawing all motor boats. He suggested sending a more realistic comment to Representative Stan Bainter, perhaps limiting the wake speed, rather than banning all boats.
Commr. Bakich stated that he did address the issue of down-sizing the size of the boats and motors, and the speed of the boats, should Representative Bainter decide not to accept the proposal of banning motor boats, allowing him to have a option.
Commr. Bakich stated that he understood this to be the consensus of the Board.
Mr. Thelen stated that Representative Bainter had requested that the County be in the position to respond to his thoughts regarding the Counties taking over more of the responsibility of social service functions, with the previous reaction being negative.
Mr. Thelen stated that information will also be obtained on the homestead exemption for the Board's consideration. Mr. Thelen stated that all of the information on the above issues will be placed into memorandum form for the Board's review.
Commr. Swartz stated that the staff is reviewing the Tree Ordinance dealing with whether or not the ordinance meets the requirements that would keep from the clearing of cypress trees from happening, as in South Lake County, and whether the County has the ability to act with the current ordinance. He has requested that Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, review the ordinance and whether or not the County has any ability to enforce, or to cause any enforcement to take place, other than replanting small cypress trees.
Mr. Al Thelen, County Manager, stated that there is a copy of a memorandum that he has requested to be sent to the Board members that will identify some of the problems, and suggestions, with Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, preparing the information. He stated that the Board will receive the memorandum in a few weeks.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:15 a.m., the Board adjourned for lunch, and reconvened at 2:00 p.m. for the Mining Ordinance Workshop.
ORDINANCES/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
The Chairman announced that the Board would begin on Page 11, Section 14, of the proposed mining ordinance (Final Draft 10/30/89). At this timg, he questioned whether or not the Board wished to revisit any item previously discussed.
Commr . Swartz stated that he still had concerns with the Board's position, in regards to vesting, and to exemptions. He stated that he disagrees with the position that the Board has taken on these issues, and stated that he would not continue discussion on these issues, if the Board did not feel they needed to be revisited.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgacten, County Attorney, stated that she felt the memorandum presented to the Board, with proposed language, was a response to the final censensus of the Board, when the Board last met for a workshop.
Ms. Pat Myers appeared before the Board and commented on the position the Board had taken on the proposed mining ordinance, at the last workshop, and stated that it appeared that the Board had become more lenient towards the regulations being proposed.
Commr . Gregg presented a clarification of the proceedings taken after the last workshop, and stated that, in the cases of existing operations, anything that is life threatening, or endangering to the public, would be altered to be more in line with the proposed ordinance, and if it was not life threatening or endangering to the public, it would be vested.
Commr . Swartz stated that it may be the consensus of the Board for exemptions, with regards to subdivision or commercial development where site excavation work is done, but may wish to direct staff to review the definition being presented for mining activity.
Commr. Swartz stated that he has reviewed ordinances from other counties. He further stated that Hillsborough County has an excavation ordinance, which recognizes where excavation occurs and impacts the deal with excavation, whether it is a mine, or at site preparation, where the overburden is removed, and some type of ore is then removed, that it is a mine, and has impacts like a mine, and it should not be exempted. He further stated that, in those cases, there ace provisions under their Land Alteration and Landscaping Ordinance that would come in. Commr. Swartz stated that Lake County does not have this, and unless a significant change is made to the subdivision regulations, or to commercial development regulations, the County does not have anything that will deal with this, and this is a concern of his.
Commr. Bakich stated that the above was discussed at the last.meeting, with the result being a possibility of developing two different ordinances touching on those issues Commr. Swartz addressed, which is the difference between mining and removal of overburden.
Commr. Swartz stated that he feels it is premature to exempt those types of activities that essentially ace a mining activity. He stated that, in order to address the problems that exist today, the County should leave these activities in, and let them be regulated, until the County has alternate ordinances to deal with this issue.
Ms. Millie Warren, Clermont, appeared before the Board and commented on the representation made in behalf of the mining industry at today's meeting, and stated that she did not feel that South Lake County was receiving support from all of the commissioners on this issue. Ms. Warren stated that there are three problems that needed to be addressed. She stated that, one, the time frame being allowed to reclaim the land, and discussed the situation on the south side of Highway 50. Ms. Warren stated that, two, are the setbacks, as little as 50 feet in some instances, from adjacent properties. And, three, she stated that the discussed exemptions should not be allowed. Ms. Warren discussed the environmental issue, and the eyesore to the property.
Senator Richard Langley appeared before the Board and discussed the difference between deep sand mines, and surface mining, or the claypits. He stated that he is concerned with the reclamation process being used in the deep sand mines. He further questioned the bonding process used to assure the proper reclamation. Senator Langley stated that he felt the County needs to limit the setbacks on the deep sand mines. He fucthec stated that the County needed to control the reclamation as it proceeds through the process, and suggested reclaiming the property every five or ten acres. Senator Langley went on to discuss the blowing of sand, and the release of particles, with the Board clarifying that the County can enforce this through Code Enforcement.
Discussion occurred regarding the user paying the additional costs involved according to the proposed mining ordinance.
Senator Langley discussed the present ordinances, which control slopes and particle escape, and stated these need to be considered before passing another ordinance, which will open up the mining operations.
Commr . Bakich stated that the existing land that is being mined will have the ability to mine the approved acreage, and if they purchase additional property, and have it zoned for mining, this will be applied under the new mining ordinance.
Commr. Bailey suggested adressing the permit already issued for the approved acreage, and bring these under the new mining ordinance.
Senator Langley stated that the language indicates, the property that was permitted, not that which is already disturbed and currently being mined. He stated that, approving the proposed
ordinance will allow more slack in he mining pcoceduces than at the present.
Mr. Paul Bethune, Minneola, appeared before the Board to address the philosophical problem, where early in the ordinance, it states that mining does not setiously impact the environment, or the surrounding properties. Mr. Bethune requested that the Board submit to removing this statement, and substitute that mining is a heavy industry and should be treated as such.
Mr. Don Findell, Director of Environmental Services, appeared before the Board to continue the discussion on the proposed mining ordinance, beginning on Page 11, Section 14. Mr. Findell stated that he had discussed this section with the Board previously, with direction being given to staff to meet with a geologist representing the mining industcy to develop minimum criteria to review a mining application from a hydro-geologic impact standpoint. This has been set out in Section 14 as the minimum criteria, and is recommended by staff.
Mr. Findell stated that the Board had also directed the staff to refine the language regarding peat mines. A meeting was scheduled between the staff and representation from the peat mines,.with altetnative language being developed, as follows: "In the case of peat mines, unless specific adverse conditions are identified, the following shall generally be considered sufficient to supply site specific data required to comply with c., d., and h above (Section 14). A muck probe survey with probes done on 150 foot centers to determine the depth of the peat deposit shall be performed Probing shall be performed to the bottom of the deposit. In addition, one boring to a depth of 20 feet below the proposed mine depth, to characterize the hydcogeologic setting of the site shall be required. The location of this boring shall be adjacent to the area to be mined and selected in consultation with County staff. (Under h., boring logs, requirements 1 through 4 would still apply.) This data will be incocpocated into the required report(s). Where the data indicates a possible and/or potential connection to the Floridan aquifer, additional probes and/or borings shall be performed."
Mr. Findell stated that staff recommended that the above be inserted as "i" under Section 14, with "i" becoming "j".
Mr. Don Darley, presenting Florida Rock, appeared before the Board and stated that Section 14, Pages 11-13, was very complicated, and requested that Mr. Jeff Elledge, St. Johns River Water Management District, explain how the proposed ordinance will track regulations that presently exist.
Mr. Jeff Elledge, Director of Permitting, St. Johns River Water Management District, appeared before the Board and stated that a request had been received from Commr. Gregg to present to the Board and staff an explanation of the proposed ordinance. He stated that there are presently four different permitting programs that affect mines as follows: Water Use Permitting Program: Surface Water Permitting Program; District Permitting Program; and Wetland Resources Permitting. At this time, Mr. Elledge presented an explanation of each.
Mr. Elledge stated that approximately 24 mines have been permitted in Lake County, with a total of approximately 4,500 acres, in the last ten years. This does not include excavations that are part of a subdivision, or other plan of development. Other permits issued include excavation permits for stocmwatec ponds, and surface water management ponds that are part of developments. Mr. Elledge stated that St. Johns has one full-time person in Lake County that monitors the pemits that ace issued, and one other person that handles trouble situations. He stated that he has not read the proposed ordinance in detail. He further stated that he is not here to make recommendations, and felt that there is adequate staff to monitor and review the mining activity in existence.
Mr. Emil Jahna, Jahna Industries, appeared before the Board and requested that the Board defer decisions on Section 14, and direct staff to meet with St. Johns River Water Management District to see where the regulations overlap, in order to avoid duplication of information, with St. Johns possibly performing some of the duties, along with the County staff.
Commr. Swartz stated that it would be appropriate to request St. Johns River Water Management District to review the proposed ordinance and make comments, in relation to the permitting performed by their agency.
Mr. Findell stated that, if, in fact, there is some duplication of effort between St. Johns River Water Managament District and the County, in regards to providing information, it should not cause a hardship for the mining industry to supply the information to both agencies.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to have St. Johns River Water Management District review the dcaft ordinance and provide recommendations to the Board and staff.
Ms. Myers stated that there were two run-overs in the Green Swamp area, with the Board suggesting that she meet with Mr. Elledge, in order to obtain the information being requested.
Commr. Bakich stated that the changes made by Mr. Findell, pertaining to the peat mine, will be included in Section 14, as recommended, and staff and St. Johns will work together in reviewing Pages 11-13 of the dcaft ordinance, and determine whether or not changes are necessary.
Mr. Elledge stated that he will preview this as quickly as possible and respond within a week and a half, and will concentrate on how this may overlap with some of St. Johns' requirements.
Mr. Hal Turville, President of Lake Environmental Coalition, appeared before the Board and stated that the Board has been provided with approximately five pages of typed written comments.pertaining to the proposed ordinance. At this time, Mr. Turville addressed Section 14, g., and suggested that the language read to request, from the point of view, that there will be no adverse offsite impacts.
Mr. Turville discussed the issue of vesting, and stated that he is not in total agreement with the Board, and urged the Board to look towards future development. Mr. Turville addressed Page 11, Section 11. g., regarding the proposed daily volume of vehicles hauling the excavated material during the first year of operation, with Commr. Bakich stating that this issue was addressed at the last meeting.
Commr. Gregg stated that it was his understanding that the workshop was to continue today with the staff and Mining Committee, and if there was time, the Board would seek other comments from the audience. At this time, he felt that the criteria had been set for today's meeting.
Commr. Bailey stated that he felt the rules should be bent on important issues as this, and that, if possible, the Board should include as much input as possible, and if not today, the public should be aware of the fact that, even when the ordinance is passed, it can be amended.
Mr. Bethune continued discussion regarding Page 11, Section 14, which states "... licensed by the State of Florida as a Professional Geologist (or equivalent)." Mr. Bethune stated that the Board needs to specify what the equivalence will be.
Mr. Findell stated that this would be an individual that has the same qualifications as those that are required by an individual who would receive their professional geologist registration.
Ms. Annette Star Lustgarten, County Attorney, stated that, standardly throughout the County's code of ordinances, when you are asking for a professional to do a pacticulac function, such as professional engineers in relation to drainage plants, or things of that nature, the County does require a person licensed in the State of Florida, or perhaps recognized by a national organization, or licensed by a national organization, in that particular area, but, at a minimum, it should be a minimum licensing or recognition standard, if you are going to rely on the information provided in the studies.
Mr. Jahna referred to Section 14, and stated that the information could be supplied by a driller, or someone that works within the industry, and could be supplied to an engineer for his
Discussion occurred regarding language to include the information supplied by Ms. Lustgarten, in regards to approval through additional certification through national professional organizations.
Mr. Findell stated that the decision needs to be made whether the County wants someone who is licensed in the State of Florida to provide the report, if not the information, which can be provided by someone other than a licensed professional geologist, but a licensed professional geologist ought to be responsible for signing and sealing the document that is prepared.
Mr. Bob Timmons, Mining Ordinance Committee, questioned Page 13, Section 15, and stated that it was his understanding that this was inserted by staff, with Mr. Findell stating that the language was expanded upon by staff at the Board meeting last spring, with staff being directed by the Board to collect comments from the regulated community, from other regulating communities, and to incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, those comments. This was then to be placed into a draft of the ordinance, which was then to be workshopped with the Mining Ordinance Committee to advise them of the changes made throughout the ordinance, with the information being conveyed back to the Board of County Commissioners. It was not the direction of the Board to go to the Committee and have it redraft the language. The redraft would be done at the meeting today.
Commr. Gregg questioned duplication between Page 13, Section 15, and Page 10, 22-2, B.11, e. 4., "designated vegetative and wildlife communities".
Mr. Findell stated that the information prepared in the earlier.paragraph is information that will be incorporated into the report.
Mr. Jahna stated that, at an earlier workshop, changes were made to the wording. Instead of "designated vegetative and wildlife communities", the change was made to "designated species".
Mr. Findell stated that he had no problem with the change, with the changes being made in both paragraphs, in order to be consistent.
Mr. Jahna directed the Board's attention to Paragraph 17, and stated that he had submitted language at the December 12, 1989, workshop that would track more than the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reclamation standards, and would spell out specific percentages for cover and time frame. He suggested striking "program" in the first line, and state "The reclamation plan shall comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, most specifically Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Section 378.801-804 Rule 16C39, and that reference is Resources Other than Phosphate.
Commr. Swartz stated that the way the ordinance is written, the activity can be performed literally for years without any reclamation, which is totally unacceptable to him. He stated that there is a necessity to have some form of rolling reclamation, that requires at certain points, maybe at 25%, it would have to be completed before you can move on.
Mr . Jahna stated that the reason for striking reclamation "program" is that this will track the DNR language for reclamation . plans.
Discussion occurred regarding the standards set by DNR for reclamation, with Commr. Swartz suggesting that the staff review the comments made by the Board, with regards to the commments made by DNR, and bring back an analysis for the Board to review. There were no comments made regarding Page 14 of the proposed mining ordinance.
Ms. Lustgarten made comments, in relation to Page 15, the language regarding the scope of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the scope of the review by the Board of County Commissioners. She stated that both of the Boards have broad discretion as to what they will consider when, in fact, they are reviewing any development permit, or order to be issued by the County. She suggested that the review process for a conditional use permit, which is essentially what this is, in a different form, be the process to be followed, as far as a review process. Ms. Lustgarten suggested that there simply be a comment effectively saying "Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application consistent with the provision set out in Section 80, Sub-section 80-ll", with the same language being used for the Board of County Commissioners. She stated that she will revise the language for the ordinance.
Commr. Bakich discussed Page 16, 7. Mining Site Plan Term, and stated that he still has a problem with the three year time frame, and stated that this should be readdressed in some manner that, if the operation is down for three years, and is started again for one year, and it is down again for three years, the reclamation standards be reestablished.
Commr . Swartz stated that the review process and the reclamation standards should be mone stringent, so that mines do not just sit while they are shut down, and that all future mines that are permitted, should go by a clause in the ordinance that says that, if there are changes made to the mining ordinance, they will come under those provisions.
It was noted that the mining operation, its progress, and the reclamation bond will be reviewed annually. At that time, any changes which may occur in the ordinance, can be included in the review, and the continuation of the permit.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that, at an earlier workshop meeting, it was discussed that any ordinance amendment that dealt with any changes to the regulations, or made them more or less stringent, would have a vested rights provision, and would depend on the nature of what was being changed, as to what would be vested and what would not be vested.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that there would be a separate section to.address this, because the ordinance currently drafted only provides that an annual report will be submitted, and does not require a review by the Commission. Essentially staff would review it, to insure that all of the information required was submitted. The Board is talking about future changes to the ordinance being applicable to existing operations. She stated that general language can be drafted to provide for this, and that vesting language may be incorporated and applied as applicable.
Ms. Lustgarten informed the Board that "nonsubstantial amendment" will be defined, as referenced at the top of Page 17.
Commr. Swartz questioned the area that discusses fees, and asked Mr. Findell, if it was his intention to come back with a fee schedule similar to the schedules in other areas. Mr. Findell
stated yes, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that the fees will be adopted by resolution.
Mr. Jahna requested a clarification on the Operating Permit Application Review, at the top of Page 18.
Mr. Findell stated that this tracks the development review process that the County uses, where you get a site plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners, and the actual permit, as a result of reviewing the detailed engineer drawings.
Commr. Swartz questioned referencing those zoning districts where mining is currently allowed under a CUP in the ordinance.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the zoning districts set out those permitted uses in those zoning districts, and you would standardly reference the code itself, because you may have other districts in the future that you create that would permit that use.
Ms. Lustgarten commented that there are some references to laws, etc, and she will standardize the language where it will essentially reference County ordinances, regulations, rules,
federal, regional, etc. throughout the ordinance.
Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Elledge, St. Johns, as to what type of requirements St. Johns requires, in terms of a continuance monitoring, either for water quantity impacts, or water quality in mining.
Mr. Elledge stated that, in some mines, St. Johns requires water quantity monitoring, and some water quality, depending on what the engineer, at the time of the review, sees as potential impacts in the future. There is no "across the board" monitoring requirements, that are consistent for all mines.
Mr. Don Darley made a comment regarding Page 19, Water Quality and Quantity, and stated that there are no provisions to allow a discharge of water from the water management system.
Mr. Richard Roof, Director of Pollution Control, discussed the disharge of water from a system, as a result of a stormwater runoff, and the position of the Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Warren appeared, once again, before the Board and commented on the lack of space offered to the public, as far as the seating arrangements, and also commented on the representation made by the mining industry.
Mr. Richey replied to the comments made by Ms. Warren, and implications that had been made at a previous mining meeting, by stating that the employees of the mining industry also have a vested right to appear at the meeting, because they live in Lake County, they work in Lake County, and they dispose of their income in Lake County, and their livlihood is also at stake.
Mr. James Bryant, Clermont, stated that he moved to Lake County because of its beauty. Mr. Bryant stated that he feels that mines are being developed where they should not be, and discussed Lake County hauling dirt to Orange County. He further stated that the mining regulations must be less stringent in Lake County than in Orange County, because of the mining activities being allowed. Mr. Bryant stated that he would like to see Lake County more competitive and restore the land, with monitoring being conducted every six months, or whatever is necessary to restore it.
Commr. Swartz discussed Page 21, Sections 8., 9., 10, and ll., regarding ambient noises. He stated that he felt standards could be established, in order not to go beyond certain decimal levels.
Mr. Fred Crabill, Florida Crushed Stone, stated that he is regulated by the State, with the State Fire Marshall's Office.regulating blasting. He stated that some counties have a blasting ordinance. Mr. Crabill stated that the Bureau of Mines has done some research on structural damage in blasting, and deals with a unit of measurement. He discussed the complaint system used by his company. Mr. Crabill suggested that the County meet with the State Fire Marshall's Office, and consider using its standard of measurement.
Commr. Swartz discussed Air Quality, and questioned alternatives to use, in order to control off-site migration, and suggested changing the language, to indicate the prevention of
any particles from leaving the site.
Ms. Lustgarten suggested changing the word "control" to the word "prevent", under Air Quality. She further discussed Section 9, Blasting, and Section 10, Vibrations, and suggested that these be combined.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff check with the State Fire Marshall, as far as their requirements and permits, and determine whether or not they can be incorporated into the ordinance.
Commr. Swartz discussed Page 22, C. Mining Operation Standards, Paragraph l., Setbacks, and stated that the 50 foot setback from property lines needs to be adjusted to a larger footage.
Commr. Gregg discussed the 50 foot setback, in relation to a borrow pit, where the land is improved at the same time of excavation, and stated that it would be harmful, in this type of
situation, to require a larger setback.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that this type of variance would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Bethune stated that the County should have some consistency between what the County is requiring for other agricultural zoning, and what the County is requiring for a mine.
Mr. Bryant suggested planting growing foliage, which would stop the wind erosion and would be a beautification process.
Mr. Turville suggested establishing minimum setbacks, in regard to land use, at possibily 500 feet, if you are adjacent to land zoned residential, oc if there is a residential use in place.
Mr. Richey discussed slopes and setbacks, and suggested developing a sliding scale, in order to accomodate the different types of operations, and acreage involved in the operations.
Commr. Swartz suggested setting two different sets of standards, one to accomodate the larger operation, and one to accommodate the smaller operation, but even within those minimum standards, the County will recognize that you can go either way.
Commr. Bakich questioned the establishment of setbacks for a peat mine, and setbacks for a borrow pit, with Ms. Lustgarten stating that where the operation is located is one of the variables.
Ms. Lustgarten stated that the 50 foot setback could be left in the ordinance, and add residentially zoned property to the 200 foot setback, and keep the 50 foot setback from other property lines, and look at it case by case, as provided in b. The site plan will accompany the application to be approved, which is when the setbacks will be determined for that property. She suggested adding Page 22, C. Mining Operation Standards, 1. Setbacks, a., "...two hundred (200) feet from churches, schools, parks, hospitals, residentially zoned property, and/or similar public uses,...".
Mr. Findell stated that the final analysis will determine how large the mine is going to be, what type of mine and what type of equipment it will utilize, and how long the mine will be in operation, in order to determine the impacts on the surrounding pieces of property.
Mr. Turville made comments regarding Page 23, Section 3., Materials Piles, that the 70 feet is unrealistic, and that this would cause the blowing of sand, which is one of the issues being
Mr. Darley stated that he had submitted language in November, which basically addressed Mr. Turville's concerns, which included the following: "Such piles should be stabilized in the manner that prevents migration of either materials or particulate matter, from such piles to areas beyond the perimeter of the mine."
Mr. Findell stated that the code specifies a much smaller height, as far as buildings are concerned..
Commr . Swartz suggested adding the following language: "The height of the stockpile can be increased or decreased in special situations and can be addressed in the mining site plan." The language would be the same as used for setbacks, with Ms. Lustgarten being directed to include this in the ordinance.
Discussion occurred regarding Section 4. Security, b., with Ms. Lustgarten suggesting that a telephone number or address be added, as well as the name of the owner.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 24, Section 7. Public Safety, with Mr. Darley stating that this was discussed at the previous workshops, and that he did not feel that sloping can be
done during excavation.
Mr. Turville discussed Page 24, Section 6. Drainage Facilities, and stated that this should be rewritten to specify quantity and quality of discharge relative to the receiving bodies, so that there is no misunderstanding about what the capabilities are around the site. It was noted that the issue of water quality has been addressed on Page 28.
Mr. Crabill discussed Page 19, B. Environmental Protection Standards, Section 1. Water Quality and Quanitity, with Commr. Swartz discussing additional language as follows: "Drainage facilities and other damns and spillways and related structures would be considered point sources of discharges and would meet the requirements of the Pollution Control Board."
Commr. Gregg disagreed with the additional wording stating that this does not relate to water quality.
Commr. Swartz requested that Mr. Findell and staff review the aspects of release from drainage facilities prior to reclamation, so that they would come under the surface water point source discharge standards.
Mr. Turville discussed reclamation and requested that 15 inches of the soil on a surface mine be retained off site, with the reasons being that the material would be on site to reclaim the mine with; and it would be the proper top soil to use for the replacement of top soil that had to be removed, because concerns have been expressed about bringing in top soil from other places.
Discussion occurred regarding the comments made by Mr. Turville, with Ms. Lustgarten offering the following language: "When good quality top soil is available on site, it shall be stockpiled, segregated and retained on site for revegetation, during the reclamation process."
Mr. Egor Emery appeared before the Board and questioned concerns he has, as to what the final product of mining is supposed to be. He stated that he would like to see the land returned as close as possible to its natural use.
Mr. Turville discussed the proposed language submitted by Ms. Lustgarten regarding the top soil, and stated that she did not include the description of what will be retained on the property, as far as inches.
Mr. Findell stated that, if a definition was to be developed for top soil, the Board should refer back to a definition utilized by those professionals in the field, which would be the Soil Conservation Service, with direction being given to staff to check on this definition.
Discussion occurred regarding reclamation. Commr. Swartz stated that, in reviewing different ordinances, one indicated that reclamation of land excavation shall commence at such time as not more than 25% of the material being excavated has been removed from its original location, and shall continue until completion. He stated that he felt the time frame for reclamation being proposed should be reduced, especially during shut down time of an operation.
Mr. Charles Litzell, Florida Rock, Vice-President of Operation of Sand Mines, appeared before the Board and stated that he has some concern with the placement of clay mines with other mines, as far as regulations.
Mr. Turville stated that, in the clay aspect, there needs to be some language that addresses, not only an active mine operation, but an inactive one.
Ms. Evelyn Breedlove, Mining Ordinance Committee, suggested holding this portion of the meeting until the people in Clermont are invited to discuss the reclaiming of the land.
Commr. Swartz requested that the staff contact the people from the clay mining industry, in order to get a better understanding of the operation.
Mr . Findell stated that he understood that the Board would like the staff and County Attorney to draft language to reclaim land as you proceed to excavate clay, and to develop the clay mines in smaller phases.
At this time, the Board stated that the Mining Ordinance Workshop will continue to February 6, 1990, at 2:00 p.m. At that time, the discussion will begin on Page 25, Section 3.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
MICHAEL J. BAKICH, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK