The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Thursday, October 5, 1995, 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: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Mike Anderson, Acting County Manager; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to the BCC Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Gerber announced that this meeting was the continuation of the zoning hearings from September 26, 1995.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development and Regulation Services, and Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III/Supervisor, appeared before the Board and were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.
PETITION CUP#95/8/3-4 Constance Condron
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development and Regulation Services, informed the Board that a letter had been received yesterday requesting that this case be withdrawn, and therefore, the Board was not required to take action.
PETITION #33-95-2 R-3 to R-1 William & Grace Stosberg
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development and Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that staff had recommended denial of the request for rezoning from R-3 (Medium Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), to operate a plant nursery with a greenhouse under the conditions of a CUP (subject to zoning approval). Mr. Stubbs referred to the aerial map of the property in question and stated that this was probably the most popular area in the County for residential development. He stated that this was not in the Green Swamp area, but it was an area with a great amount of potential for growth. Mr. Stubbs explained the surrounding zoning and stated that the Comprehensive Plan was silent on the compatibilities between agricultural and residential uses. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval to the R-1 zoning to operate a plant nursery with a greenhouse, under the conditions of a CUP. Mr. Stubbs presented photographs (3), which were taken on-site, to show what currently existed on the property. He noted that, in 1992, the property was zoned to R-3.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the recommendation made by staff for denial of the request and stated that she was taken back that the County would now find agriculture in Lake County inconsistent with residential, in terms of staff policy, given the times that the Board had announced its policy for the need to promote agriculture even on a very small scale, and to have that use as a frequent and predominant use for property in Lake County. Ms. Bonifay explained that the applicants have had the property for over 65 years, it has been primarily in agricultural uses, and now they wish to expand on an existing agricultural use, but there has been a recommendation for denial, because other people have moved into the area. She presented some of the history of the site and noted that approximately three-fourths of the property was in citrus production today, the applicants (brother and sister) have a home on the property where they have resided for a number of years, and there was an existing greenhouse structure. She stated that, although there may be a number of platted lots, or developments within the area, there were very few residents living in the area. The area where the greenhouses would be located was on the southern portion of the property and would be buffered by a lake. The residents that would be on the north of Bronson Road would only see citrus trees. Ms. Bonifay stated that there would be little, if any change, in the functioning and use of the property. She further stated that the County now required a CUP for five acres or more, in order to use property for a nursery or a fernery. She requested that, if the Board was not going to grant the CUP, the Board not reduce the density of the zoning. Ms. Bonifay stated that she differed with Mr. Stubbs on his interpretation that the Comprehensive Plan was silent on the issue of agricultural and residential. She stated that Policy 1-1B.6, pertaining to "Buffers for Active Agricultural Lands" had been used inappropriately in the staff report. Ms. Bonifay stated that this would put the burden on the subdivision that comes in to provide the buffer from the agricultural land. She further stated that there would be no inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and it would be compatible with surrounding land use. Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Dale Ladd, who has a business interest in the project, to give testimony, and noted that, in the Planning and Zoning Minutes, Mr. Ladd had recused himself and declared a conflict of interest. She stated that he was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and was a developer in the area.
Mr. Dale John Ladd, Clermont, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Ladd stated his occupation and profession and noted that he had a development, Preston Cove, immediately adjacent to the property in question, which has 107 lots. He felt that there was no inconsistency, or incompatibility with the request being made by the applicants, and stated that most of the facilities on the property in question were built before Preston Cove. Mr. Ladd described the property in question and stated that it has been under citrus production since some time in the 1940s, and it was still in production. He explained the buffering between Preston Cove and the property in question, which consisted of a lake, a retention pond, and citrus, and noted that there was also cattle on the property. He further described the structures on the property and noted the shade house, which would not exceed a 40 x 60 foot structure.
Discussion occurred regarding the problems that had existed with another shade house, which could be seen for four miles and had no buffers.
Ms. Bonifay interjected and stated that the applicants would limit the size of the site to 2-3 acres for the shade house structure. In conclusion, she had spoken to the applicants, and if the Board wanted to place a two acre maximum to the site, it would be more than sufficient for the location of the structure. She stated that the barn would continue to be the buffer for Preston Cove. She stated that she could find nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that would support a denial of the request, and she did not feel that staff had produced any substantial competent evidence to show why the request should not be approved. Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the Board was not inclined to support the CUP, it deny the rezoning.
Discussion occurred regarding the condition of the citrus currently located on the property.
Commr. Gerber called for further public comment. There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition to the request, and no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was going to vote differently than staff's recommendation, but he wanted to commend staff for bringing the request to the Board, because it created a better discussion of the issues. He stated that there were questions about compatibility between residential and agriculture, but in the Comprehensive Plan, the County had not delineated uses as well, and therefore, it put staff in a position. He extended his appreciation to staff for taking a thoughtful approach and trying to consider whether or not there were compatibility issues. Commr. Swartz referred to Policy 1-1.15 in the Comprehensive Plan and stated that, even in urban land use categories, which allowed densities up to seven, and in some instances up to 22 units per acre, it stated that all land use categories, except for residential over seven and mining were allowable, which would indicate that you could have agricultural operations in there. Commr. Swartz stated that the CUP needed to indicate that the activity needed to be centered somewhere in the center of the parcel, with some size restrictions.
Commr. Cadwell discussed language that might indicate that the structure could not go beyond the end of the current barn structure.
Commr. Swartz stated that he appreciated staff bringing the request to the Board in this manner, but because he did not feel what was being proposed was less compatible than what was already there, unless the District Commissioner had other opposition, he would support the request with some conditions as to size and general location.
Commr. Good stated that staff did a good job in reviewing the compatibilities, and that there were certainly natural buffers in this situation on this site, which helped to reduce the compatibility problems.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request from R-3 (Medium Residential) to R-1 (Rural Residential), Ordinance 1995-35, to operate a plant nursery with a greenhouse under the conditions of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that it was important that the Board did not "overkill" when eliminating agriculture within some of the residential areas, but that the Board look at the CUPs. She stated that it was important to know that, whether this citrus had been there or not, it was still an appropriate use.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PETITION CUP#95/6/3-2 CUP in R-1 William & Grace Stosberg
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development and Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the CUP in R-1 for the operation of a plant nursery with greenhouses. Mr. Stubbs reviewed the conditions setforth in the proposed Ordinance.
Discussion occurred regarding Page 2, B. Setbacks, which indicated that the setbacks would be 50 feet from all property lines. After further discussion, the Board compromised on the footage for setbacks and established 75 feet from Bronson Road, with 50 foot buffers on other boundaries, pursuant to the applicant's request.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, referred to Page 1, 2. Terms, A. Land Uses, 1., and stated that language needed to be inserted, so that, in addition to the CUP use as a plant nursery, it would allow the other R-1 uses.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she would move forward all the evidence previously introduced for rezoning, and that the buffers were consistent, and therefore, she agreed with the rest of the terms.
The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no one present who wished to speak in opposition to the request, and no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in R-1 (Rural Residential), Ordinance 1995-36, based on the action taken previously by the Board to approve the rezoning to R-1, and with the CUP being amended in areas to provide for a 75 foot buffer from Bronson Road, and under 2. Terms, A. Land Uses, 1., there would be permitted uses on the site for R-1 zoning.
PETITION #16-95-4 A & LM to PUD Robert & Ollivene Sullivan
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development and Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that the request was made to rezone property from Agricultural and Light Manufacturing to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Waivers to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as outlined, on a 298 acre parcel, and that staff had recommended approval of the request. Mr. Stubbs discussed the issue of utilities and stated that the City of Mount Dora had agreed and voted to allow the connection to the City, but the agreement had not been finalized. He stated that, if the request received approval by the Board, it would be subject to the agreement being finalized. Mr. Stubbs felt that the Ordinance needed to be forwarded to the Department of State, but he also felt that the agreement was needed. He stated that, in the analysis of the PUD, there were approximately 133 acres that would be utilized as open space, with the greatest portion being the golf course. He further stated that it was in the urban expansion land use category. Mr. Stubbs noted the conditions that were outlined on Page 3 of the staff report, and the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the request with the amendments outlined on Page 4. Mr. Stubbs stated that the site had been limited to 750 single family residential dwelling units on a total of 298 acres, at approximately 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The minimum lot size would be 50 x 100 feet, and the minimum structure size would be 1,200 square feet to 2,200 square feet, with the villas having a minimum of 500 square feet. He noted that the minimum building setbacks and phasing were listed in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Stubbs noted that, if amendments were needed, the applicant would have to go through the public hearing process. Mr. Stubbs stated that the applicant was proposing a minimum of 25% open space, as required by PUDs, and that there were conditions pertaining to stormwater, utilities and transportation improvements. He noted that, in the backup material, there were 16 letters and petitions with 25 signatures in opposition to the request, one letter of concern, and letters from the City of Mount Dora.
The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Board and stated that the applicants reside on the property today and have used it in the past for agricultural uses. She stated that she felt all of the primary issues, which were raised at the initial hearing by some of the residents, by staff, and by others, had been addressed through this process. She stated that today the Board would be hearing testimony from three consultants who were a part of the development consulting team, Mr. Ron Manley, Canin and Associates, Mr. Reggie Tisdale, Hartman and Associates, Inc., and Mr. Sans Lassiter, Lassiter Transportation Group. She noted that Mr. Gary Cooney was present from the City of Mount Dora, as its attorney, to comment on the utility issue.
Mr. Ron Manley, Canin and Associates, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Manley stated that he was an urban and regional planner who had been involved from the beginning of the project. He stated that he was retained to do the overall project coordination, as well as planning for the project. Mr. Manley walked the Board through the project and highlighted the primary issues, which included the density, unit sizes, and setbacks, and presented points of clarification in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Manley stated that the project involved approximately 298 acres and was designed as a mixed residential golf course community. It was designed to be completed over three phases, with the first phase being approximately 194 acres in size. He explained that different lot size housing products were being proposed on the site, with single family homes in different foot ranges, and approximately 80 golf villas were being proposed at the front part of the property at Round Lake Road. Mr. Manley explained that the product had gone through a transition since it started, both with the County staff, and as a result of the last public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He explained that the entrance way to the project was relocated further to the north to provide a better site distance on the roadways. Another concern that was addressed was the setback from Round Lake Road, because there was a potential concern of having the residential units too close to Round Lake Road. He explained that there were setbacks that ranged from 285 feet to 510 feet. The third concern had to do with the size of the 80 golf villas, and the minimum square footage for the villas. He recommended a change that would raise the minimum square footage to 900 square feet up to 1,200 square feet. Mr. Manley discussed the Building Setback Plan, which had two different building configurations and showed a 50 foot setback from the building to the right-of-way line with 24 feet of pavement, 13 feet of a landscaped area, and another 10 feet of driveway pad before you actually got to the structure itself. He noted the 2 1/2 feet on one side and 2 1/2 feet on the other side for the setback, and the five foot rear setback, which would be for the planned 80 golf villas.
Discussion occurred regarding the sidewalk area being proposed, and the possibility that some of the villas may have garages. It was noted that a building setback of 200-500 feet had been established from Round Lake Road.
Mr. Manley noted that there was going to be a golf course, so there would be more than an adequate amount of open space in the project. He further noted that an alternative access had been established to provide access to the south in the third Phase of the project, if it was needed. Mr. Manley stated that he had consulted with the Orange County staff regarding a Growth Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the Mount Dora area, which included the land immediately south of the property in question, which had a zoning pending for PUD residential. He noted that the point being shown for the potential access for the project lines up with the potential street that Orange County had designated on its plans.
Ms. Bonifay informed the Board that she had a number of meetings with the Orange County District Commissioner to try and monitor their plans, and the impact on the project being proposed today. As a result of many discussions, her client was asked to do a proposed access to the south. Ms. Bonifay discussed the document displaying the Mount Dora Growth Center, which was obtained from the Orange County records, and stated that, because there were a number of questions regarding utilities and services, Orange County withdrew the entire Growth Center Amendment and came back with an amendment to the utility portion of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bonifay noted a correction that needed to be made in the staff report, and the Planning and Zoning minutes, which had reflected "25 percent or 75 percent", and stated that it should read "25 percent or 75 acres" of open space.
Mr. Manley explained that approximately 45 percent of the site had been set aside in open space, including the golf course. It was noted that there were 133 acres, if the golf course was added to the acreage. Mr. Manley addressed the size of the golf course and the type of buffering that had been established for the perimeter of the project.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he had filed a Notice of Appearance and was representing Mr. Jim Simpson, an adjacent property owner who had spoken at the Planning and Zoning (P & Z ) Commission meeting. He stated that Mr. Simpson had raised a question about the site plan, and the location of the sewer treatment facility. He had asked that the facility be more internalized, or substantially buffered. Mr. Richey stated that he understood there was a schematic showing this change, which he had not yet seen.
It was noted that the Board was reviewing the revised schematic design that had been sent to staff, after the P & Z Commission meeting, which was filed with the backup material.
Mr. Reginald L. Tisdale appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Tisdale testified that he worked with a firm of regional engineers, planners and surveyors in Orlando, and that he had assisted the team in analyzing the stormwater management for the project and had commented on other issues including utilities. Mr. Tisdale noted that the location of the package treatment plant would be eliminated, based on service to be provided by the City of Mount Dora.
Mr. Tisdale testified that he was presently involved with Hartman and Associates, Inc. in negotiating a service agreement with the City of Mount Dora, and that he anticipated it would be completed in the very near future. He testified that he felt the conditions that were included in the proposed Ordinance dealt effectively with the stormwater issues and other civil engineering issues, and that all conditions would be adhered to as required.
Mr. Tisdale noted that the property was located in the Mount Dora 180 service area, which by Statute, had been extended to Round Lake Road and the County line and encompassed the property in question.
Mr. Robert Sans Lassiter, Lassiter Transportation Group, Orlando, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Lassiter testified as to his background and his involvement with this particular project, and presented a narrative of the methodology that was formed to address the existing conditions and the proposed development. Mr. Lassiter addressed the results of the trip generation study, as well as the results of the discussion regarding the relocation of the entrance way. He testified that the primary and only entrance to be provided to the site would be Round Lake Road. He explained that Robie Avenue did not extend to the site, however, the road could serve as an alternate in the future, if it was extended, and if there was sufficient right-of-way. He further noted that it could serve today as an emergency access, and that it was a stabilized clay road. Mr. Lassiter testified that there had been recommendations that turn lanes be provided on Round Lake Road, and in addition, if access was provided, it would be Robie Avenue, with turn lanes being provided at the U.S. 441 intersection. He explained that the turn lanes were more of a safety issue, and not so much a capacity issue. He stated that the capacity of the road in the peak hour was equal to the daily traffic, and therefore, there was plenty of capacity.
Ms. Mary Ann Bardon, Transportation Engineer, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Lassiter explained that the capacity of the road was determined by the peak hour, which was be about 1/10 of the daily trip generation.
Ms. Bardon explained that it was the County's option to either go with the peak traffic, or to go with Average Daily Trips (ADT).
Commr. Swartz discussed Page 5 of the proposed Ordinance, which indicated that Robie Avenue was to be a second access, and that the existing pavement shall be widened to 24 feet, and questioned whether the applicant was aware of these requirements.
Ms. Bonifay explained that there had been extensive discussion on the issue of Robie Avenue, and that staff did not make Number 1 and Number 3, under Transportation Improvements, to be consistent, because it had never been the intent of the applicant to have Robie Avenue as a secondary access.
Ms. Bardon stated that, as far as staff was concerned, the connection to Orange County, in lieu of the Robie connection, was in effect. If the connection did not go through Orange County, and Orange County did not accept the connection into their County, then Robie would be the alternative and would be a required alternative at that time. She noted that staff had not received any proposed network from Orange County.
Commr. Swartz stated that, whether the applicant used Robie Avenue, or a second access from U.S. 441 by a road network south of the Planned PUD, there was a requirement in Number 1 that there be a second access, and that Number 3 was only a modifier, should Robie Avenue be used, and then it would require the left and right turn lanes.
Mr. Lassiter explained that the applicant understood the conditions and concurred with them. He explained that a Preliminary Impact Traffic Analysis had been prepared and submitted in June, 1995, which had determined that their methodology was sufficient. At this time, the Trip Generation Study was displayed on the overhead projection for the Board's review.
Ms. Bardon explained that Mr. Lassiter had addressed Robie Avenue, and the usage of an emergency entrance or exit, and stated that staff would not find this acceptable, because if this was going to be a usable entrance, it needed to be developed with the left and the right turn lanes, otherwise they would be using Round Lake Road, or the entrance to the south.
Mr. Lassiter noted that the applicant would comply with the conditions addressed by Ms. Barton, if Robie Avenue became the secondary access.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
PETITION #16-95-4 A & LM to PUD Robert & Ollivene Sullivan
Mr. Don Griffey was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Griffey explained that he had discussions with Mr. Lassiter regarding the project, when it was going through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. He stated that a traffic study had not been received, even though trip generations and the distribution of the traffic was discussed. He noted that the applicant was requesting a variance to provide the traffic analysis at this point and providing it with the preliminary plat, and it was his recommendation that the variance be approved provided that, when the study comes in, if staff felt that a more detailed report was needed, it would be supplied at that time. He stated that this was a standard variance requested for most PUDs and were granted. Mr. Griffey stated that, if the results of the Preliminary Traffic Study were not sufficient, or a more detailed analysis was warranted, the applicants would be required to give this to staff before they could get his preliminary plat approval and could proceed forward. Mr. Griffey stated that, by the scale of the project and where it would be located, would not create that significant of an impact on the road system in this area, and the preliminary analysis would be sufficient.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when reviewing the information from the Trip Generation Study, he determined that the project by itself was getting very close to the maximum daily volume. He questioned the average daily trips on State Road 46 and requested that staff get this information for the Board while the hearing continued.
Mr. Lassiter testified that there was available capacity on Round Lake Road, when the project was built out, and that Lake County was subject to the a concurrency ordinance, or standard that states that there has to be adequate capacity available in the roadway system at the time the development commences. He further testified that there was not a concurrency system that would deny a project when there was adequate capacity.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in his calculations, he was using maximum daily service volumes that do not necessarily relate to a specific road, and that Round Lake Road had some site distance problems and curves in the road, and a detailed study of Round Lake Road may show that the maximum daily service volume was less in terms of safety, not concurrency. He stated that no one knows what was going to be proposed on the south side of the Orange County line, and therefore, none of those trips were being considered. Commr. Swartz suggested that this was an example of where a more detailed analysis was needed, because of some of the characteristics of the road itself, but more importantly, because of the likelihood that development might take place on the south side of the Orange County line.
Ms. Bonifay entered, for the record, an objection to Commr. Swartz' comments on other than what had been shown was a proposal, and stated that, if the Lake County Planning staff had been following the request and had any more specific information data, or analysis, she felt they could have made it available to the applicant, as well as to the Commission, but to start interjecting a proposed development, or a concept, that may or may not even be the subject of an active Comprehensive Plan amendment, was not applicable, because the applicant was just trying to do this by the way of illustrative purposes. She would object to this being proposed as competent substantial evidence, because she was not aware of the status of any future development. If that was going to be used as a factor in making a determination, she felt there should be some underlying basis of fact to that proposal.
Commr. Swartz felt that the trip generation and current trips on the two roads were very pertinent to this issue, and he noted that it was Ms. Bonifay, in behalf of her client, who introduced whatever was being proposed on the south side.
Ms. Bonifay noted that the document reflecting the Mount Dora Growth Center was provided in response to a specific question of a Board member, and from now on she and the representatives would refuse to answer questions about surrounding land use and leave those to the Planning Department, but if the Board was going to use the document as an exhibit, she asked that the record note that it showed, for the entire tract, absolutely no access to Round Lake Road.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt additional language was needed under the section of the Ordinance pertaining to Transportation Improvement that would be more specific with regards to Robie Avenue.
Mr. Griffey informed the Board that staff was able to get a count that was west of C.R. 435, in the Mount Plymouth area, but he wanted the Board to keep in mind that Sorrento and C.R. 437 north and south would have a major effect on the traffic, too, but that, in 1994, it was 9,000.
Discussion occurred regarding the traffic information supplied by staff and the need for a more thorough traffic analysis to determine the effects on both Round Lake Road and S.R. 46.
Ms. Bonifay stated that no development would go forward, unless the Public Services Department was satisfied, not only with the numbers, but the design, and that the concurrency standards had been met. She stated that the Department of Transportation had the responsibility for S.R. 46, and it would determine if a signal was warranted. She noted other improvements that were currently being made at the intersection and stated that she would provide to the Public Services Department the Preliminary Traffic Analysis and work out the methodology with staff within 60 days.
Discussion occurred regarding the changes that had been made to the proposed Ordinance with the following information being noted:
Page 2, 1. A. 3. - Minimum Structure Size:
Villas would be a minimum of 900 square feet.
Page 3, 1. A. 4. - Minimum Building Setbacks:
Villas Front- Reduce the front setback to 10 feet as opposed to 20 feet
Ms. Bonifay noted that, at the bottom of Number 4, there was a typographical error, because there were no buildings fronting on Round Lake Road, and the applicant had agreed that there be no structures any closer than 200 feet.
After some discussion regarding setbacks, it was noted that the applicant would establish a 50 foot setback, as opposed to a 25 foot setback, where the project abutted industrial uses.
Ms. Bonifay continued with the changes made to the Ordinance, as follows:
Page 3, 1. A. 5. - Phasing - re-insert the word "of"
B. 1. A minimum of 25 percent or 75 acres
Page 5, III, 3. - If the Robie Avenue becomes a second access, right and left turn lanes on US 441 should be required.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she concurred with the comments made by staff regarding the waivers.
Discussion occurred regarding the requirements listed on Page 4, II Public Facilities, regarding the St. John River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit.
Mr. William C. Davis, Lake County Water Authority, addressed the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. David testified that he had no objection to the section that had been stricken from the Ordinance, as long as SJRWMD had indicated that it would be a part of the closed basin.
Discussion occurred regarding B. Utilities, with Mr. Minkoff noting that 1. and 2. could be replaced with the following language: "The development shall be served by the City of Mount Dora utility system."
Commr. Gerber called for further public comment.
Ms. David Lazarus appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Lazarus stated that his main concern was the traffic on Round Lake Road. He stated that he had not submitted a letter objecting to the request, because he was not an adjacent land owner and had not received notice. He stated that he attended the September meeting and subsequently talked with Mr. Griffey about the consideration that was being given to waive the traffic study. He was concerned about the traffic count for Round Lake Road, which did not take into consideration the huge development that Orange County was planning. His second objection was the housing density that was being proposed for 750 units, which he wanted lowered, and his third concern was the golf villas, which would be up to 35 feet tall and would be visible for miles. He suggested that the villas be moved to a lower area and further away from Round Lake Road.
Mr. Stubbs explained that this request was re-posted and re-noticed each time the request had been scheduled for a hearing, with notices being sent to everyone within 150 feet of the site.
Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney representing the City of Mount Dora, addressed the Board and stated that the City of Mount Dora had tentatively agreed to run utilities through the PUD development, subject to the approval of a utility agreement to serve the project. He stated that he was not present to oppose the request, but to make sure the Ordinance provided for this issue. Mr. Cooney addressed the issue of the Orange County Growth Center and stated that the City of Mount Dora was adamantly opposed to it. The Mount Dora Council had objected formally to DCA, to the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes that would allow this growth center to occur, both from the original Comprehensive Plan changes, and the new amended changes that Orange County was presenting in Tallahassee. If the Ordinance allowed a second roadway going south, because of the growth center, he assumed the Council would oppose the roadway, because it opposed the growth center. He noted that, on the access issue, there were the alternatives, the south roadway and the Robie Avenue roadway, but that there were no time frames for those alternatives. Mr. Cooney further noted that the Mayor was concerned about emergency access, and one of things that would be required in the utility agreement would be annexation, if it ever became contiguous. Mr. Cooney stated that, if the Board was going to consider an alternative to the south, he suggested some limitation on when one of those alternatives would be foreclosed, otherwise he would suggest that the Council would be opposed to any developments south of this project, as currently proposed by Orange County. Mr. Cooney explained the differences between the development being presented to the Board today, and the one being proposed by Orange County.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Tiedtke Trust, which was the growth center in Orange County, addressed the Board and stated that he had been retained by them to monitor activities in Lake County in regards to the Trust. He reiterated that his client, Mr. Simpson, supported the project, but that he had raised two concerns at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that one concern had to do with the availability of central water and sewer and not having a package plant, and he felt that the words proposed by the County Attorney dealt with this specifically. The other concern was the ability to have access from U.S. 441 through Robie Avenue, and he had made representations that Mr. Simpson would provide right-of-way, if that road was to be improved. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Simpson had discussed with the City of Mount Dora the issue of providing right-of-way for those utilities. He stated that he would not be in a position to provide right-of-way for a road that he would be asked to participate in paying for, but he was in the position to provide right-of-way, if a requirement was made for emergency access. Mr. Richey explained that the road already there may be able to accommodate emergency vehicles and not have to be 24 feet wide, which could be considered by staff, and that Mr. Simpson had committed to providing the necessary right-of-way. He further stated that the 50 foot buffer along the industrial property would be acceptable by his client. Mr. Richey stated that, based on the two concerns raised, he supported the project, and the City of Mount Dora providing the utilities.
Mr. Davis questioned the setback on the north end of the property line and stated that this was the Wolfbranch Sink Preserve, which Water Authority was in the process of doing restoration, and he wanted to make sure that there was plenty of buffering and fencing. It was noted that there would be a 30 foot setback at this location. Mr. Davis stated that this property would be turned into a public facility.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, because she had been informed of the fact that the property being discussed by Mr. Davis would be bringing in the public, it could give the applicant some liability. She stated that, when the Board considered his request to a Public Facilities District (PFD), that a fence be placed on the public property to protect the residents and the golf course liability. She noted that the applicant had just given an additional 25 foot buffer that was not required, because the standard setback was five feet, and that the site plan was run so that the golf course would be primarily on the perimeter.
Commr. Hanson explained that the proper time to address the issue being presented as a concern by Ms. Bonifay would be when the request came to the Board for consideration.
After further discussion, it was noted by Mr. Davis that the Wolfbranch Sink Preserve had already been secured with a heavy fence.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, given the nature of the quasi judicial proceedings, she felt it was incumbent that her client establish a record, and that was why her client had gone to the expense of hiring a professional consultant in those areas that were important to the design and functioning of the development. She explained that a number of individuals that had concerns were not present today, because of direct follow up and personal conversations between the various consultants and them. In terms of the issues that seemed to be outstanding, Ms. Bonifay noted that, as an alternative, a 15 foot setback had been offered for the villas. She further stated that there would be a 25 foot buffer along the LM property owned by the Water Authority, a 50 foot buffer along the LM property owned by Mr. Simpson, which was along the northern portion, and 25 foot buffers along the southwestern portion of property. Ms. Bonifay stated that there had been no substantial competent evidence presented about Robie Avenue and that this was a capacity issue for this development. She stated that all comments from staff had only dealt with the issue of emergency access and suggested that this issue be tied to a time frame when the phase comes on line, which would be handled through the development review process. She addressed the issue of the traffic study that her client had agreed to do and stated that there had never been a request for a complete waiver. If the preliminary study did not indicate any need to go forward, there would not be a need for an additional study. Ms. Bonifay stated that the waiver that the applicant was seeking was a standard one that had been granted for all other PUDs. She requested approval of the rezoning with the recommendations suggested by the applicant.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson disclosed that, when she was discussing the growth center with Mayor Paulette Alexander, Mount Dora, and Ms. Linda Chapin of Orange County, this issue came up, and she had no prior knowledge of it, and they immediately moved on to something else, once they realized it would be coming before the Board.
Commr. Swartz stated that it was not his understanding that the staff's position on a second access was strictly related to an emergency access. He questioned staff's position with regard to the necessary transportation improvements particularly as they were outlined in III, 1. Transportation Improvements.
Mr. Griffey explained that the intent of the section noted by Commr. Swartz was to provide a full access connection from the development to U.S. 441. In discussing it with the applicants, they suggested going to the south as an alternative route, and staff felt that, it would be an acceptable alternative.
Discussion occurred regarding Robie Avenue and the language indicating that the existing pavement shall be widened to 24 feet. It was noted that Mayor Alexander had indicated that she would like the agreement to include an easement that would accommodate the width of a city street, which would be approximately 30-50 feet. Discussion continued regarding the proposed access from Robie Avenue to the Wolfbranch Sink Preserve, and the access that was currently available to it.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to change the following on Page 2 of the Ordinance: 1. Terms: Job No. 94088 dated 6/23/95.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to change the following on Page 2 of the Ordinance: 1. A. 3. Minimum Structure Size: Villas would be a minimum of 900 square feet of living area.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to make the following change on Page 3 of the Ordinance: 1. a. 4. Minimum Building Setbacks: A maximum of 80 Villas Front- 15 feet.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he felt 15 feet was too little, because he had seen other places where the Board had allowed very small front setbacks, and vehicles had to make turning motions by backing out into the right-of-way, and he did not feel that this was wise. He further stated that, on a portion of the lots where the applicant had agreed to a 50 foot setback, there would now be lots that were 30 feet deep. Commr. Swartz stated that it was inappropriate to calculate density by taking all of the other lands out and calculating the total density including the golf course. Commr. Swartz explained his estimated figures, which indicated that there would be over six dwelling units per acre on the residential portion.
Commr. Gerber explained that, after taking into consideration the information provided, she determined that there would be approximately 600 units, which would address the density issues and bring them to approximately 5.5 dwelling units per acre.
Commr. Swartz noted that, in subdivisions that were located in urban, urban expansion, and containing more than 200 dwelling units, the applicant shall make provisions for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Commr. Hanson stated that the arguable density, and whether you include the entire land, gets back to the whole concept of clustering on the project, which the PUD allowed you to do, and that was the incentive that the Board gave to be able to cluster the homes, and not to then consider the density on the remaining property.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if they clustered it with open space, he would agree with Commr. Hanson, but the applicant was not clustering it with open space, but was clustering it with the golf course.
Commr. Hanson stated that the total amount of property was being considered, and the homes were being put in more of a clustered situation, with them being spread throughout, even on the golf course. She stated that the key was to have a project that would be marketable to make it successful.
Discussion occurred regarding the letters that had been received and the concern being expressed about the density of the project.
Clarification was made as to the motion on the floor for a front setback of 15 feet for a maximum of 80 villas.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
The Chairman announced that the Board would take a short recess.
PETITION #16-95-4 A & LM to PUD Robert & Ollivene Sullivan
Discussion continued regarding the proposed changes, including the change on Page 3, B. 1. 25 percent or 75 acres.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following change to the Ordinance: A 25 foot buffer shall be provided along the surrounding development, except for in the northwest portion of development where a 50 foot buffer shall be provided abutting the LM zoned property.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved the following change to Page 3 of the Ordinance: B. 1. 25 percent or 75 acres.
Commr. Swartz voted "no".
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following change to Page 4 of the Ordinance: B. 1. - no front, side or rear yards to be included in the open space.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following change on Page 3 of the Ordinance: 200 foot buffer from the right-of-way for structures on Round Lake Road.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following change on Page 4 of the Ordinance: II, B. Utilities: The Development shall be served by the Mount Dora utility system, for water and waste water.
Commr. Swartz stated that, based on the comments from the City of Mount Dora, and on the comments of the adjacent property owner who had expressed the willingness to provide access, the Board should strike, under Transportation Improvements, the second sentence and make it absolutely clear that Robie Avenue was to serve as a second access point to the Planned PUD. He felt that the Board should be saying to the applicant that it was absolutely too dense; there were issues that have not been resolved; and all of the setbacks were going to impact significantly the number of units. He felt that the Board should send the request back to the developer with the idea that it was too dense; that issues like Robie Avenue needed to be addressed, if not through agreements, perhaps the language changed, so that there was no doubt that it would have to go in as part of the development, or it may go in based on a staff review that indicated that, before the third phase could commence, that improvement would have to go in.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that it may be that the buffers would be a part of the lot, but it may be that those buffered areas may not be included in any lot, and they might be common elements for stormwater retention, or types of purposes. There was no requirement that those buffers be on lots based on what had been approved by the Board at this time. He further noted that the applicant may not be able to get the maximum density that was allowed by the ordinance, but the number indicated for density was a maximum density that was allowed based upon the criteria of the ordinance.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve the following change to Page 5 of the Ordinance: III, Transportation Improvements: 1. Strike the second sentence and include "at the commencement of Phase III."
Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff noted that a change needed to be made to III, Transportation Improvements, to include the following: 3. When Robie Avenue becomes a second access, right and left turn lanes on U.S. 441 shall be required.
Commr. Cadwell included the wording presented by Mr. Minkoff as part of his motion, and Commr. Swartz accepted it in his second to the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to include language in B. that the Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis, if it be taken in lieu of the full Traffic Impact Analysis, would include requested information applicable to the specific and unique qualities of Round Lake Road.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to include language, as follows, in VI, A. of the Ordinance: to post a bond for the proposed improvements, with the quantity of the bond being such that it would cover the costs of putting the stormwater improvements in place.
Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff noted that this section was not really a waiver, because the County did not allow any subdivision plats to be recorded, until all of the public improvements serving the subdivision plat were in place, or were adequately secured by security.
After clarification of the language in VI, A., Commr. Good withdrew his motion, and Commr. Hanson withdrew her second to the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following change in the Ordinance: V, Fire Services Impact Fee, to include language for current impact fee per lot for fire services.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to reintroduce the language on Page 4 of the Ordinance, II Public Facilities, A. Storm Water, 4., and make it a part of the Ordinance.
Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request to rezone from Agricultural (A) and Light Manufacturing (LM) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance 1995-37, Tracking No. #24-95-PUD, Case #16-95-4, for Robert and Ollivene Sullivan, with the changes.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that, while the Comprehensive Plan would allow the density being proposed, it did not require that the density be this dense. He stated that most of the surrounding residential areas were not this dense, and the project was incompatible with the surrounding residential areas. The density, in terms of the actual land devoted to residential use, not even considering the additional reduction of land that had been put into buffers, was over six dwelling units per acre. All of what was being called open space was in the golf course, and it was 750 dwelling units and a golf course, which was too dense. He felt that the traffic considerations had not been sufficiently addressed, but would be dealt with a little bit better, and the area where the development would take place was still relatively rural, and he would oppose the motion. If the motion was defeated, he would like to see a motion to deny the request without prejudice and have the developer go back and try to bring in something that made a little more sense, from a density standpoint, and recognized the setbacks that had been agreed upon. Commr. Swartz stated that he would support such a motion. He stated that he did not agree with using all of the golf course to count as open space requirement.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt that the Board had done a good job tightening up some of the areas that were big concerns. The buffers would allow the surrounding areas to keep their character, and the market would decide the type of people who wanted to live in this community. He stated that the Board had made a better project out of what it had done today, and therefore, the Board should approve it.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was misleading to say that the project would result in six units to the acre, because it actually figured out to be about 2 1/2 units to the gross acre. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for four units to the gross acre, and she had concerns about what density would be worth Mount Dora's effort and finances to run utilities to the area. She stated that she was more comfortable knowing that the utilities would be provided.
Commr. Good stated that his greatest concern was transportation, which he felt had been made clear through changes to the language in the Ordinance. He stated that the project was located by the Wolfbranch Sink Preserve, and he had concerns about the stormwater, but he felt that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit would address them. He further stated that he was not comfortable including golf courses in the open space calculations, and he believed that the Board needed to address considering net acres, as opposed to gross acres, with the possibility that land uses do change. Commr. Good stated that the Board was abiding by a policy and a plan, which would influence his vote at this time.
Commr. Gerber stated that the Board was encouraging heavier densities as close as possible to the urban area, and it was as close as it could get to a city and was still in the County. She stated that the Board could not ask them to not have an economically viable use of their land. She felt that, if the Water Authority did not own the land to the north, she would be a little more inclined to have a problem with the open space, because she did not like the use of golf courses for open space. Commr. Gerber stated that she would adhere to her recommendation of 600 units, which would allow them to have an economically viable sub-development.
Commr. Hanson clarified that the original motion was to allow 750 units, with the changes made by the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board approved to amend the motion to include a change in the Ordinance, on Page 2, 1. A. 1. Number and Type of Residential Units, so that the use of the site shall be limited to that of 600 single family residential dwelling units to include the maximum of 80 golf course villas within the total maximum of 600 single family residential units.
Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "no".
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 1:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:30 p.m.
PETITION MSP#417E-3 Expansion of Existing Plant
Florida Rock Industries
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development and Regulation Services, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant was requesting a 300 acre expansion of an existing sand plant mining and processing for a total of 777 acres. He stated that the Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commission had recommended approval of the request with some minor changes to the existing site plan. He further stated that staff reviewed the request and recommended approval with conditions, as provided by the Environmental Management Division.
Mr. Allan Hewitt, Water Resources Specialist II, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Hewitt discussed the site plan and stated that Mr. Walter Wood, P.G. Supervisor, Water Resources Branch, agreed with all of the findings by Hartman and Associates. At this time, Mr. Hewitt reviewed the conditions, as outlined in the Technical Staff Report, and testified that there would be no adverse effects to both surface water and ground water. He further testified that the applicant was maintaining a buffer around Lake Melton, as required, and there was also a 500 foot buffer between the existing pit and Lake Melton. Mr. Hewitt testified that there was a 50 foot setback from the out parcel, as well as from C.R. 561, which was required under the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and there would be a 200 foot buffer on C.R. 448, as required by the MSP.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether anyone from staff had addressed the letter from Mr. Frank Scott Williams regarding the current mining operation, and whether or not there had been some encroachment into the setback area.
Mr. Hewitt explained that there had been a discussion about the situation alluded to by Mr. Williams, and staff had made recommendations to address the issue.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, in its backup material, the Board had Exhibit B, Mine Site Plan, which was prepared by Land Planning Group. He stated that the document had been filed at the P & Z Commission meeting, and he requested that the document be brought forward for discussion. He reviewed the site plan with the Board and stated the P & Z Commission had requested that the applicant be required to add the following as conditions: double the setback along the road and add a vegetative buffering of pine trees, and put in security fencing. Mr. Richey addressed the letter from Mr. Williams, who was representing Mr. Sidney Martin, and stated that Mr. Martin owned property on the north side of the present mine. He stated that the 200 feet of property was owned by Florida Rock, and it was vested as part of the mining operation, but the legal description had not been included in the CUP. He stated that there was an inconsistency between the vested rights and the CUP legals. He further stated that Lake County had given the applicant a vested right letter saying that it could mine the 200 feet, but it had not been included in the legal description of the CUP. Mr. Richey stated that the CUP required the applicant to maintain a 50 foot setback from the Industrial Park, which the applicant had done, but the mining had taken place within the 200 feet. He stated that the applicant was requesting that the 200 feet be brought under a Mining Site Plan (MSP), with a 50 foot buffer being maintained, and that a reclamation plan be performed on the 200 feet. Mr. Richey explained that the applicant had always maintained a 50 foot setback from property of others, but had infringed into the 200 feet. He stated that the applicant built a berm along the northern line, which was not required by the CUP, in addition to the 50 feet. He discussed the tailings pile and stated that the applicant's goal was to actively market it for beach restoration. Mr. Richey explained that there had been some concerns expressed by neighbors regarding additional traffic and that the request was to continue the life of an existing mine, with no additional traffic being anticipated. Mr. Richey noted that the CUP was valid and current for the current operation.
Discussion occurred regarding whether staff agreed that the applicant was in compliance with the original CUP, or the vested rights letter, and that there had been no violation to the conditions.
Mr. Hewitt explained that, in 1990 when staff made a vested rights determination on all of the mines in Lake County, because of the implementation of the new mining ordinance, all of the mines sent back their legal descriptions. The legal description received from Florida Rock Industries included the piece of property that it owned, but it was not included in the CUP, and after going through the necessary procedures, the applicant was back in compliance.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that, until the Board approved the mining site plan, the applicant was not in compliance, because it had actually mined an area inadvertently where it did not have a CUP to allow it to mine.
Mr. Richey explained that the applicant had mined property that was owned by the applicant, but was not contained in the CUP, and it had maintained the 50 foot setback, and by the action of the Board today, the applicant would be brought in compliance, and it would make everything consistent.
Mr. Richey stated that the applicant could not re-establish the 150 feet of material, but it could establish a reclamation plan, which would provide a slope from the 50 foot buffer, and it would continue to maintain the berm that was not required. Mr. Richey requested that his site plan be amended to include Exhibit B, Mine Site Plan, and as a condition of the site plan, require the trees along the roadway, and the security.
It was noted that language would be included in the Ordinance on Page 4, S. regarding the vegetative buffer consisting of pine trees.
Ms. Cheryl Eleanor, Biologist, Lang Planning Group, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Ms. Eleanor testified that she had conducted a review of the site for endangered species, and the only species found on site was the gopher tortoise. Ms. Eleanor stated that the tortoises would be relocated pursuant to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) requirements, to an improved off site location within Lake County. She explained that the determination of population had not been done for the preliminary environmental assessment, but would be done at the time of relocation. The tortoises were located west of C.R. 561 on the triangular piece of property in the abandoned citrus grove, and on the eight acre parcel. Ms. Eleanor explained that, according to the rules set by the FGFWFC, there were two options when gopher tortoises were located on property, to relocate the animals involved, or obtain a "take" permit.
Discussion occurred regarding the interpretation of the rules established by the FGFWFC.
Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Mr. Adams addressed the FGFWFC rules and stated that a developer had the option to relocate the animals, preserve property for them, or do a "take" permit.
Ms. Eleanor stated that it was Florida Rock's position that the tortoises would be relocated to an approved site, per the permit issued by the FGFWFC, and that the applicant would not be requesting a "take" permit for them.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, assuming the property could be identified, language could be included in the Ordinance to indicate this area would be reclaimed to meet the current mining reclamation standards.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to include language in the Ordinance, as outlined by Mr. Minkoff, as one of the conditions.
Under discussion, it was noted that the language would deal with the current reclamation standards for sloping plus the 50 feet.
It was noted that, in addition, the language would indicate that the applicant would be required to reclaim, pursuant to the current ordinance.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the following language in the Ordinance to 2. S.: that portion of buffer that was along C.R. 448 would have a 200 foot setback and the pine trees vegetative buffer would be based on four 8 x 8 rows of planting within those 200 feet.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to accept Exhibit B, as revised on 9/20/95, as part of the site plan.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good, to approve to add to the Ordinance the following language to 2. M.: pursuant to Land Development Regulations, (with the Section being noted), mitigation, relocation, or preservation based on the FGFWFC's recommendations.
Under discussion, Mr. Minkoff explained that the motion would be subject to change, because the FGFWFC always recommended preservation, although they would allow other types of relocation, and if they recommended preservation, they might also accept relocation. He stated that, if the amendment was to do what the FGFWFC recommended, rather than what it allowed under their rules, it could mean two different things.
Commr. Swartz amended his motion to replace the word "recommendations" with the word "guidelines", and Commr. Good amended his second to the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "no".
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for a 300 acre expansion of an existing sand plant mining and processing for a total of 777 acres, Ordinance 1995-38, as amended.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz requested that correspondence be prepared by Mr. Minkoff to be sent to Mr. Williams, or Mr. Martin, advising him of what had been included in the Ordinance.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK