The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 24, 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; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Commr. Gerber informed the Board that she would be bringing forward, under her Commissioner's Business, an item from the City of Tavares, with regard to a request for funding from the Sesquicentennial Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place on the Agenda, under Commissioner Gerber's business, a request for funding from the Sesquicentennial Committee.
MINUTES
Regarding the Minutes of June 8, 1995 (Special Meeting), Commr. Swartz requested the Senior Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Tim Hoban; the County Manager, Ms. Sue Whittle, if she had not already done so; and Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations, to review the Minutes, prior to the Board approving them, to make sure that no changes needed to be made, due to the nature of the meeting (David Bornstein Rezoning Case).
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone the Minutes of June 8, 1995 until a later date.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of September 26, 1995 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Community Services
Request from Community Services for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute the Certification of Acceptance of Lake County Middle School Dare and Operations Redirect.
Contracts, Leases and Agreements/Landfills/Solid Waste
Request from Solid Waste for approval to increase the scope of work for the Design/Build contract with Hunter-Nelson, Inc. to reroute electrical service for Life Station No. 1 (Ash Monofill), in order to construct the subject facility and provide an emergency power supply for Lift Station No. 1, in case of outages.
Solid Waste/Landfills
Request from Solid Waste for approval for Chairman to execute applications, forms, and documents necessary for the Lady Lake Landfill closure project.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PETITION NO. 802 - JOE J. SWIDERSKI - FRUITLAND PARK
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Mr. Joe Swiderski to vacate Tract "A", King's Cove Subdivision, Unit 7, Section 1, Township 19, Range 24, Fruitland Park area - Commissioner District 1. He stated that it was a postponement from last month, noting that there was a question as to who had legal access to Tract "B", in a previous plat area, and who had legal access to Tract "A", prior to this vacation. He stated that the County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, had reviewed all the plats pertaining to this request and rectified a problem that existed with said tracts.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reviewed with the Board what had transpired, up to this point, regarding this matter. He stated that he and Mr. Charles Sellar, Attorney, representing the Petitioner, Mr. Joe Swiderski, had reviewed the plat, with regard to King's Cove, First Addition, and both agreed that they could not conclusively give the opinion that anybody other than who owned the lot in that first addition was entitled to use Tract "B". He stated that it was their opinion that there was no evidence to show that the owners of any other subdivisions would be able to use said tract. He stated that Mr. Swiderski proposed giving the license for the legal description to the property in question and proposed a document (Irrevocable License) which would allow owners in all the King's Cove Subdivision the ability to use Tract "A", as well as a smaller parcel, which includes a dock.
Discussion occurred regarding the Irrevocable License and exactly what it provided for the residents of King's Cove.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that it could only be canceled for cause. He stated that staff would prefer a blanket easement that could never be canceled; however, Mr. Swiderski wanted to exert some control, to make sure that the area was properly used.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Kathy Moore, the daughter of the gentleman (Mr. Charles Moore) that owns the property next to the property in question, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the residents of King's Cove and King's Cove only would be allowed to use the boat ramp and docks.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, according to the proposed agreement, only those people who live in the seven (7) phases of King's Cove would be allowed to use the area.
Ms. Moore submitted, for the record, a brochure advertising King's Cove and four (4) pictures of the boat ramp near her father's home, for the Board's perusal, noting that it states in the brochure that each homesite has access to Lake Griffin and the Florida Chain of Lakes, with connecting waterways to the Atlantic Ocean and Silver Springs. She then reviewed the plat shown on the brochure that she submitted and answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the license in question was an irrevocable license and would grant to each of the lot owners in the seven phases access to the lake, through the site in question. He stated that the way the license is proposed the Moore's would not be able to access the water, however, they currently have the right to do so, through the public road. He stated that they are not allowed to access the ramps, because they are not on the road, but they do currently have access to the water.
Mr. Charles Sellar, Attorney, representing Mr. Swiderski, appeared before the Board stating that he had conferred with Mr. Neil Fischer, Realtor, and they were of the opinion that Mr. Swiderski was not going to be at the ramp in question checking off who comes and goes, etc. He stated that he might, from a personal standpoint, have some objection, noting that there had been some bad feelings in the past with the Moore family, but he felt, basically, he did not care if one more house uses the Grant of License or not. He stated that they would be glad to include the owners of the lots in question in the Grant of License. He stated that the reason the issue was brought up was because it states on the plat that the ramp in question is dedicated to the public, however, it states that Tract A is reserved for future development, which caused a conflict. He stated that, if that was the only problem, it could be readily resolved.
Reference was made to Section Eleven - Termination, of the Grant of License, which states, "This license shall be irrevocable and perpetual unless, in the reasoned opinion of licensor and not less than three active users of this license, a licensee has so continued to fail to comply with, or abide by, each and all of the provisions hereof, as to interfere with, or disturb, the reasonable use of this license by the other licensees."
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the Board was concerned about the revocation, the County could require that it be a permanent easement, given to all the residents in the subdivision, as well as to the other two parcels owned by the Moore family and then any termination would have to be done by a judge, in court. He stated that the County clearly takes the position that this is a public dedication.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt, if the Board approved the vacation, with the Grant of License before them, along with some language that would assure the Moore family of their ability to use the tract, also, he felt it would satisfy all the parties involved, yet still protect the residents of King's Cove and make sure that they have access.
Mr. Sellar stated that, as far as he was concerned and he felt Mr. Swiderski was concerned, he would be glad to eliminate Section Eleven - Termination altogether, or have it state, "This license shall be irrevocable and perpetual.", period, and let the residents seek their recourse in the Courts.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether it would run with the Moore family or with the land.
Mr. Sellar stated that it would run with whatever the Moore family's legal description is.
It was noted that, if the Moore family sold their land, it would go with the land.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 802, by Joe J. Swiderski, to vacate Tract "A", Kings Cove Subdivision, Unit 7, Section 1, Township 19, Range 24, Fruitland Park area - Commissioner District 1, with the acceptance of an Irrevocable License, excluding Section Eleven - Termination and including the parcels owned the Moore family, subject to review and approval by the County Attorney.
It was noted, for the record, that, should Mr. Moore sell his parcels in the future, anyone purchasing said parcels would have access to the ramp in question.
PUBLIC HEARING
PETITION NO. 803 - CHARLES SMITH - CLERMONT
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request by Mr. Charles Smith, to vacate a road (Canal Drive), Lancaster Beach, Section 8, Township 23, Range 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2. He reviewed an aerial indicating the area to be vacated and noted that his office had received two letters, as well as a phone call, from surrounding property owners, in opposition to the vacation.
Mr. Charles Smith, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that his house sits six inches from the property line (affecting the setback requirement from the lake) and is 48 years old and in need of repair. He stated that he wished to do some remodeling, however, did not want to do so, until he could take care of the setback issue. He noted that he currently takes care of all the property in question and that no one else uses said property.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about closing off the canal, in front of the property in question, to the other residents of the subdivision. He stated that he would not object to having a portion of the property vacated, giving Mr. Smith the property he needs to do the remodeling he would like to do, but yet provide some public access to the water.
Commr. Cadwell concurred, stating that the Board has always been hesitant about closing off access that provides people with an ability to get to a lake. He stated that, in this case, he was not sure that the general public would be served by a five foot stretch of easement to the lake.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, stated that the petitioner had a five foot setback; however, the County has a new Comprehensive Plan that requires a 50 foot setback to the water's edge. He stated that the County would have to ensure that the petitioner does not increase the size of his house to the point where it is any closer to the water's edge. He stated that, because of this fact, the petitioner would probably have to stay where he is, because he would not be able to meet the new setback requirement.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff investigate this case further and make sure they have correct information, regarding the setback issue, before the Board takes action regarding the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board postponed action regarding Road Vacation Petition No. 803, by Charles Smith, to vacate road (Canal Drive), Lancaster Beach, Section 8, Township 23, Range 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, until November 14, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., or soon thereafter.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONINGS
At this time the following staff members were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter:
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director, Public Services
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, Planning Department
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director, Planning and Development
Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning and Development
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, informed the Board that Tab 5 of the Rezoning Agenda, Petition No. CUP93A/9/1-2, Asphalt Pavers, Inc., had requested that their case be withdrawn until a later date.
PETITION NO. 50-95-5 - R-6 TO R-8 - JAMES C. FALCONER
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, appeared before the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-8 (Mixed Residential), for the placement of a mobile home on a parcel of property located in the Leesburg area. He stated that it is in the urban expansion land use plan category, which permits up to four dwelling units per acre. He noted, for the record, that the property in question was two tracts, described by metes and bounds, and would meet the requirements of two lots of record, if administratively requested, therefore, the rezoning could allow two mobile homes to be placed on the site. He stated that staff had reviewed the request and recommended denial, to rezone the parcel to R-8, based upon the fact of the mobile home count in the area in question. He stated that staff feels this is an inconsistent land use for the area and surrounding uses. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed it and approved the request, by a 5-4 vote, to R-8 (Mixed Residential), for the placement of the mobile home. He stated that there were no letters for or against the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ronald Coletti, representing the Petitioner, Mr. James C. Falconer, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He submitted, for the record, three (3) pictures (Petitioner's Exhibit A) of the site in question and stated that 20% of the area is comprised of mobile homes. He noted that the site built homes currently in the area are low-priced homes. He stated that the only use he saw for the area was for mobile homes. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel a mobile home would be detrimental to the area in question.
Commr. Gerber stated that she could not support the request, because of a similar situation occurring in her district, which she elaborated on.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt the County should reexamine the LDR that was driving this request, noting that there might need to be some other criteria that would provide for some leeway, when it does not meet the 51%, but where the immediate area adjacent to it does. He stated that he could not support this request and suggested that staff provide some language to deal with it and the Board could address the matter at a later date.
Commr. Hanson stated that, apparently, the area in question is a large rental area and a means of affordable housing, which complies with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-8 (Mixed Residential), for the placement of a mobile home on a parcel of property located in the Leesburg area.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz requested that, should the motion be defeated, it be denied without prejudice, so that, should the County change its LDRs to where this request would be allowed, they could bring the request back before the Board at a later date.
Commr. Good addressed some concerns he had about the matter and noted that he felt he could support this request, in light of the fact that the County is moving forward with the provisions of addressing the LDRs and looking at it from an affordable housing perspective.
Commr. Cadwell included in his motion the fact that the Board would reexamine the issue, in a timely manner, and that it include the Developer's Agreement, as recommended by staff.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 10 minute recess.
PETITION NO. 51-95-5 - R-6 TO R-8 - JESSE AND ELLEN PERRY
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-8 (Mobile or Mixed Residential), to place a mobile home on a one-half acre parcel in the Mt. Dora area. He stated that it is located in the urban expansion land use plan category, which permits up to seven dwelling units per acre. He stated that staff reviewed the request and recommended denial, based on the fact that there currently exists no R-8 zoning districts, nor mobile homes, in the area in question; therefore, the request may be considered inconsistent with the current development patterns of the area. He stated that the introduction of mobile homes into the residential area may not be considered an orderly and logical development pattern. He stated that staff did not want to prohibit mobile homes from the area, but did want to place restrictions on them, so that they would become compatible, which he elaborated on.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hanson stated that, knowing the area in question, she felt the mobile home would not be a detriment to it and noted that approval of the request would allow affordable housing.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to R-8 (Mixed Residential), for the placement of a mobile home on a parcel of property located in the Mt. Dora area.
Under discussion, Commr. Good questioned staff regarding the date of the aerial map, contained in the Board's backup material, and what type of zoning existed in the surrounding area.
Commr. Swartz suggested things that he felt should be taken into consideration, when considering such cases.
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, stated that, in the future, his office would take a video of areas in question, for the Board's perusal, in zoning cases.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff followed what was in the Code, which is what staff is supposed to do and videos may have only reinforced the idea that the Board needs to modify the LDRs, to provide for some flexibility.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt, if the Board changed the LDRs to consider those types of things, then at that point, the videos become real important. He stated that, with the rules that staff has to work under, he did not have a problem with staff's recommendation, but feels that the County needs to do some things differently, when looking at these types of sites.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not think a mobile home would be offensive to the area in question, or lower property values for anybody along Wolfbranch Road, or the subdivision located at the back of the area in question.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which failed, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Swartz, Gerber, and Good voted "No".
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved for the denial to be without prejudice.
PETITION NO. 53-95-5 - R-6 TO A - WALTER AND HILDA SUCKOW
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-5 (Medium Density Urban Residential) to A (Agriculture), for non-intensive agricultural uses and construction of a single family home, on a parcel of property in the Dona Vista area. He stated that it is in the rural land use plan category. He stated that staff recommended approval, noting that it is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations, and because it is in the rural land use plan designation. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed it and recommended approval, by a 9-0 vote.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Walter and Hilda Suckow, Petitioners, appeared before the Board stating that her client concurs with staff's recommendation. She stated that the mobile home and barn already exist on the property; however, the petitioners plan to build a conventional home and live in the mobile home while their conventional home is being built, during the next 6 to 12 months. She stated that the petitioners are trying to make their property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and allow them to engage in some agricultural uses on the property.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, 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 a request for rezoning from R-6 (Medium Density Urban Residential) to A (Agriculture), for non-intensive agricultural uses and construction of a single family home, on a parcel of property in the Dona Vista area.
PETITION NO. 54-95-2 - C-1 TO A - GERALD J. VELEZ
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for rezoning from C-1 (Community Commercial) to A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home, or conventional home, on a parcel of property near Groveland. He submitted, for the record, a picture (County Exhibit A) and an aerial map (County Exhibit B) of the site. He stated that the applicant wanted to put commercial on the property, however, the County would not allow him to do so, because the Comprehensive Plan would not allow it, so his request was before the Board this date, in an effort to try to make some use of his property. He stated that it was a Lot of Record, in the core conservation area, and, because of that fact, staff feels that the rezoning is consistent with that area. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote, and that staff had received no letters for or against the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Elaine Vick, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that the Petitioner, Mr. Velez, had a business on the property in question that burned down two years ago and, even though it was a non-conforming use, he could have rebuilt within the two year window, however, he chose not to do so and was unable to sell it. She stated that the area in question contains approximately 50% mobile homes and 50% conventional homes, so his request would not be inconsistent.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from C-1 (Community Commercial) to A (Agriculture), for the placement of a mobile home, or conventional home, on a parcel of property near Groveland.
PETITION NO. 82A-92-2 - AMENDMENT OF PUD ORD. 13-93 - ROBERT SECRIST, III, TITAN US 27
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request for an amendment of PUD Ordinance No. 13-93 (Karst Parcel a/k/a Westchester), to change the rear yard setback from 15 feet from the property line to 10 feet from the property line and delete the development phasing time frames. He stated that this request consisted of a 46 acre development in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern. He stated that staff reviewed the request and recommended approval. He stated that the Technical Review Committee reviewed it and had no objections, as well. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 9-0 vote.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Alan Carpenter, Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineering, Inc., representing the Petitioner, appeared before the Board to answer any questions there might be regarding this case and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that some of the property owners wanted to install screen porches on the rear of their homes, however, they would not fit within the current setback. He stated that they needed an additional five feet, thus, the reason for their requesting it. He stated that the buffer area would not be affected, noting that there was a 25 foot open space buffer behind the homes.
COMMISSIONERS
At this time, the Chairman, Commr. Gerber, turned the chairmanship over to the Vice Chairman, Commr. Good.
PETITION NO. 82A-92-2 - AMENDMENT OF PUD ORD. 13-93 - ROBERT SECRIST, III, TITAN US 27 (CONT'D.)
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations, stated that, if the developer was willing to go to 10 feet, for a rear setback, then he felt that is what the Board should consider.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for an amendment of PUD Ordinance No. 13-93 (Karst Parcel a/k/a Westchester), to change the rear yard setback from 15 feet from the property line to 10 feet from the property line and delete the development phasing time frames.
Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.
PETITION NO. 27-95-5 - R-1 TO CP WITH C-1 USES - DORENE FORREST
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request stating that it was a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses, to establish a convenience store and mini-storage building for RV and boat storage. He submitted, for the record, a picture (County Exhibit A) of the property in question. He stated that there had been some verbal correspondence between the applicant and staff and that they had changed their request to more of a general type store, where they would sell feed, fertilizer, etc., for their rural community, rather than a convenience store; however, staff still sees it as a convenience store. He stated that the property in question is a six acre parcel, located in the Emeralda Island area.
Mr. Stubbs stated that staff reviewed the request against the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and found that it does not meet the commercial location criteria, as established, therefore, have recommended denial to rezone it for said use. He stated that staff met with the applicant, at the urging of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who had denied the request, by a 3-6 vote, and suggested some changes to the application, so that a feed store could be considered at the location. He stated that staff recommended that the applicant make some changes to her site plan and application and noted that, since their meeting, the applicant had obtained numerous letters in favor of the request.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Dorene Forrest, Petitioner, and Ms. Donna Mangino, her partner, appeared before the Board and were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that they were present this date to amend their first request, which was for a convenience store, to a farm/feed general type store and that, since their first request was submitted, they had sent out approximately 225 petitions and had received 128 back, in favor of the request. She submitted, for the record, a binder (Applicant's Exhibit A) containing the 128 letters alluded to; 12 pictures (Applicant's Exhibit B) of the property and area in question; and an amended site plan (Applicant's Exhibit C), for the Board's perusal.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this was a case of staff denial, based on the County's LDRs, but, at some point, it makes more sense to approve than to deny and he felt that this case was probably one of those cases. He stated that what it does is eliminate Mom and Pop type stores. He stated that general stores have been a part of this County for a long time and noted that they are prosperous type businesses and he felt that the area in question would welcome something like this, once it is on the ground and the residents understand what the applicant is going to do. He stated that he intended to support the request.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt staff's recommendation of denial was correct, because the request would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that he felt, when the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the case, they reviewed it in that light and did not support it. He stated that he would not be able to support it, as well, because he felt that it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONERS
At this time, the Vice Chairman, Commr. Good, returned the chairmanship to the Chairman, Commr. Gerber.
PETITION NO. 27-95-5 - R-1 TO CP WITH C-1 USES - DORENE FORREST (CONT'D.)
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hanson to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses, based on the new site plan, as presented this date, and on the amended use, as noted, for a farm/feed general type store, rather than a convenience store.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt this type store would provide something for the community and keep people in the community.
Commr. Gerber addressed the issue of trip generation, noting that she felt it would help keep traffic off the roads. She stated that, even though this case involved another locational criteria situation, she was going to support the motion.
Commr. Hanson stated that the opposition was concerned about having a turning lane installed and, due to the fact that one would be installed, as well as the fact that she felt this type store fits the area, she felt it would be appropriate to approve the request.
Commr. Good stated that he liked the idea of community stores and that he had had a long standing problem with the way that the County cites commercial criteria and that the County is in the process of reviewing that, to allow for this type of community operation. He stated that there may be those who would argue that this request is a move in the direction of strip development, however, he feels that the indigenous characteristics of the community are such that that is not the case with this request. He stated that this request involves the citing of a community store that will meet community needs.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
PETITION NO. CUP93A/5/1-5 - AMEND CUP - ROBERT MAXWELL
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Mud Run Park, in Umatilla, to allow one national event to be held in 1995, for two days, on Saturday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, with racing prohibited after 10:00 p.m.; and on Sunday from 12:00 noon to 11:00 p.m., with racing prohibited after 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Stubbs stated that it was a 40 acre tract, off CR 439, in Umatilla, and that it was located in the rural land use plan category. He stated that staff reviewed the request and recommended denial of the amendment, based upon the fact that they feel it is inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. He stated that staff had reviewed the case, originally, and approved it, based on the fact that it would be more environmentally pleasing to the area, because there would not be vehicles running through the Ocala National Forest, they would all be in one location and create less havoc. He stated that the mud run has become more popular and the applicant would like to take it further, to the national event. He stated that staff now sees it as a commercial operation, that would not benefit anyone but the people that it serves, to further their hobbies.
Mr. Stubbs stated that staff recommended denial. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 5-4 vote, as amended, to amend the existing CUP, to allow a one-time only national event, for the two days alluded to and extending the hours. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had also recommended extending the hours in the morning, to allow the gates to open on Sunday at 8:00 a.m. He stated that there were 19 letters and one petition, containing 43 signatures, in opposition to the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bonnie Roof, Permits, Inc., appeared before the Board representing Mr. Robert Maxwell, Petitioner (property owner), and Mr. Don Channel, Agent/Operator, Mud Run Park, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she was present to request the Board to extend the hours of the already approved days in the original CUP, to allow the park to open until midnight on Saturday and no later than 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sunday. She stated that the facility can operate those two days under the existing CUP; however, they have an opportunity to host the first national event that opens the season for the Mud Racing Association, thus, the reason for the appearance before the Board this date.
Corporal Steve Allen, Florida Highway Patrol, who is hired independently by Mud Run Park, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he had been working with Mr. Channel for approximately three years, from the conception of the park, and that, at the beginning, there were a few problems with traffic, however, upon his recommendation, Mr. Channel moved the ticket booth inside the park, giving a stacking capability of 75 to 100 vehicles, which eliminated the traffic problem they were having on CR 439. He stated that they had additional parking at another entrance, giving them more stacking capability. He stated that he did not believe this event would cause any problems on the highways in the area, because of the stacking capability they now have, eliminating any backup on the highways. He stated that they have emergency entrances and exits from the Main Gate, as well, for fire, ambulance, police, etc. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Mr. Donald Channel, Agent/Operator, Mud Run Park, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter) stating that he was President of the North Lake County Four Wheel Drive Club. He stated that they had held a jamboree at the park and had had some problems with traffic, however, have since solved the problem. He stated that the County wanted him to install an access road to Mud Run Park, as an emergency lane, and that he had done so, noting that it cost him $12,000 to do it. He reviewed several pictures of the park, indicating what the race track looks like on a Sunday, when it is in operation, and the emergency lane he alluded to. He stated that they have not had any problems with the park, noting that it is a well maintained, well run operation. He stated that his presence at this meeting was to request the Board to grant him five hours on Sunday. He stated that it would be a one-time event.
Mr. Channel stated that he had had conversations with Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, and that Mr. Stubbs feels it is turning into a commercial operation and that they need to move it to a better location. He questioned where a better location would be than in the Ocala National Forest, which he elaborated on. He stated that, since the mud run has turned out to be so popular, they are looking at moving it to another location. He stated that they will decide, at a later date, where to build the facility, unless they can come to an agreement with the County and the residents of the area, to make it work where it presently is located. He then answered questions from the Board, regarding the park.
Ms. Roof, Permits, Inc., representing the petitioner, reappeared before the Board and addressed concerns they had about whether the runoff from the pits, containing oil and gas, runs into Blackwater Creek. She stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspects the park on a regular basis and tests the mud pits and that the runoff does not run into Blackwater Creek, that it is contained in the pit area. She stated that there is a liner under the mud pit that is similar to the liners that are used at the landfill. She stated that, when the mud becomes contaminated to a certain level, the EPA requires Mr. Channel to remove the mud from the pit, where it is sent to a recycling center and burned, and Mr. Channel has to replace the mud with new dirt, which she noted is an expensive thing to do.
Sergeant Cecil Garrett, Lake County Sheriff's Department, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter), representing Sheriff Knupp. He stated that the Sheriff wanted to bring to the attention of the Board the $50,000 that they allocated, to bring major sporting events to the County. He stated that Mr. Channel has a major sporting event in the mud run park. He stated that he and the Sheriff had been to the park, during its operation, and feel that it is something children can do with their parents and have a good time doing so.
Ms. Earline Locke, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that she lived approximately one and one-quarter miles from the park. She addressed some concerns she had about the park and how this event would affect the community and its roads. She questioned who the residents were to report violations to, due to the fact that County offices are not open on the weekend, during the runs, noting that the park is not in compliance with the land use plan and has not been in compliance with the existing CUP, during the two years that it has been in operation. She questioned what will happen in years to come, if this request is approved. She stated that she does not have anything against mud races and does not feel that any of the residents in the area do, however, does not feel that the site in question is the place for this type of event. She stated that this event is a national, professional event, not local, and she feels the traffic and noise is going to be terrible. She stated that the residents will be prisoners in their own homes, during the weekend that the event is held. She requested the Board to consider their complaints.
Mr. Otis Lee, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter), in opposition to the request. He stated that he was raised in the area, therefore, was familiar with the drainage in the area. He stated that the 40 acre parcel, containing the park, is in the middle of one of the prongs that drains into Blackwater Creek and Lake Norris and on into the Wekiva River and the St. Johns River and he was concerned about the pollution of same. He stated that he felt the CUP should be pulled and reexamined.
Mr. Mel Seaverson, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter), in opposition to the request. He stated that he felt a traffic study should be done and noted that he, as well as other residents of the area, were concerned about the noise that would be generated by the event, at which time he referred to Article II, of the County's Noise Control Ordinance, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that he had spoken with one of the sponsors of this event and noted that he was under the impression that this would be an annual affair. He stated that he was concerned about the liner, alluded to earlier, leaking and contaminating the surrounding area. He requested the Board to take another look at the CUP and shut down the park.
Mr. Ronald Southall, a resident of the area in question, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter), in opposition to the request. He stated that he had written a letter to the Board, regarding this event and the fact that he felt it would be disruptive to the community. He stated that he had never seen a drag strip, or race track, as close to a neighborhood as Mud Run Park is to his neighborhood. He addressed concerns he had about pollution, wildlife, and the fact that he felt the park was commercializing the area. He noted that he had mailed a petition to the Board, containing signatures of residents in the area, in opposition to this request. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
Ms. Roof reappeared before the Board and addressed some of the concerns that were noted by the various residents, as did Mr. Channel. He requested the Board to grant him permission to hold the national event.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell noted, for the record, that Mr. Otis Lee, one of the residents who appeared before the Board in opposition to this request, was his ex-father-in-law and a business partner of his, however, he did not have any interest in his property, which lies near the property in question. He stated that he had spoken with the County Attorney and that there should be no problem with his voting on the matter, noting that he would not benefit from it, one way or another.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not have a problem with the event, however, feels that the site in question is the wrong place for it. He stated that the Board had originally voted in favor of the park, because they felt it was a hobby, or family type thing; however, he now feels that it is growing outside that. He stated that he feels staff needs to look long and hard at the CUP and bring it back before the Board, at a later date. He stated that he felt a better location would be a CFD (Community Facility District) and that he would make a motion to deny the request and would hope that the Board would support the motion.
Commr. Hanson stated that her concern was that she did not feel the property, nor the roads in the area, could handle the 10,000 people that it is anticipated will attend the event. She stated that she was not opposed to the event, however, would not be able to support it, due to the concerns she noted.
Commr. Gerber concurred, noting that she, too, was concerned about the traffic situation and the property being able to handle the number of people that it is anticipated will attend the event.
Commr. Good stated that, after hearing all the comments, he felt the request was a substantial deviation from a local mud run park, which he felt was the intent of the original CUP. He stated that he also had some concerns about the infrastructure being insufficient and would not support the request for those reasons.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel the park was operating in compliance with the original CUP that was issued, noting that the CUP requires that two officers be present, at all times, however, from the testimony given by Corporal Steve Allen, with the Florida Highway Patrol, that is not always the case. He stated that a traffic study was to be done, however, from what he understands, one has not been done, to date, and the facility has been in operation for over two years. He stated that the development review indicated that a formal site plan be submitted and approved by the Lake County Technical Review Committee, however, to his knowledge, that had not been complied with, as well. He stated that this request was an example of a development review that, both at staff level and at the Board level, sufficient review of all the impacts were not completed. He stated that he did not support changing the hours of operation and that, until the CUP is in compliance, he would not vote in favor of the request. He addressed the issue of noise, noting that the CUP does not contain anything that addresses noise, however, he would hope that staff would look at whether or not the CUP is in compliance. He stated that, if it is, then it should operate within the guidelines of the CUP, as it exists today.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied a request to amend the CUP, to allow one national event to be held in 1995, for two days, on Saturday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, with racing prohibited after 10:00 p.m.; and on Sunday from 12:00 noon to 11:00 p.m., with racing prohibited after 10:00 p.m., with direction to staff to review the current CUP, take appropriate action, and report same back to the Board, at a later date, and to assist the applicant in any way they could, in finding another site.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 1:00 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
PETITION NO. 55-95-2 - AMEND MP ORDINANCE NO. 2-93 - DAVID M. AND SUSAN MCLAIN
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, explained this request, stating that it was a request to amend MP (Planned Industrial) Ordinance No. 2-93, to add specific uses related to organic pesticides and the operation of a food waste pelletizing business, to include: warehouse organic insecticides, distribute organic insecticides, dehydrate food stuffs, and blend food components. He stated that it was, essentially, a recycling operation for food. He stated that it is currently zoned MP (Planned Industrial), which he noted is limited to the manufacturing and assembling of wooden fences.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the operation is located on a 13 acre parcel in south Lake County, accessing Hwy. 27. He stated that there are currently three warehouses on the site. He stated that it is in the employment center land use category. He stated that staff reviewed the request and recommended approval, with conditions, as noted in the ordinance, contained in the Board's backup material. He stated that staff feels the request is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. He stated that a lot of investigation had been done, at staff level, before bringing this request before the Board. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 8-0 vote, as amended, to add specific uses related to the organic pesticides and the operation of a food waste pelletizing business.
Mr. Stubbs reviewed the conditions that had been placed on the operation and noted that Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, traveled to Louisville, Kentucky and met, with his family, Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, along with the applicants, and toured the facility. He noted that a video had been taken of Mr. Barker's tour, which would be shown to the Board later during the meeting. He stated that staff had concerns about the operation, until Mr. Barker's tour, which allayed a lot of their concerns. He further elaborated on the operation and noted that he had raised concerns, early on, about the potential for odors, however, was informed that the odors would be similar to those odors emitted from a restaurant.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator for Lake County, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he got involved in this case, because it had the potential of creating 20 jobs for Lake County. He stated that it was felt the site in question was a good site for this type of operation.
Mr. David Crowe, Acting Director, Solid Waste Management Services, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that he had the opportunity to meet with the operators of the facility in question and that some concerns he had were addressed, one being the potential loss of any tonnage going to the waste-to-energy plant. He stated that he was informed that the applicant is looking at targeting the larger chain restaurants and noted that the tonnage the County gets from them is relatively minimum. He stated that another concern he had was the fact that the nature of the waste is extremely high in moisture, which is a detriment to the waste-to-energy plant, which he elaborated on. He stated that the Solid Waste Department sees the operation as a worthy project.
Ms. Susan Strum, Planner III, Planning Department, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter) stating that staff visited the facility in question and understand that it is going to be wholly contained within the existing warehouse and that any modifications to the stormwater drainage would have to be reviewed with the Public Services Department.
At this time, a memorandum (County Exhibit A) from Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, regarding his visit to the site in Louisville, Kentucky and what he found at the site was submitted, for the record.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that the parcel of property in question was zoned MP (Planned Industrial) and currently has two uses approved for it. He stated that it originally had caterpillar sales, service, and maintenance on it and was then amended to have the ability to build wooden fences, so the underlying ordinance was amended to add another use, but the first ordinance, which he represented, was for caterpillar repair, tractor repair, sales and service. He stated that that use was never put in, but was also an approved use, in addition to the wooden fences.
Mr. Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, interjected that staff thought said use was repealed, however, discovered that it still exists.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, stated that he had suggested to staff to delete those uses other than the uses the applicant was proposing; however, staff indicated that they did not want to do that, they wanted to leave as many uses in place as possible. He stated that the Board had in their backup material an explanation of the process, for their perusal.
At this time, those individuals who would be testifying for Mr. Richey were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
Mr. John LaFollette, Organic Solutions, Petitioner, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter) and answered questions from Mr. Richey, Attorney, regarding the operation and an aerial that was taken of the property in question. He reviewed a chart (on display) indicating how the system works. He noted that his firm has been working on this project, with the University of Florida, for almost three years and that the USDA had given his firm a waiver to do the process, for the whole United States. He stated that they were very excited about the process, at which time he answered questions from the Board regarding same.
At this time, Mr. Richey submitted, for the record, the following: a packet containing salad bar waste (Exhibit A); a packet containing raw taco product (Exhibit B); a packet containing pelletized taco product (Exhibit C); and the video alluded to earlier, in which Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services, toured the plant in Louisville, Kentucky, which is very similar to the plant that will be located in south Lake County, to see how the operation would run, which he reviewed with the Board and answered questions regarding same.
Commr. Good addressed a concern he had about the proposed truck route to and from the facility and the school bus stops along said route and a possible provision in the ordinance preventing the truck traffic from coinciding with the school bus runs.
Mr. Wes Barnett, Organic Solutions, Petitioner, appeared before the Board (previously sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter) and answered questions regarding how the food product is processed and sterilized.
Commr. Good addressed a concern he had about the use of the word "organic", in addressing the issue of insecticides, at which time he gave two definitions of same. He stated that the Board needed to decide which definition they would use, as it relates to the warehouse, because there could be a variety of differences in the kinds of compounds that one could get.
Mr. Barnett noted that his firm would not be opposed to striking the word "organic", because they recognize the fact that in some states they are not considered 100% organic.
Ms. MaryAnn Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Public Services, and Mr. Mike Brooks, Road Operations Division Director, Public Services, appeared before the Board and were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. They answered questions from the Board regarding the condition of the road, from Hwy. 27 to the property in question, and whether it was a county maintained road all the way to the entrance of the property.
Mr. Brooks stated that the road in question was 20 feet in width and that he felt it could handle the anticipated traffic going in and out of the plant. He noted that the road was a county maintained road.
Ms. Bardon noted that, if there is a cross access for the median opening on Hwy. 27, when that study is completed, there is a possibility that the median opening might be closed and that she felt the developer should know that that is a possibility.
Ms. Norma Manguel, representing a property owner in the area in question, appeared before the Board, in opposition to the request, and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. She stated that there were two issues that needed to be addressed, being (1) the fact of whether one wanted to use Lake County as an extension site for furthering the knowledge of organic recycling and (2) to find out the potential hazards, or impacts, that could take place at the site, at the expense of Lake County citizens. She questioned whether the County had all the answers they needed, regarding the matter. She addressed the issue of the road and whether it would be able to handle the truck traffic going in and out of the facility; how many machines the plant will be allowed to have; and the issue of odors that will be emitted from the plant. She stated that these were questions that were not totally answered and needed to be. She then answered questions from Mr. Richey regarding the case.
Mr. Marvin Taylor, a property owner in the area in question, appeared before the Board and was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter. He stated that no one, this date, had addressed the concerns of the surrounding property owners, such as the influx of traffic going through their neighborhood; what impact the odor from the plant is going to have on the residents of the neighborhood; and the potential of water pollution, therefore, requested that the Board postpone action regarding this request until all the facts are in and those concerns are met. He stated that, even though the property in question is zoned industrial, he did not think the facility was compatible with the surrounding area, which is zoned agricultural. He stated that the residents are concerned about the safety of their children, with the proposed influx of heavy trucks going in and out of the facility. He noted that he had submitted a letter to the Board (contained in their backup material) indicating his concerns.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that, on Page 5 of the Staff Report, under Conditions, it states that access to the facility shall be via North Libby Road only and that, on Page 4 of said report, it states that the County's Environmental Management Services Department will be doing six month and one year reviews of the operation plans and six month and annual reports the first year and subsequent annual reports of the operation and facility maintenance, after that.
Commr. Good stated that, if the Board approved this request, he would like to see the entrance to the facility moved further down the road than it presently is, away from the school bus stops.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, stated that the applicant would work with the Department of Public Services and the Lake County School Board to minimize any conflict with the school bus stops and, if that means realigning the entrance to the facility, they will work to do so.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the hours of operation, at which time Mr. Richey stated that, if the Board limits the hours of operation, then it will keep the trucks from picking up the fresh food product and delivering it to the facility, which would defeat the whole purpose of the facility.
Commr. Swartz stated that the facility is going to have to retrofit the current site to meet all the new stormwater standards, which means that the water quality of the nearby lake is going to have to be improved and a waste treatment and disposal plan will have to be submitted and approved by the County's staff, prior to the final development order, so the facility will not be able to have any type of waste treatment disposal that can, in any way, negatively impact groundwater or surface water. He stated that there were some other things that needed to be addressed, as well, before the facility could begin operation.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Discussion continued regarding various issues of concern, with regard to this request.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to have staff initiate discussions with the School Board, to try to relocate the bus stop located at the entrance to the plant to what would be a safer location and, if staff fails to convince the School Board to relocate said bus stop, that the applicant be required to move his access from that location westward, away from the bus stop.
Commr. Good stated that, in the ordinance, it requires the operational plan to be submitted, for review, and noted that he would like said plan to address, specifically, the volume of traffic that would be going in and out of the plant. He stated that, in general, it was stated that it would be four or five trucks per week and he felt that it needed to be specifically addressed in the operational plan, as well.
Discussion occurred regarding the issue of odors, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the operational plan needed to contain language that makes it clear that the impact of noise and odor will be contained within the existing structures, which he elaborated on.
Commr. Good stated that he would like for the ordinance to reflect that the Board is acknowledging the fact that the use of the word "organic" means products that are not petroleum derivatives, because that would open the door to billions of products.
It was noted that the County Attorney, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, would assure that said language is contained within the ordinance.
Commr. Swartz requested clarification regarding Page 5 of the ordinance, regarding the Standards of Operation, noting that it states that the operation shall be limited to one plant, encompassing one operation, however, clarified that it is the intention of the facility to have two lines. He stated that he felt the ordinance should state that there will be no more than two operating and processing lines.
A motion was made by Commr. Good and seconded by Commr. Hanson to upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a request to amend MP Ordinance No. 2-92, to add specific uses related to organic pesticides and the operation of food waste pelletizing, including warehouse organic insecticides, distributing organic insecticides, dehydrating of food stuffs, and blending of food components, with the following conditions:
1. Submittal, review, and approval of operation plan.
2. Submittal, review, and approval of equipment and waste treatment disposal evaluations.
3. Site must be retrofitted to current stormwater standards.
4. Deletion of composting and fermentation uses in the request.
5. Six (6) month and one year reviews of the operation plans.
6. Six month and annual reports the first year and
subsequent annual reports of the operation and facility
maintenance.
7. Rodent and fly monitoring plan.
8. Insecticide management plan.
9. Inspections by Environmental Management Division, with enforcement through the Environmental Protection Board, with a $500.00 annual inspection fee.
10. Access via North Libby Road only.
11. Amendment of only the previous MP zoning and not creating 60 acres of MP zoning.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated, for the record, that Lake County has a reputation of being environmentally conscious and concerned and with that, she feels the County is going to continue to attract businesses that deal with recycling and environmentally related businesses. She stated that she felt this facility could work out very good for Lake County and that she hoped, with the regulations and restrictions in place, it will be sensitive to the property owners around it. She stated that she felt it was definitely an environmental business.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
OTHER BUSINESS
ASSESSMENTS/LEGISLATION
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to support legislation which would enact partial year ad valorem tax assessments.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/STATE AGENCIES/ZONING
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, had provided each of them with a copy of the Arbitrator's Order which the County had received from the State approximately one week ago, concerning the Department of Community Affairs' appeal of the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact. He stated that one or more of the Commissioners had discussed with him the impacts on the County and whether or not this project would go forward and what the County's position would be towards it going forward. He stated that, upon reviewing the file, he discovered that what was actually appealed was a Development Order that the Board had approved, therefore, in the Administrative Hearing, the County was lined up with the property owner/developer and not with the people who were appealing. He requested direction from the Board, regarding the matter. He stated that some minor changes had been made to the Development Order, at the request of the Department of Community Affairs, and, if the County did nothing, said order would likely become valid and authorize the DRI (Development of Regional Impact).
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz suggested that the County Attorney look into the matter and bring back to the Board what, if any, alternatives exist, should the Board decide to take any action and what risks may be entailed in taking any action, or no action, before the Board proceeds with the matter.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board directed the County Attorney to review the matter of the Arbitrator's Order, concerning the Department of Community Affairs' Appeal of the Sugarloaf Mountain Development of Regional Impact, and bring back to the Board, at a later date, what alternatives exist, if any, should the Board decide to take any action and what risks may be entailed in taking said action, or no action, regarding the matter.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
OTHER BUSINESS
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 1995-207, retroactive to October 17, 1995, which proclaimed the period of October 15-22, 1995 as Business and Professional Women's Club Week in Lake County.
REPORTS (CONT'D.)
COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
MEETINGS/MUNICIPALITIES
Commr. Gerber informed the Board, for informational purposes, that the meeting in Fruitland Park, scheduled for November 8, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., had turned into a Townhall Meeting, therefore, the Commissioners would need to be present.
COMMITTEES/FUNDS
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Lake County Sesquicentennial Committee for funding, in the amount of $1,060.00.
COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS
Commr. Gerber informed the Board, for informational purposes, that Mr. Karl Kehde, Director, LUFNET, Inc. (Land Use Forum Network), was going to be available to speak with the Commissioners, individually, and she needed to know which dates would be best for the Commissioners to meet with him.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was determined that a meeting would be scheduled for Monday, December 4, 1995, with Mr. Kehde, to develop a master plan for the Hwys. 19/27 corridor.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 4:35 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the remainder of the meeting, due to another commitment.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
This was the first public hearing, with regard to the Ordinance Amending the Lake County Land Development Regulations; Providing for Amendments to Chapter II, Definitions - Selected Definitions Relating to Floodplain Management; and Chapter IX, Development Design and Improvement Standards - Sections 9.07.00 - 9.07.08, Requiring Flood Studies, Allowing Fill in Floodplain, and Providing FEMA Map Amendment Requirements.
Ms. Lora Bailey, Engineer III, Public Services, appeared before the Board and distributed a handout containing three major changes to the Definitions that go along with the Floodplain Management Regulations, contained in Chapter 9.07.00 through 9.07.08 of the LDRs, which she reviewed with the Board, as follows:
1. Minimal fill allowed in the floodplain for legally created lots, found in Section 9.07.08A.3., on Page IX-7 of Exhibit B, contained in the Board's backup material.
2. Detailed flood studies required to establish base flood elevations (BFEs) when development affects more than five acres or more than 50 lots (whichever is less) in unnumbered A-Zones, found in Section 9.07.08D.6., on Page IX-17 of Exhibit B, contained in the Board's backup material.
3. Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) required for developments that alter the floodplain boundary, found in Section 9.07.08D.8., on Page IX-17 of Exhibit B, contained in the Board's backup material.
Considerable discussion occurred regarding the 100 year flood plain and what is and is not allowed to be developed in said plain.
Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained the theory behind the 100 year floodplain.
Commr. Swartz suggested that staff look at what alternatives there are, other than just going into the 100 year floodplain and building in the normal way, so that, if one is not doing conservation, or passive recreation, there may be existing lots, or development, that one would get more latitude, but, on new development, one would need to raise the elevation of the building on stilts and perhaps allow non-pervious parking, so that one could still use the property, but would be reducing the amount of fill in the floodplain.
Discussion occurred regarding the language contained in Paragraph D, on Page IX-16, and in Paragraph 9. a., on Page IX-12, at which time it was determined that said language needed to be corrected.
At this time, Ms. Bailey noted corrections that would be made to the LDRs, as follows:
. On Page IX-10, the double set of letters g. and h. will be relettered to read g., h., i., j.
. On Page IX-11, the letters i. through l. will be relettered to read k. through n.
. On Page IX-12, the letters m. through q. will be relettered to read o. through s.
. On Page IX-11, under j. (corrected to l.), the language "paragraph C.2." will be corrected to read "paragraph 9.07.08C.3."
. On Page IX-11, under k. (corrected to m.), the language "paragraph C.2. above" will be corrected to read "paragraph 9.07.08C.3."
. On Page IX-12, Item a., under Paragraph 9, will be deleted, due to the fact that it is a duplication, and b. will then become a., etc.
. On Page IX-15, in Paragraphs B. and C., the word individual will be added after the word "to" and before the word "single".
. On Page IX-16, in Paragraph D, the word individual will be added after the word "to" and before the word "single".
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted, for the record, that under the Definitions section, staff needs to add a note to make it clear that only those definitions that were listed were affected and that, because all the other definitions were neglected to be listed, the Board has not repealed them.
Ms. Bailey informed the Board, for informational purposes, that she was working on an open space floodplain map with the Lake County Water Authority and that 34% of the land in Lake County is lumped into the 100 year floodplain category.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz referred to Paragraphs F. and G., on Page IX-5, noting that in Paragraph F. it states, "For single family residential structures, record the certification of the actual elevation...", however, in Paragraph G., it states, "For other than single family residential structures, record the certification of adherence to flood-proofing standards and the actual elevation..." and questioned why they did not both require the same thing.
Ms. Bailey stated that it was due to the fact that the language "other than individual single family" has the option to deflect proofing, based on the FEMA authorization. She noted that that cannot be done for residential.
Commr. Good referred to Page IX-8, Item g., and questioned why it requires that all fuel oil, propane, or other fuel storage tanks shall be anchored to prevent flotation. He suggested raising the tanks above the floodplain, on legs, and anchoring them down, so that none are floating.
Discussion occurred regarding the matter, however, no changes were made at this time.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
It was noted that the next public hearing for the adoption of the ordinance amending the LDRs was scheduled for November 7, 1995, at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, commended staff on doing such a fine job, nothing that they had written the LDRs with an Appendix, however, at his recommendation, they eliminated the Appendix and put everything back in the ordinance, to make it easier for people to find. He stated that it was difficult for them to have to redo it all, but they did and did a good job.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the changes, as outlined this date by staff, in the Lake County Land Development Regulations, with regard to the Ordinance Amending the Lake County Land Development Regulations; Providing for Amendments to Chapter II, Definitions - Selected Definitions Relating to Floodplain Management; and Chapter IX, Development Design and Improvement Standards - Sections 9.07.00 - 9.07.08, Requiring Flood Studies, Allowing Fill in Floodplain, and Providing FEMA Map Amendment Requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
This was the first public hearing, with regard to the Ordinance Amending the Lake County Land Development Regulations; Providing for Amendments to Chapter XIV, Administration - Section 14.10.05 Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to May 14, 1995, Granting an Additional Three (3) Months Extension to Complete Lot Splits Already in Progress.
Ms. Lora Bailey, Engineer III, Public Services, informed the Board that this request was in response to previous Board action that was taken on October 1, 1995. She stated that the Development Regulation Services department had asked for approval to proceed forward with an LDR amendment, to provide an additional 90 days for the processing of over 120 existing lot split applications. She stated that they anticipated, at that time, that 90 days would allow staff and the applicants sufficient time to complete the process. She stated that Exhibit A (contained in the Board's backup material) grants the additional
three months. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved to extend the time frame to six months, rather than 90 days.
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, appeared before the Board stating that there were approximately 220 applications pending, at this time, with 785 lots left to be completed. He stated that it took staff two years to process 254 applications, under the current lot split process. He stated that they had been expediting them, but the surveyors are having a difficult time trying to get everything done. He stated that he did not know how they would be done in 90 days, but, he did not know if the Board would be receptive to granting an extension. He stated that 170 of the 220 applications still have not submitted surveys and 140 of them still have to do wetlands jurisdictional line staking. He suggested that, if the Board ties the completion to a time frame, to not tie it to the time frame of completion, but the time frame that they get everything to staff, so that they can complete it. He stated that, if the request before the Board this date does not pass, there will be approximately 200 applications that will die, thus, the reason they are before the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding what is actually required by the applicant to complete the application.
It was noted that, at this point in time, November 4, 1995 is the drop-dead date.
Commr. Hanson suggested giving the applicants six months to get their survey in and then 90 days beyond that to have it completed. She stated that she felt that would be a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Stubbs stated that the County was going to have to do something, at staff level, to push the applicants along and that the Board would need to give staff the ability to give them deadlines for receiving information.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that one of the problems with the language that is written is that it would require all 200 of the applicants to come in and get the extension and would require staff to determine whether they were continuing in good faith, so staff would be spending time looking at the applications, just to make that decision, and not making the decision on whether they should get their lot split.
It was noted that the language "continuing in good faith" was being deleted, because it would only make the situation worse.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, appeared before the Board and questioned whether the applications had to be recorded within 90 days, noting that she had three or four applications that she had been waiting for approximately two months to have recorded and she had met all the submittal requirements. She noted that she was told that the delay was caused from waiting for concurrency to be signed off on.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel the deadline should include the recording time frame, because that was something that was beyond the applicant's ability, noting that the applicant has no control over that.
Mr. Gary Muller, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating that the five main issues involved would be (1) the surveys, on any environmental issues; (2) aprons; (3) the dedication of rights-of-way; (4) the dedication of a non-exclusive easement; and (5) deed restrictions forms. He stated that, when the applicant has submitted all of the above, the only thing that would be pending would be concurrency, which the applicant has no control over. He stated that, as long as he has the application and a letter from the city, it is in-house, and the applicant would not have to wait for concurrency.
Mr. John Weatherford, a developer, appeared before the Board stating that he had a number of applications and feels that staff has worked very diligently in trying to process them, noting that the work load has been a title wave. He stated that the problem, in the past month, has been with the rain, noting that the surveyors have not been able to do the surveys. He stated that, by the Board granting the six month extension, for the applicants to get what they have to provide to the County in, would be somewhat workable. He stated that he felt he could get the majority of his applications completed by the end of the year, without a problem.
Mr. Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested extending the date to a time that the Board is comfortable with and let that be it, whether it is three months, six months, or nine months. He suggested changing the six month requirement, in the ordinance, to 15 months and then leaving the additional three months for good faith determinations, noting that he felt that might solve the problem. He stated that there would be a true drop-dead date, unless the applicant could show that he/she was continuing in good faith and were not able to finish their application, at which time he/she would be extended an additional three months.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to change the six month requirement, in the Ordinance Amending the Lake County Land Development Regulations; Providing for Amendments to Chapter XIV, Administration - Section 14.10.05 Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to May 14, 1995, Granting an Additional Three (3) Months Extension to Complete Lot Splits Already in Progress, to 15 months and then allowing the additional three months for good faith determinations.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
_______________________________
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/10-24-95/12-15-95/boardmin