The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, May 19, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
PETITION NO. 7-91A-3 - SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN PUD
Staff was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, appeared before the Board stating that the purpose of this meeting was to consider a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for Sugarloaf Mountain. He stated that it was a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in February of 1991 and that the applicant had proceeded forward through the process and applied to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) for the DRI, to implement the approved PUD.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the Board had been given a packet, prior to this meeting, containing the Development Order, which he noted had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; an updated copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes; and the amended PUD Development Order. He also stated that he had provided them, this date, with a copy of the DRI, which implements and takes into account the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments from the public hearing. He noted that his office had received a number of letters and telephone calls regarding this issue.
Mr. Stubbs briefly discussed the following documents, which he then entered into the record, as evidence:
County's Composite Exhibit A - Sugarloaf Mountain DRI Application for Development Approval; Sugarloaf Mountain DRI Application for Development Approval, First Request for Additional Information; Sugarloaf Mountain DRI Application for Development Approval, Second Request for Additional Information; Sugarloaf Mountain DRI Project Synopsis; Archaeological/Historical Survey for Sugarloaf Mountain DRI Application for Development Approval; Memorandum from Senior Assistant County Attorney Tim Hoban to Donald A. Griffey, Engineering Director, Department of Public Services, dated May 18, 1994, referencing Sugarloaf Mountain Roadways; Facsimile letter from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicants, dated May 18, 1994, concerning the issue of the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI's consistency with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan; Proposed Revision to Condition 6. Scrub Jay Management Plan, dated May 19, 1994; March 30, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, which note that this project was approved.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case approximately one and a half months ago and approved it under Ordinance No. 9-91. He stated that it was a PUD that was to go through the process and obtain a DRI and that the PUD was approved, with the knowledge that there was going to be a DRI in the future. He stated that the original project was much larger in scale and scope, however, a major portion of the acreage was deleted.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the project had been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission again recently and it was found that the PUD is a much different PUD than what was originally contemplated for this project. He noted that the commercial area had been cut back a great deal, as well as the number of residential units.
Commr. Swartz informed the Board that the County Attorney's Office had received a letter from the applicant's attorney, Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, suggesting that he recuse himself from this case, for reasons which she noted in the letter. He stated that he took the letter quite seriously, therefore, did some research on the matter, contacted the Ethics Commission, to determine whether or not they felt there was a possible ethical conflict, and spoke with a representative of the Attorney General's office, regarding the matter, and was informed that there was no ethical conflict.
Commr. Swartz briefly discussed the fact that he had sat on the Board, in 1991, when the PUD in question was originally heard, and that, at that time, had evaluated the information that had been presented to the Board. He stated that he felt he could hear this case fairly and impartially and that he would base his decision, as he has always tried to do, on documents that would be presented to the Board and whether or not the proposed DRI is in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz further stated that, based on information provided to him by the County Attorney's Office, if there was a motion, on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's representative, for him to recuse himself from this case, that said information would have been required to be provided by a date prior to this hearing, so, from a timeliness standpoint, there would be no valid motion for recusal.
At this time, several consultants representing the applicant and members of the Planning and Zoning staff were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and responded to Commr. Swartz's comments concerning the issue of him being requested to recuse himself from this case. She stated that, although she felt her client had legally defensible grounds, due to the timeliness involved, it was decided that a motion would not be filed. She stated, however, that her client would reserve the right to bring said issue back in any further proceedings regarding this case. She further elaborated on the matter, at which time she requested the record to reflect that the Ethics Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter and that neither an independent member of the Board of County Commissioners nor the City Council can request the Attorney General's opinion.
Ms. Bonifay requested and was given clarification of documents that had been entered into the record as County exhibits. It was noted that the following documents were part of the Board's initial package and would be entered into the record, as evidence, at the end of the meeting, as follows:
County Exhibit 1 - Regional Report from the ECFRPC
County Exhibit 2 - Ordinance 19-91, adopted in February, 1991
Ms. Bonifay entered into the record the following document:
Applicant's Exhibit A - Archaeological/Historical Survey conducted for the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI by Mr. Edwin P. Worth, Consulting Anthropologist, dated April 8, 1993, and submitted to the ECFRPC as part of their analysis and original report.
Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services, as her first witness, at which time she questioned him about the following issues: whether he was familiar with the project known as Sugarloaf Mountain; how he first became familiar with said project; in what form the Request for Approval and Final Approval were approved; whether he could identify Section 696.10 of the Lake County Code as part of the Code that was in existence at the time of the applicant's original application for a PUD, which governed the development of PUDs; what type of use fell under said PUD; what kind of open space requirements were in the PUD at the time of the original application; and whether Chapter 14.04.00 - Approval Procedure for PUDs and MUQDs, of the Lake County Code, was the outline that one would currently use to go through the development review process and gain approval of a PUD.
Ms. Bonifay then submitted, for the record, the following documents, questioning Mr. Stubbs regarding each:
Applicant's Exhibit 1 - Section 696.10 of the Lake County Code, pertaining to the establishment of a PUD.
Applicant's Exhibit 2 - Chapter 14.04.00 of the Land Development Regulations - Approval Procedure for PUDs and MUQDs
Ms. Bonifay then questioned whether Mr. Stubbs had held a planning position in any other community in Florida, and, if so, what types of positions he held; whether, in those positions he had dealt with the development review process; whether he, as a Planner, keeps up with current events; whether he has the opportunity to review development ordinances in other places around the State; whether he reads and keeps up with any of the professional journals and articles on planning and things that are happening in the development review process; whether, in Lake County, it has always been the practice to have a procedure whereby one can go through the PUD process and gain an approval, regardless of the density and intensity of the project, whether it is a DRI or not; whether one is issued a Final Local Development Order for a PUD at the time that one gains PUD approval; whether Lake County's process is similar to other development processes around the State, or whether it is somewhat unique to Lake County; whether said procedure is the procedure that was in effect in 1990, when the project in question originally applied, and whether it is the current procedure in effect in the newly adopted Land Development Regulations.
It was noted that Applicant's Exhibit 2 reflects the process currently being used today.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs as to whether the County was required to include a section on vested rights and, if so, what that provides for. She then submitted, for the record, the following:
Applicant's Exhibit 3 - Objective 1-12A: Provide for Determination of Vested Rights, of the Lake County Future Land Use Element, dated December 21, 1993.
It was noted that Applicant's Exhibit 3 is currently what is in place in Lake County as the Comprehensive Plan policy for vested rights.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs as to whether Lake County recognizes statutory vesting and common law vesting and whether the County has specific provisions which govern statutory vesting.
Ms. Bonifay then submitted the following, for the record:
Applicant's Exhibit 4 - Chapter I of the Land Development Regulations, dated December 1, 1993, pertaining to Section 1.02.00 - Vesting for Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Bonifay then questioned Mr. Stubbs regarding Section 1.02.21 - Planned Unit Development (PUD), on Page I-8 of said document; Chapter D. - Developments of Regional Impact, on Page
I-9; Section 1.02.19 - Other Projects (Common Law Vesting), on Page I-7, and as to whether, in terms of Lake County's vested rights process, the procedure works and what his role is in the matter.
Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Mr. Stubbs had prepared a vested rights determination for the Sugarloaf Mountain project and what approximate date said determination was made. She then submitted, for the record, the following:
Applicant's Exhibit 5 - a letter from the County Manager, Mr. Pete Wahl, to the Law Office of Cecelia Bonifay, dated March 9, 1994, acknowledging that Ms. Bonifay had requested a Vested Rights Certificate for the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD and to consider said letter as such.
Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Mr. Stubbs would, based on the procedure indicated, review information in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs, when a vested rights determination came into the County; whether he would draft same and forward it to the County Attorney's Office; and whether a determination or denial would be issued by the County Manager at that time.
Ms. Bonifay then questioned the Senior Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Tim Hoban, about the accuracy and legal sufficiency of the letter from Mr. Wahl, concerning the vested rights certificate. Mr. Hoban stated that the vested rights letter issued on March 9, 1994, by the County, vests the Sugarloaf Mountain Project, pursuant to the Lake County Code.
Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Mr. Wahl had executed said letter. It was noted that he had.
Ms. Bonifay questioned whether Lake County gave any indication to the ECFRPC, at the time that this project was going through the DRI review, that it was the County's determination that the project was vested and, therefore, consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.
It was noted that Mr. Stubbs was in attendance at the ECFRPC hearing on the matter in question and that the issue of vested rights did not come up, however, this project received a recommendation of approval, with conditions, from the ECFRPC.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs about the following documents, which she then entered, as evidence, into the record:
Applicant's Exhibit 6 - Letter from the Law Office of Cecelia Bonifay to Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One-Stop Permitting, dated May 27, 1993, on behalf of the applicant's evidence that they were moving forward and enumerating significant expenditures (detailed in the letter) regarding the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD, the Development of Regional Impact, and the issue of vested rights.
Applicant's Exhibit 7 - Planned Unit Development Map, prepared by the Lake County Planning Department, evidencing the Board of County Commissioner's approval and the fact that the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD is included as part of said map, dated 1990, and updated August, 1991.
Applicant's Exhibit 8 - Planned Unit Development Map, prepared by the Lake County Planning Department, evidencing the Board of County Commissioner's approval and the fact that the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD is included as part of said map, dated April, 1992.
Applicant's Exhibit 9 - Graphic prepared by the Lake County Planning Department evidencing approved developments in the area of US 27/192/Turnpike/Montverde, dated February, 1991 and updated April, 1992, in which the Sugarloaf Mountain project is shown as an approved project.
Applicant's Exhibit 10 - A narrative list of approved projects (not dated), compiled by the Lake County Planning Department, which shows that the Sugarloaf Mountain project is an approved project.
Applicant's Exhibit 11 - Two letters from the Lake County Planning Department to Mr. Greg Golgowski, Director of Project Review, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council - one from Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, dated January 28, 1994 and the other from Mr. Greg Stubbs, One Stop Permitting Center Coordinator, dated January 25, 1994, regarding the vested rights determination and the fact that the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD is currently vested for density and intensity. The letter from Mr. Greg Stubbs had attached a copy of the recently adopted vested rights language, from the LDRs, which applies to the Sugarloaf Mountain project.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Stubbs as to whether the Board was, this date, considering amendments to the PUD, as well as approval of the Development Order. He responded that the Board was.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she had no further questions for Mr. Stubbs, at this time.
Commr. Swartz requested that the following documents be entered into the record, as evidence:
County Exhibit 3 - 1991 Lake County Comprehensive Plan
County Exhibit 4 - Land Use Element of the 1977 Lake County Comprehensive Plan with 1985 Amendments
County Exhibit 5 - Letter from Mr. Robert May, Director, Division of Resource Planning and Management, Department of Community Affairs, dated August 30, 1991, to the then Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Commr. Bailey, issuing a Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent to Find the Lake County Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance.
Ms. Bonifay objected to the letter from Mr. May being entered into the record as evidence, noting that, if the Comprehensive Plan was found not to be in compliance, it had no value.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, noted that the Board had the discretion of determining whether or not said letter should be entered into the record as evidence and that the County Attorney's Office would advise the Board to do so, due to the fact that it was relevant to the old issue of vesting.
Commr. Swartz stated Mr. Stubbs had testified that the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD was approved in February, 1991 and noted that, at that time, the only Comprehensive Plan that was in existence in Lake County was the plan that was adopted, by Resolution, on February 15, 1977. He questioned what vesting language existed in the plan that was adopted in July, 1991.
Mr. Stubbs stated that, as he remembered it, it addressed statutory and common law vesting.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page I-21, Paragraph 2. Applications Made to the County for Determination of Vested Rights, of the 1991 Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which he read into the Minutes. He stated that, according to said language, the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD would have lost its vesting in March of 1993.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that, due to the fact that the PUD was not repealed during the period of February to March, 1993, and due to the fact that, in March, the County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, with new vesting language, the PUD would still be active.
Commr. Swartz stated that one of the requirements under that plan was, if the development for the PUD had started prior to the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan and was continuing in good faith, or the owner had made such substantial expenditures and incurred such a financial obligation as being equitable to the development. He questioned whether the Plan that was adopted in July of 1991, which provided some vesting, only provided it for two years, for PUDs.
Mr. Hoban stated that it stated developers had to do something within two years or they would lose their vesting.
Commr. Swartz referred to the letter that had been submitted as County Exhibit 5, finding the County's Comprehensive Plan not in compliance, stating that it mentioned several policies, including vesting provisions, that are inconsistent with Section 163.3167(8) of the Florida Statutes and Common Law Principles of Equitable Stopple. He stated that the policies incorrectly assigned vested rights, based on zoning classifications in place prior to the plan adoption. He then questioned Mr. Stubbs about statutory and common law vesting language that he felt should be reflected in the County's Vested Rights Ordinance.
At this time, Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Commr. Swartz noted that Mr. Wahl had signed the vested rights letter, therefore, questioned what he based his determination on.
Mr. Wahl indicated steps that are normally taken in a vested rights determination, before it comes to him for signature, and noted that he had followed said procedure.
It was noted that the determination in question was based on common law vesting, not statutory vesting.
Commr. Swartz questioned when the application was made for the vested rights determination on the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD.
Mr. Stubbs stated that it was January 4, 1994.
Commr. Swartz continued to question Mr. Stubbs regarding the matter and noted the reason for his questioning.
Commr. Swartz stated that Ms. Bonifay had indicated that there was a recommendation for approval, with conditions, from the ECFRPC and questioned whether any other comments had been made.
Mr. Stubbs stated that Mr. Greg Golgowski, with the ECFRPC, had recently faxed the County a document, dated March 16, 1994, indicating their recommendation on bicycle paths.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page R-1 of said document and requested Mr. Stubbs to read a portion of Paragraph B, on said page, into the Minutes. He noted that the ECFRPC had indicated that there were other issues that they did not take a position on, relating to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in a meeting that was held with the ECFRPC, Mr. Stubbs had stated that the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI was consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, however, noted that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had taken said matter under review.
Ms. Bonifay reappeared before the Board and questioned Mr. Stubbs further, regarding the following: whether the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD was found to be consistent with the then existing Comprehensive Plan, when it was approved in February of 1991; whether the Lake County Code provided that a PUD had a period of two years of life; whether it was then removed from both the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs; whether PUDs had an expiration date; whether the LDRs that were used to determine vested rights for Sugarloaf Mountain, or any other project that came in during that period of time, were determined by the Board of County Commissioners to be consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan; whether, during the period of February to March 3, 1993, Lake County continued to issue vested rights determinations; whether they were based on the fact of each individual case; whether some of those projects received vesting, whether or not they had actually gone forward and achieved a lot of construction on the ground; and whether the Sugarloaf Mountain project was different from any other number of vested rights determinations that may have been issued, during that same period of time.
Ms. Bonifay continued the line of questioning, as follows: whether any member of the Board of County Commissioners had challenged staff with issuing vested rights determinations that were ultra vires, or illegal and not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or the LDRs; whether statutory and common law vesting was mutually exclusive, or whether one could elect to proceed under either or both; whether said provision was found in the current LDRs; whether the LDRs have been found by the Board of County Commissioners to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and whether that portion of the ECFRPC's report that Commr. Swartz had alluded to, where he stated that they were reserving their opinion on the Comprehensive Plan, could just as easily have been general language that they include in any regional condition and that they, in fact, thought that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment had been filed.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:25 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.
PETITION 7-91A-3 - SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN PUD (CONT'D.)
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, called Mr. Ronald Manley, Senior Planner, Keenan & Associates, Orlando, as her next witness. Mr. Manley had been sworn in earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Manley appeared before the Board and gave a planning overview of the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD project, at which time he answered questions from Ms. Bonifay and the Board regarding same.
Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Jim Modica, President, Modica and Associates, Environmental Consultants, Clermont, as her next witness, noting that he was the environmental consultant for the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD project. Mr. Modica had been sworn in earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Modica appeared before the Board, gave a brief history of himself, stated how he came to work on this project, and discussed the issue of scrub jays and gopher tortoises that had been reported to have been found on the property, at which time he answered questions from Ms. Bonifay and the Board regarding same.
Ms. Bonifay submitted, for the record, the following document:
Applicant's Exhibit 12 - Results of the Sugarloaf Mountain DRI Florida Scrub Jay Census, from Modica and Associates, Environmental Planning, Design and Permitting, dated May 3, 1993.
Discussion occurred regarding the Development Order for the project in question, at which time Mr. Modica answered questions concerning xeric oak communities and wetlands found on the site and the preservation of same, as stipulated in the Development Order.
Discussion occurred regarding gopher tortoises found on the site, the preservation of them, and the fact that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission recommended that the applicant utilize a habitat protection option for the gopher tortoises, for this project, to compensate for the loss of "valuable" and "significant" habitat.
Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Steven Godfrey, Professional Engineer, Kimberly, Horne & Associates, Orlando, as her next witness. Mr. Godfrey had been sworn in earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Godfrey appeared before the Board and gave a brief background history of himself, at which time he noted that he acts as a consultant to the ECFRPC, in reviewing transportation projects from private entities. He noted that he was involved in the original analysis of the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD and was responsible for developing the methodology for identifying the technical approach for evaluating the regional impacts and conducting the analysis in conjunction with that technical approach, which was approved by the ECFRPC, Lake County staff, Orange County staff, and the Florida Department of Transportation. He reviewed charts and maps (on display) showing the road system in the area of the project in question and how it pertains to the project itself, at which time he answered questions regarding same.
Mr. Godfrey briefly discussed the bicycling activity on Sugarloaf Mountain, at which time he referred to Page R-12, Paragraph 26, of the DRI Recommendations to the County regarding Sugarloaf Mountain, as adopted by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, dated March 16, 1994, stating that the Regional Planning Council had made some recommendations to provide for bicyclers on Sugarloaf Mountain, due to the fact that Sugarloaf Mountain was recognized as a regional recreational resource. He stated that it would cost approximately $1 million, to follow the recommendations of the ECFRPC, at which time he briefly discussed the issue of funding, for implementing the recommendations, and how it would be applied. He stated that the ECFRPC has identified several possible solutions, for consideration, and have identified a fair share contribution, in the amount of $204,000, from the Sugarloaf Mountain project.
Mr. Godfrey referred to Policy 2-1.9 of the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which he noted mandates review of the County's traffic impact fee system, to allow contribution toward non-motorized improvements. He stated it is felt that staff needs more time and more interaction with the Board and the community, to develop the right plan and present it for adoption. He stated that what had been presented to the Board, this date, is what they believe, and staff believes, is a fair share participation for the Sugarloaf Mountain project and that it would be up to the Board and staff to talk about how they will go forward and define the actual plan and implement it. He stated that all transportation issues have been agreed upon, by all staff parties and by all the Boards preceding this Board, with the exception of the solution on the bicycle issue.
It was noted that Phase I of the Sugarloaf Mountain project should be completed in approximately seven years, however, it will be a couple of years before its impact is actually felt, because of the continued approval process that will need to occur, as well as land development activities, and that Phase I of the project necessitated no roadway improvements, at this point in time, based on methodology of the ECFRPC.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:20 p.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
PETITION NO. 7-91A-3 - SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN PUD (CONT'D.)
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the petitioner, called Mr. Bob Farner, President, Farner-Barley & Associates, Tavares, as her next witness, noting that he was Project Engineer for the Sugarloaf Mountain PUD project. Mr. Farner had been sworn in earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Farner appeared before the Board and gave a brief background history of himself, as well as noted his experience with other similar type large scale developments. He stated that he was contracted by the owners of the Sugarloaf Mountain project to look at civil engineering issues related to the project, mainly the water/wastewater/stormwater issues. He then gave a brief overview of his analysis and findings in said areas, at which time he answered questions from Ms. Bonifay and the Board regarding same.
Ms. Bonifay stated that this concluded all of her witnesses, at this point in time, however, noted that she would reserve the right to cross-examine anyone who had standing, who testified, or any witnesses that the County might call forward.
The Chairman questioned whether there was anyone present in opposition to the request.
Mr. Greg Homan, the owner of 20 acres on Sugarloaf Mountain, and past member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was opposed to the request and felt that the people effected should have some say in the decision that is made. He noted that he was opposed to the bicycle paths proposed for Sugarloaf Mountain and that, if the Board approved to put them in, that he would sue to stop it.
Mr. Richard Bond, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was opposed to the request and felt that the major issue was one of density, which he elaborated on. He stated that he felt the Board was not keeping the best interest of the residents in mind, by approving such a development, and that the residents do not feel it is the type of thing that the Comprehensive Plan permits. He then commented on statements that had been made during the campaigns of two Commissioners, regarding the issue of development, and asked them to stand by the statements that they had made and oppose the development in question.
Mr. Claude Lassiter, a resident of Orlando, who plans to move to the Sugarloaf Mountain area in the near future, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was opposed to the request, as he felt that it would decrease the value of homes in the area. He commented about the bicyclers in the area and the fact that residents were denied access to their homes during past triathlons, as well as the fact that they had not received any advance notice of the triathlons.
Mr. Don Kemp, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was opposed to the request and briefly discussed the issue of schools, impact fees, responsible growth management, and the fact that he felt Board Meetings should be held during evening hours. He stated that, if the Board approved this request, they would be allowing a small city to be built in an area where there is no current infrastructure and that they would not be helping the school situation, by creating a need for another school. He stated that such developments should be built where there is infrastructure.
Mr. Mike Cronin, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was opposed to the request and addressed the fact that Mr. Modica had stated that he did not find any scrub jays on the property in question. He stated that scrub jays are on the property and that he has no problem in getting them to come to him.
Mr. John Hall, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he was opposed to the request and noted that, in the area of the property in question, over the past two and one-half years, the density has gone from one house per five acres, on the majority of the property, to fifteen houses per five acres. He stated that he felt, with the density in the area, if the Board approved this project, they would be voting to create an additional city in Lake County, which he feels the County does not need. He requested the Board to keep the people of the County in mind and not some land speculator's back pocket.
Ms. Rita Lassiter, a local resident, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. She stated that this was the third meeting that she had attended, yet had not received a notice of any of the meetings. She noted that her property is within 150 feet of the property in question, therefore, she should have been notified. She stated that the reason more people are not showing up for these types of Board Meetings is probably due to the fact that they are not being properly notified.
Mr. Steve Richey, a local attorney, appeared before the Board stating that he had spoken at the Planning and Zoning Commission on behalf of Consolidated Mineral Corporation, which owns property contiguous to the property in question. He noted that he was not speaking in opposition, or in support, of the project. He stated that Consolidated Mineral Corporation owns 300 +/- acres that was part of the original PUD that was approved, however, is being deleted from the PUD. He stated it was his understanding that, when said property was put in the PUD, it was zoned Agricultural, therefore, questioned whether it was going to revert back to Agricultural.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, noted that he would investigate the matter and get back to Mr. Richey with an answer, as soon as possible.
Mr. Bill Oglesby, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He discussed two issues that concerned him, one being the fact that the County was talking about building a city in the middle of the country, with no abutting cities, which he noted is urban sprawl, and the second, that he felt the Board was playing into the hands of a few, at the expense of many, noting that the majority of the people in the area do not want the development to be approved.
Ms. Carol Oglesby, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was opposed to the development in question, because she felt the true cost, both environmentally and monetarily, would not be borne by the developers and land speculators, but by the residents of Lake County. She stated that the people of Lake County will suffer not only the monetary loss, but the loss of the aesthetic value of one of the most unique, geographical areas in the State.
Mr. Greg Golgowski, AICP, Director of Project Review, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He presented the ECFRPC's report and recommendations on the Sugarloaf Mountain project, at which time he answered questions from Ms. Bonifay and the Board regarding same.
Commr. Swartz read into the Minutes a portion of a letter, dated February 10, 1994, from the Department of Community Affairs to Mr. Golgowski, concerning the fact that the project in question is considered, in part, a retirement community, and how they felt it should be dealt with in the Development Order. The letter states that, if the applicant wishes not to deal with the issue as they suggest, then a revised transportation analysis, based on the standard ITE trip generation rates for single family households, needs to be provided.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the issue of transportation, at which time Mr. Golgowski answered questions regarding same.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Golgowski as to how long the Sugarloaf Mountain project had been under scrutiny by the ECFRPC, the Department of Community Affairs, and a number of other state, regional, and federal agencies; whether, in addition to the original application for development approval, there were also supplemental responses filed by the applicant; and whether the process was an evolutionary process, where the ECFRPC raises initial issues, goes back to the applicant, and the applicant then submits additional information.
Ms. Bonifay questioned Mr. Golgowski about recommendations made by the Project Review Committee and the ECFRPC and whether or not the project was recommended for approval, as being consistent with the Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the ECFRPC's statutory mandate for reviewing developments of regional impact. She questioned whether the conditions listed in the Development Order, as proposed, that were submitted to Lake County as part of the ECFRPC's report, were conditions that they felt were necessary for the Sugarloaf Mountain project to be in compliance with all the statutory guidelines.
Ms. Bonifay further questioned Mr. Golgowski concerning issues related to the project in question.
Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, appeared before the Board, in response to a question by Commr. Gerber regarding the width of the roads in the Sugarloaf Mountain area. He stated that they are generally 12 feet wide, however, felt that Hwy. 561A and Sugarloaf Mountain Road had lanes that were less than 12 feet wide.
Ms. Gladys Lassiter, a resident of Orlando, who owns property in the Sugarloaf Mountain area, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She discussed the size of the lots proposed for the Sugarloaf Mountain development and the fact that she felt participants of the triathlons, to be held in the area, should have to pay their fair share of the costs of installing bicycle paths.
Ms. Barbara Turcyn, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She questioned the Board on issues ranging from how many retirement and non-retirement homes would be in the Sugarloaf Mountain development, to whether the property that will be set aside for schools is land that will be donated to the County or land that the County will have to purchase, to the size of the property that has been set aside for wildlife, endangered species and plants and flowers, to the use of pesticides and herbicides for the golf course and whether the County has a way of regulating what is used on its recharge area.
Mr. Gene Molnar, Lake County School Board, appeared before the Board in response to a question by Ms. Turcyn as to whether any additional elementary schools are scheduled to be constructed in south Lake County. Mr. Molnar was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that no additional schools are planned for south Lake County, for the next five years, however, noted that it could change.
Mr. Modica, Environmental Consultant, reappeared before the Board and addressed concerns that Ms. Turcyn had about the size of the property that has been set aside for wildlife, endangered species, and plants and flowers, as well as a concern about the use of pesticides and herbicides for the golf course.
Ms. Turcyn discussed the fact that the word "unique" is often used to describe the area around Sugarloaf Mountain and asked the Board to help maintain the "uniqueness" of the area, by denying the request.
Mr. Lloyd Hlavac, a resident of Mt. Dora and member of the Lake County Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He agreed with the concept that Sugarloaf Mountain is a "unique" area in the State and stated that he felt, because of the cycling that already exists in the area and the fact that it is the most popular cycling area in the State of Florida, that the developer of the Sugarloaf Mountain project should contribute toward the costs of developing proposed bicycle paths, because the development will directly affect what goes on in the area.
Mr. Karick Price, one of the owners of the property in question, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He addressed the fact that there are some who feel the Sugarloaf Mountain project is not being handled properly, however, he feels it will be an enhancement to Lake County and will greatly increase the property value of surrounding properties. He stated that he and his partner, Mr. Cox, have been good residents of Lake County and that they will continue to be, noting that they would not dream of proposing something that would be a detriment to the County.
Mr. Willoby Cox, Jr., the second owner of the property in question, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he presently lives in Orange County, however, has worked most of his life in Lake County. He noted that he is not a developer and never has been. He asked the Board to allow him and his partner, Mr. Price, to use their property for what they feel is the highest and best use of it.
Mr. John Whitaker, a resident of Grand Island, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he had heard a lot of concern about cyclists, gopher tortoises, and scrub jays, but no concern about jobs and how many jobs the Sugarloaf Mountain project might create. He stated that he would rather hear about jobs being created, than the protection of scrub jays and gopher tortoises, because he feels that jobs and people are more important. He commended Mr. Price and Mr. Cox for what they are trying to do and noted that he did not know what the residents of Sugarloaf Mountain expect them to do with their property, other than provide them with a rural view and a bicycle path.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicants, reappeared before the Board stating that they were being asked to look at (1) an amendment to an existing PUD, to bring it into compliance with the County's current LDRs and (2) a Development Order, which she noted follows the Development of Regional Impact. She addressed some issues that were raised, concerning said documents, and noted that she felt a compromise that the applicants and staff had worked out, over a number of weeks, represented fairness and equity.
Ms. Bonifay submitted, as evidence, for the record, the following documents:
Applicant's Exhibit 13 - An Excerpt from the Application for Development Approval
Applicant's Exhibit 14 - An Excerpt from the First Request for Additional Information
Applicant's Exhibit 15 - An Excerpt from the Second Request for Additional Information
Applicant's Exhibit 16 - A Letter dated July 28, 1992, to Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, from Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Division of Current Planning, regarding the Vested Rights Certificate for Sugarloaf Mountain PUD Ordinance No. 9-91
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 3:45 p.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
PETITION NO. 7-91A-3 - SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN PUD (CONT'D.)
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicants, reappeared before the Board stating that she had received a letter from DCA, in which they addressed the issue of consistency, with regard to the Sugarloaf Mountain project, therefore, requested the Board to postpone final consideration of the Development Order and PUD amendment to a date and time certain in July, in order to allow her to communicate with them, regarding the matter. She stated that she felt the Board would not need to rehear the case, at that time, but would only need to review and rebut the Development Order and amendments to the PUD.
Discussion occurred regarding Ms. Bonifay's request for a postponement, at which time Commrs. Cadwell and Bailey noted that they did not have a problem with doing so, however, Commrs. Swartz and Gerber felt that the issue should be resolved this date.
A motion was made by Commr. Bailey and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to postpone action regarding this case until the Board Meeting of July 26, 1994, at 6:00 p.m.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz requested Commr. Bailey to amend his motion.
Commr. Bailey amended his motion to include a request that all property owners involved be renoticed and for the County Attorney's Office to review the vested rights determination.
Commr. Cadwell seconded the amendment.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/5-19-94/6-17-94/boardmin