The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Robert A. Pool, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager; Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
MEETINGS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager, stated that he will have a report and a recommendation on the holiday issue, which will take Board action.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place the item regarding the holidays on the agenda.
RESOLUTIONS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Commr. Hanson stated that she has a Resolution before the Board, that was intended to be presented for a vote from the Board, to investigate the possibility of purchasing Sugarloaf. She explained that the Governor's Office had called yesterday to find out if the Board supported it, and therefore, the Board needs to have a resolution. She asked that this item be placed on the agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board placed the item regarding a resolution pertaining to Sugarloaf on the agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager's Consent Agenda, Tab 1, as follows:
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request from Public Works to approve to accept the following:
Drainage Easement
Chester C. Fosgate Company, N. Hancock Rd. 2-1354, Road Project
Chester C. Fosgate Company, N. Hancock Rd. 2-1354, Road Project
Non-Exclusive Easement Deed
Usmani Family, LLC, Citrus Tower Blvd., Road Project
Statutory Quitclaim Deed
Edwin and Joyce Knoll, South Blvd., Deerhaven Rd. Proj.
Statutory Warranty Deed
Theodore and Elizabeth Dippy, C-561 Curve Improv., Road Project
Usmani Family, LLC, Citrus Tower Blvd., Road Project
Donald and Sandra White, Double Run Rd., 3-2745, Road Project
Chester C. Fosgate Company, N. Hancock Rd., 2-1354, Road Project
Chester C. Fosgate Company, N. Hancock Rd., 2-1354, Road Project
Temp. Construction/Perpetual Grading Easement
Chester C. Fosgate Company, N. Hancock Rd., 2-1354, Road Project
Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deed
Usmani Family, LLC, Citrus Tower Blvd., Road Project
James and Susan Gant, Lake Emma Rd., 2-2119, Road Project
Lowrie W. Brown, Lake Emma Rd., 2-2119, Road Project
RESOLUTIONS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to discuss the proposed resolution regarding Sugarloaf at this time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that there is an ongoing lawsuit regarding the Sugarloaf development, the Board had a closed session on the issue, and he was of the understanding that this information is still closed. In regards to the resolution being proposed, Commr. Cadwell stated that he is concerned about the wording, because it says "including the possibility of purchase of the property". He stated that, outside of that possibility, he would not be interested in negotiating other points with them.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would be fine with just including the language regarding support of the purchase of the property.
After some discussion, Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, suggested the following language: "subject to the administrative appeal through the possibility of the purchase of the property."
Commr. Cadwell stated that he agreed with what Commr. Hanson was trying to do, but he did not want to give any appearance that the Board is negotiating anything else.
Commr. Pool stated that there had been the presentation by the Trust for Public Lands, and he did not know if there were dollars available through Preservation 2000, or the Trust for Public Lands, or somewhere else, and he did not know if the Board was going to have dollars in their budget to take care of this purchase.
Commr. Hanson felt that the language should read "investigating the possibilities and multiple sources."
Commr. Hill stated that she felt totally uncomfortable with all of it considering that none of the public, or the voters, or Lake County has indicated that they want the Board to pursue this possibility, and it has never been discussed openly, and the money is a major issue.
Commr. Pool stated that this was the reason he was bringing up the issue of whether the Trust for Public Lands or Preservation 2000 might have the money, but not for the Board of County Commissioners to fund, or decide to purchase, but to merely say that it explores the opportunity.
Commr. Hill stated that she felt that the Board was sidestepping the issue, because the Trust for Public Lands could buy it, but she was of the understanding that the Board would buy it back from them, and she questioned whether this was a possibility.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was her understanding that the Trust for Public Lands has other funds that they would leverage and pull together for the purchase, but the question to the Board is whether they are supportive because they have not had a public meeting to discuss it as a Board.
Commr. Hill thought that the Board had a document that said they are not to negotiate this with the Governor's Office, which was filed by Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the document was in terms of negotiating with the individual Cabinet members. He felt that Commr. Hanson was anticipating that the question may be asked would the County be interested in buying this land or trying to figure a way to buy this land, and she is wanting to be able to say yes, they would be interested in investigating the ability to do that. He stated that there could be a contract with the Trust for Public Lands, or grant applications with Preservation 2000, or legislative acts, but there would have to be further steps that the Board would take before the Board would obligate funds.
Commr. Hill stated that this seems like the eleventh hour negotiations, when the Board has had months to negotiate.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about the language pertaining to negotiation and suggested taking that part out of the resolution.
Commr. Pool stated that he would not say that the Board is out to purchase this property but that the Board would not be opposed to some opportunity for some Trust for Public Lands, or Preservation 2000 money to buy that land, if they wanted to do that, but he is not going to put up taxpayer dollars to buy that property.
Commr. Hill stated that this Board sitting here today has not had the opportunity to negotiate or discuss this as a Board, and Commr. Stivender was not here for the Trust for Public Lands presentation. She feels that the issue is in litigation now, it should be left on that course, and after litigation, they can decide if they are going to negotiate as a Board.
Ms. Fuchs stated that, in regards to the resolution, there is alternative language that the Board could use such as "the Board of County Commissioners desires to explore the possibility of purchasing the property or the purchase by other agencies such as the Trust for Public Lands, Preservation 2000, or other state or federal funds."
Commr. Pool stated that he would like to see other language, because he agrees with Commr. Hill that the Board should not be out there negotiating the purchase of the property but, in the event there are opportunities for someone else to come forward that would want to purchase this land to keep it in the public sector at some point in time, he would support that possibility.
In regards to the question presented by Commr. Cadwell about what happens after the appeal to the Governor and the Cabinet, Ms. Fuchs explained that there are still time periods to appeal the decision, so if they were not to succeed, they could appeal that decision.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the resolution can be worded so that everyone will be comfortable that the Board is not doing anything other than saying that, if there are organizations out there that are interested in this land, the Board will support them buying it.
Commr. Hill stated that she would agree with that wording, as long as there is not a buy back by the County.
After further discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that the Board would table the resolution, until language could be developed by the legal staff and brought back to the Board.
REZONING
LPA#01/9/4-2 - W. T. COX - STEVEN J. RICHEY, PA -
TRACKING #124-01-LPA
LPA#01/9/6-2 - THE GOLDEN FLEECE - STEVEN J. RICHEY, PA -
TRACKING #126-01-LPA
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that staff has two requests for a 30 day continuance from the applicant in Tabs 9 and 10, which are both land plan amendments. Ms. Farrell explained that staff has not had the opportunity to meet with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), but hopefully they will be able to meet with them this month; if not, the Board will see another request for postponement.
PH#64-01-2 - CHESTER FOSGATE CO. - CLERMONT AUTO SALES
TRACKING #130-01-MP
Ms. Farrell stated that staff is requesting a postponement, in regards to Tab 6, Chester Fosgate Company, Clermont Auto Sales. She stated that Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney for the applicant, is here today, and she has talked with her about the request for a 30 day postponement. Ms. Farrell stated that the City of Clermont has also asked for a postponement, and there are some issues in the staff report that they would like to revisit.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney with Akerman & Senterfeit, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she would ask the Board not to continue this case at this time, and to leave them on the agenda this morning. She was only aware of this at 8:55 a.m. that staff had serious problems, and there was a letter from the City of Clermont and, despite the fact that they have been asking for a response from the City and had contacted them three months ago, the letter from the City was faxed at 7:43 a.m. this morning. Ms. Bonifay stated that she is in conference with her client, and they do not know if they can take a continuance, or how long. She asked that the Board continue with their agenda, and she will let the Board know their position when their case comes before the Board and whether they can entertain the City of Clermont's last minute request. She clarified that she may not be opposed to the postponement, if she has time to get some answers this morning.
It was noted that there was no opposition to the postponement. At this time, the Board continued with the scheduled rezoning cases.
LPA#01/9/4-2 - W. T. COX - STEVEN J. RICHEY, PA -
TRACKING #124-01-LPA
LPA#01/9/6-2 - THE GOLDEN FLEECE - STEVEN J. RICHEY, PA -
TRACKING #126-01-LPA
It was noted that there was no one present who wished to present comments regarding the requests for postponement presented by staff.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone for 30 days Tab 9, Case LPA#01/9/4-2, W. T. Cox, Steven J. Richey, PA, Tracking #124-01-LPA, and Tab 10, LPA#01/9/6-2, The Golden Fleece, Steven J. Richey, PA, Tracking #126-01-LPA.
PH#62-01-1 - MIDWAY BAPTIST CHURCH, PASTOR J. W. ROLAND
NATALIE WINDSOR - R-6 TO CFD - TRACKING #128-01-CFD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, stated that this case is actually in District 1, not District 3; it is a very small site with an existing church on the site; and they are expanding the uses to include classrooms and an out building. Staff is recommending approval to add the sanctuary, the fellowship hall, Sunday school rooms, and a storage building. There is central water and sewer; there was no opposition; and the vote at Planning and Zoning was 9-0.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was not present. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case PH#62-01-1, Midway Baptist Church, Pastor J. W. Roland, Natalie Windsor, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for construction of an accessory church building and associated uses, Tracking #128-01-CFD, Ordinance 2001-131.
CUP#01/10/2-4 - OSWALD AND JOY LEE - CUP - TRACKING #128-01-CFD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that the applicants have 11 � acres in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area, and they want to maintain a mobile home on the site for agricultural housing. Staff is recommending approval of a CUP, and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs). She noted that the applicants are doing some aquaculture as well as agricultural uses; there was no opposition; and the vote at Planning and Zoning was 9-0.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicants were not present. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson noted that the request was in her district, and she had no objections.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case CUP#01/10/2-4, Oswald and Joy Lee, a request for a CUP to allow the placement of a mobile home on site for caretakers to use as agricultural housing to assist in the operation of a plant nursery, Tracking #135-01-CUP, Ordinance 2001-132.
CASE PH#65-01-1 - CARL W. STEWART JR - A TO MP - TRACKING #131-01-MP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, stated that this is a request for rezoning from A to MP to allow for industrial/commercial uses and self-storage units on about five acres. Staff is recommending approval and there were some changes and some discussion at the Planning and Zoning meeting as to the conceptual plan and concurrency, which would have been addressed by the Development Review Staff (DRS). She explained that there is central water from the City of Leesburg and staff is recommending approval with a change on Page 2 of the proposed Ordinance, to delete "neighborhood commercial uses".
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicants and their representative, Mr. Greg Beliveau, were present. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case PH#65-01-1, Carl W. Stewart, Jr., a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to MP (Planned Industrial) to allow for industrial/commercial uses and self-storage units, Tracking #131-01-MP, Ordinance 2001-133, with the change to Page 2 to delete "neighborhood commercial uses" and with the following conditions:
2. Concurrency Management Review: Prior to receiving final development order approval, the applicant must undergo Lake County Management Review and reserve capacities.
CASE PH#61-01-2 - EDWARD HOLMES & ABBIE HOLMES, TRUSTEE - A TO CP TRACKING #127-01-CP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, stated that this is a request for rezoning from A to CP in the Groveland area on a little under four acres, and the property is within the Transitional Green Swamp Area. Ms. Farrell noted that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was here today representing the applicant. She stated that the original request asked for some retail use, as well as some office and storage use but, as it went through the process, it is going to be an accessory to the electrical use on the site. It is an existing structure and staff is recommending approval. She stated that there was no opposition and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. It was noted that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present and there was no opposition to the case. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Pool noted that the surrounding property owner sent a letter of support.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Case PH#61-01-2, Edward Holmes & Abbie Holmes, Trustee, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to CP (Planned Commercial) to allow for commercial uses of an electrical contracting office and storage, Tracking #127-01-CP, Ordinance 2001-134.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that, as the County is losing some of its agricultural operations, it has been difficult making these types of facilities that have existed in the rural areas fit and he appreciated staff working to get this one operational again.
Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
CASE PH#63-01-5 - MADELINE WHALEN, ET AL - LESLIE CAMPIONE, ESQ. - R-1 TO RMRP - TRACKING #129-01-RMRP
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for rezoning from R-6 to RMRP for expansion to the existing Grand Island Resort Mobile Home Park. Ms. Farrell explained that this particular request is under 14 acres in size, and Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, is here today representing the owners. She stated that this is an extension of an existing RMRP park, which is not really a difficult issue as far as a zoning case, but there are some issues regarding the surrounding neighborhood, and the density. As staff went through the density points for this particular request, they came to the conclusion that there could be 3.5 dwelling units per acre on this particular site. Ms. Farrell stated that many other issues came up at Planning and Zoning. She stated that, whether it be RMRP, or R-2, or R-1, staff finds it difficult to place conditions on anything new, or on an expansion. Staff was hoping that the applicant and the opposition had met and worked out some issues, or they would request a postponement and come back with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), so that staff could add some conditions to the rezoning. Ms. Farrell stated that staff is recommending denial of the request to rezone from R-6 to RMRP; to limit the density to 3.5 dwelling units per acre; and to resolve some of the issues with the adjacent property owners. They do have water and sewer, and there is one petition in the backup with 37 signatures in opposition. At Planning and Zoning, the motion for approval failed by a 3-6 vote.
Commr. Hanson disclosed that she had met with Ms. Leslie Campione and Mr. Greg Beliveau on this case and this will not prejudice her decision. Commr. Stivender and Commr. Hill disclosed that they had also met with them; Commr. Pool disclosed that he had spoken only to Ms. Campione.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, stated that she is here today on behalf of the applicant and also Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. (MHC) who has contracted to purchase this 13.65 acre parcel on Lake Eustis. Ms. Campione presented the Board with a packet of information from MHC, which was marked as Exhibit A-1. She stated that the property is adjacent to what was known as the Chain of Lakes Mobile Home Park, which was purchased by MHC. She explained that MHC has done some redevelopment within the park and enhanced the entranceway and is systematically removing the old mobile homes and bringing in the newer manufactured homes that are inspected in the factory and approved by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and all of the State of Florida building codes. Ms. Campione stated that they are wanting to buy the 13.65 acre piece of property for expansion to the existing Grand Island Resort Mobile Home Park. They would like to develop about four units per acre providing they can meet the points. Ms. Campione stated that there has been a lot of discussion about points, but it is really not an issue that comes up in the zoning, per say, because points are figures during the development review. They feel that they meet the points to have four units per acre, and if they do not meet the points and can only have 3.5 units per acre, then that is how the property will be developed.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, with the negative vote coming from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the staff recommendation to go to a PUD, he would like to ask why the applicant is still coming forward today.
Ms. Campione explained that they felt that this was the type of case that would not require a lot of discussion, and she was surprised of the outcome of the Planning and Zoning hearing. She stated that she would like to give Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, some credit in that regard. She explained that Mr. Richey represents the adjoining property owner and his argument to the Planning and Zoning Commission was that, with the straight zoning and RMRP zoning, there was no guarantee that they would do all of the things that they were proposing to do, and he argued against the whole concept of straight zoning, and the fact that, if the Board approved a PUD, they could place conditions in it, and the applicant would be required to set aside 25% open space on a 13 acre piece of property, therefore, he would cluster his units. She stated that they wanted to create more of a traditional neighborhood design where the lot sizes are larger, and their plans show about a 7,500 square foot lot, as compared to the 3,000 square foot lot in the older section of the park. She explained that, if they go forward with R-6 zoning, they could plat the lots and rent the lots but, for consistency sake, it would make more sense to have the same zoning on this property as they have on the 300 units next door. Ms. Campione stated that they feel that the Planning and Zoning Commission was wrong and, to a certain degree, they were misled because there was not a thorough analysis about what a PUD would really mean and there was a prejudice towards having a manufactured home community as opposed to a site built home community. They feel that the Planning and Zoning Commission was wrong and Mr. Richey was wrong, and then staff went back and changed their recommendation from approval for RMRP, to denial with no analysis being provided in the staff report telling why a PUD is a better zoning for this property. Ms. Campione noted that, with R-6 zoning, they would plat the lots right down to the shoreline; with RMRP zoning, they would use a master park plan instead of a plat, and therefore, they would not plat to the shoreline, but the lot lines will go to the shoreline buffer. She explained that there would be a 50 foot buffer between the lots and the shoreline that will not be under the control of the individual residing on that property. Ms. Campione stated that they looked at implementing the Lake Apopka standards that have been discussed on shoreline protection through their development of this property. Because they use a common management group to take care of the properties, they would implement a plan that would not use fertilizers, or pesticides, or any of those types of things along the shoreline, which is easier to regulate when there is one entity handling maintenance versus individual lot owners on the lake.
Ms. Campione stated that the same arguments against straight zoning that were made against RMRP on this property also stand for the R-6 that is on the property; there are no lot size requirements in R-6 or RMRP; there are no buffer requirements because the property next door is R-6. She stated that they were proposing to put their own buffers in place for the enhancement of their master park plan, which she explained, and they were going to leave the trees in place and put a continuous vegetative hedge row and not allow any of the buildings to go within these buffers, which they are willing to offer to the adjoining owners.
Ms. Campione called Mr. Greg Beliveau to present testimony regarding the adjoining land uses, the compatibility, the consistency issues, and the difference between the R-6 zoning versus the proposed RMRP.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, addressed the Board and presented a Comparison of Development Options, which consisted of seven pages, which were marked as Exhibit A-2 (composite). Mr. Beliveau explained that, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, there was a lot of debate as to the R-6 being the preexisting zoning category for the property in question versus the RMRP. At this time, he reviewed the comparison with the Board and noted that, under the County's current Land Development Regulations (LDRs), there are no minimum requirements for lot sizes, lot widths, or house sizes. There are minimums required under the RMRP, as he explained. Mr. Beliveau explained that the property in question was always outside the park ownership. There are single family subdivisions, four units per acre to the north; six to eight units per acre to the west; some larger tracts with some being split; and the City of Eustis to the east. He reviewed the surrounding zoning, most of being R-6, and noted that the City of Eustis is SR. He also reviewed the Future Land Use Map, which showed that the property in question is urban expansion. Mr. Beliveau stated that the City of Eustis does have central water going into this subdivision. He reviewed the expansion area and the lots and roads and noted that the lots are 7,500 square feet, the lots on the road are 8,100 square feet; and the lots on the lake are almost 8,500 square feet. He submitted four aerial maps, as discussed, which were marked at Exhibit A-3 (composite). Mr. Beliveau stated that there was some discussion about the availability of utilities and staff has maintained that the utilities on the parent mobile home park were not capable of carrying the capacity for the existing site and the expansion (54 units); however, Mr. Griffey did an analysis of both the water and sewer system and found that there is plenty of capacity, as shown in the information provided in Exhibit A-2 (composite), Water Treatment. Included in Exhibit A-2 was language from Chapter 320.8285, Florida Statutes, as well as an Economic Analysis, which illustrates the cost benefits for an adult mobile home park. Mr. Beliveau feels that there is compatibility, there is consistency, and there is not a concurrency issue. At this time, Mr. Beliveau showed a picture of a 7,000 square foot manufactured home and stated that they want to rezone the property to RMRP, because it mirrors the mobile home park next door; it creates a consistent partnership between the two parcels; and it gives a consistent mechanism for control. He stated that the Board has historically used the RMRP for mobile home parks as the option of choice for development of a mobile home park. At this time, he showed several pictures of the entranceway to the park and properties across the street, with ten pictures being submitted and marked at Exhibit A-4 (composite). Mr. Beliveau stated that the request for RMRP for the expansion of this tract from the existing park is consistent with the land uses in the area; it provides a step down in density from the existing park; it provides a transition from the existing park to the properties to the east; it allows the transition area to go from the six to eight; and it is also consistent with the densities across the street at four units per acre. The housing size is going to be an upgrade from the existing park and from the park to the west. Mr. Beliveau submitted the Expansion Plan for Grand Island Resort, which was marked as Exhibit A-5.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board to ask Mr. Beliveau some questions about the proposed request for RMRP zoning.
In response to questions from Mr. Richey, Mr. Beliveau stated that there is one home right now on the 13 acres, and it was not unusual to have a PUD with mobile homes historically in Lake County, with the minimum lot size for mobile homes being ten acres.
Mr. Richey referred to a copy of the master site plan and pointed out the lake lots and open space next to the existing mobile home park and asked Mr. Beliveau to state the widths of the driveways.
Mr. Beliveau explained that there will be 24 feet of pavement for the driveways, and the RMRP does not require them to plat the roads, as long as they have 24 feet of pavement.
Mr. Richey stated that, in a subdivision in R-6 zoning, contrary to what had been indicated earlier by Ms. Campione that the same layout in their master park plan could be platted tomorrow in R-6 except that the lots would be platted to the lake, this would not be correct, because they would be required to have rights-of-way, which would affect the site plan substantially. Mr. Richey stated that it was his understanding that a PUD with a 25% open space would drastically affect the density yield on this site.
Mr. Beliveau stated that a PUD would impact the design, and the lots would have to be adjusted, if they were to proceed with R-6 zoning. He stated that, even though the lot density could be achieved, the lot sizes would have to be smaller, because they would not have the 25% open space, but they could easily get 54 units on 7,000 square foot lots. He explained that, even though the entranceway was being improved and the traffic pattern would flow through the park into the new project, there are no requirements in the RMRP for these conditions. Mr. Beliveau explained that the only guarantee that these things were going to be done, if they do the straight zoning, would be in a separate agreement between the parties. He stated that, even though Ms. Campione has indicated that they are going to do more to protect the environment along the lake, there is nothing in the RMRP that requires them to do more than required by the County Code, but they have offered to do these things under a separate agreement, and to have it enforced privately, and they are willing to stipulate that this is an adult only community. Mr. Beliveau testified that they can still accomplish 54 units on this piece of property, even with the required rights-of-way, and they could get a number of units on the lake, even though it may not be the number as shown in the design for RMRP. He further explained that, under R-6 zoning, they could do conventional construction, or according to the Florida Statues, they could have manufactured homes and, even though there are two different Codes, they are equivalent according to the Florida Statutes. He further explained that the only difference between them is how the homes are delivered to the site, and there is greater right-of-way requirement in R-6 zoning. Mr. Beliveau testified that the only way to enforce the conditions and representations told to the Board today, with regard to the shoreline protection and unity of maintenance, is through the PUD conditions, or to require them to be attached to the master park plan as a private agreement between the two parties, and this relieves the County of the code enforcement requirements.
Ms. Campione called Mr. Don Griffey, Griffey Engineering, to present testimony.
At this time, Commr. Hanson noted that the Board would accept Mr. Griffey as an expert witness.
Mr. Griffey addressed the Board and explained that basically he could design the site how it is laid out now but plat it with lots that meet County minimum width requirements. He explained that right now the roads are 24 feet wide and, according to Code, they could be a lesser width. If they platted the subdivision, it would not be a public subdivision where the road and rights-of-way are dedicated to the public; it would be done as a private subdivision where they would be dedicated to either the property owners, or in this case, to MHC.. He further noted that the proposed plan will accommodate the drainage. Mr. Griffey referred to a traffic analysis, which was submitted and marked as Exhibit A-6, and stated that he took traffic volume counts on Grand Island Shores Road and Chain of Lakes Road, and at the entrance of the existing project. The Comprehensive Plan has established a minimum level of service D for these roads and, according to the long range transportation plan, it translates to a PMP car volume of 960 trips, as noted in Exhibit A-6. At this time, he reviewed the detailed information and stated that they are well below capacity on these roadways. He further noted that the driving pattern for a retirement community is about one-quarter of what is generated by a residential community. Mr. Griffey stated that this property was purchased by MHC, which has the Mid-Florida Lakes project, and they provide the transit for the residents, and they have indicated that they will be providing that same service for this project, which will help offset and reduce the traffic even more.
Mr. Richey asked Mr. Griffey about the County trying to acquire additional right-of-way along the Grand Island Shores Road during the time he was working for the County.
Mr. Griffey stated that there had been concerns expressed by the residents about the proximity of some of the old oak and pine trees that are close to the edge of the pavement. He noted that the trees are east of the project, and the residents did not want to see the trees removed and the County recognized the residents' desire to keep them. He noted that Grand Island Shore Road is not a through road, and it is really only utilized by the folks that live in that area. Mr. Griffey stated that he applied the same trip generation characteristics as the existing park, and he was not aware of anything that limited the area to 55 or older and, if it was developed in R-6 for families, or R-6 for retirees, that would change his study.
Ms. Campione noted that Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager, is researching a question about what they have proposed today, as to whether or not, in R-6 zoning, they could use the manufactured homes versus site built homes and get to the same point. She stated that they may disagree with his determination, which may be another reason why RMRP would be the logical zoning because, if it is an issue, it may force them into a situation where they have to pursue legal means to obtain the rights that they think they are entitled to under the law. She reiterated that, for purposes of allowing them to move forward, they have their plans ready; they have redesigned and re-landscaped the entrance; they have brought in new mobile homes; and they are asking the Board to allow them to move forward as expeditiously as possible without a need for litigation, but to use what has traditionally been used for RMRP on a site of this size. Ms. Campione explained that the residents in the neighborhood have been good neighbors and, as a County, and as a policy, the Board should support that type of community. She noted that there may be a certain feeling about manufactured homes, but they are meeting all State requirements, and the idea of a manufactured home versus a conventional home is not relevant to whether a zoning is appropriate on the property. There are already 300 units there and there is high density to the north and density all the way from this property into the City of Eustis, except for about five lots that are east of this property who also enjoy R-6 zoning and could be developed at a high density at some point, if they tapped into the City of Eustis utilities. As a planning matter, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it is compatible with surrounding property, and the only issue becomes the compatibility to the east, and they feel that, since they are going to the larger lots compared to what is already there, they do offer somewhat of a transition between the two uses. She further noted that they intend to use the trees to enhance the property, and the buffer of trees is going to be there whether or not this is included in an agreement.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.
CASE PH#63-01-5 - MADELINE WHALEN, ET AL - LESLIE CAMPIONE, ESQ. - R-1 TO RMRP - TRACKING #129-01-RMRP (CONTINUED)
Mr. Richey addressed the Board and stated that he is representing Mr. Ray Shinkle and some other folks that live on Grand Island Shores Road. He stated that he met with Ms. Campione who provided him with the proposed site plan and, even though it has been indicated today that all of these conditions, as discussed, can be included in an agreement, he was left with the impression that Ms. Campione had to get back with her engineer on these conditions. Mr. Richey pointed out his client's existing house, as shown on the site plan, and stated that he was concerned that, when looking at the intensity of the proposed development on the lake side and the existing houses along the lakeshore, this is why they keep talking in terms of a PUD. Mr. Richey explained that 25% of almost 14 acres is not very much when you consider that the LDRs allow water retention areas and rights-of-way to be utilized as part of that open space, but you also get the conditions that are binding on the applicants and their successors and are binding in the public record and enforceable by the Board. He stated that they could enter into a private Developer's agreement, but they may not have a way to enforce that agreement, and it affects a group of property owners, because this is an incompatible use, and it is inconsistent with the rural nature of the area. If the Board was to approve the RMRP zoning, Mr. Richey felt that the Board would want to have the conditions, which were represented to them, placed in a Developer's agreement, to be brought back to the Board with approval by his clients, and to continue this case for a couple of weeks until that could be done, but that has not been proffered to the Board, nor has it been proffered to him. Mr. Richey stated that his clients are in a position where they would prefer to take the risk of having this piece of property be developed under the County's LDRs as R-6 than to take the unknowns of the RMRP. Mr. Richey clarified that their preference is to have the property zoned PUD and to build into it some substantial protections to those in the neighborhood who are on larger tracts. He noted that, in looking at the site plan, there is not room to place the houses that are being proposed and, at the same time, maintain much of the woods. The site plan was submitted and marked as Exhibit O-1.
Mr. Richey called Mr. Raymond Shinkle to present testimony.
Mr. Shinkle stated that he and his wife looked for the right property for their retirement home and found an ideal spot, however, they had some misgivings, because of the mobile home park nearby. Mr. Shinkle reviewed a partial hunnicutt map, which had been colored to show the proposed site in relation to surrounding areas, which was submitted and marked as Exhibit O-2. He explained his conversation with Mr. Dick Whalen who told him not to worry about the mobile home park, because his property (the property in question) would never be developed, because it was a buffer zone. Mr. Whalen also told him that he had developed the mobile home park, and he had just sold it. Mr. Shinkle stated that he and his wife bought about eight and a half acres next to Mr. Whalen's property and got large lot waivers for the property and built their house on about five acres. He explained the ownership of the lots and stated that one of the owners was not noticed on the proposed change, but he was also told about the buffer zone and, even though there are others that know about the buffer zone, they are unable to find anything in writing. Mr. Shinkle stated that he is concerned about the small lots and the number of homes being proposed.
Ms. Campione stated that she had no questions of Mr. Shinkle.
Ms. Bertha Holtz addressed the Board and noted the location of her property, in relation to the property in question. Ms. Holtz stated that she wanted to clear the record and say that they do associate with their mobile home neighbors, and they share a lot of personal and special times together. She explained that they were not contacted about an expansion on the 14 acres.
Mr. Richey stated that the Board is being asked today to rezone a piece of property that is an enclave of rural density, and it is zoned at a higher rate according to the Comprehensive Plan, but it is developed into tracts with houses sitting far back from the lake. He stated that, under the master park plan, the RMRP in straight zoning allows for driveway type access, not paved roads built to County standards; it allows for 2,400 square foot lots; it allows for units to be eight feet wide by 35 feet long; it provides no restriction on age; and it provides none of the protections that have been represented to them. When looking at the master park plan, and the aerial, Mr. Richey stated that the Board can see why the neighbors are concerned, because it is incompatible with the estates across the line. The compromise on this development is to develop it as a PUD allowing the diversification of housing types; providing for open space; providing mandatory setbacks from the water; providing some protection to the neighbors; mandatory buffering; mandatory age requirements; mandatory access requirements. Mr. Richey stressed the need for having things in writing particularly after listening to Mr. Shinkle, because he was advised by the previous owner that his 14 acres was going to be a buffer to their rural lifestyle. Mr. Richey stated that they were asking the Board to respectfully turn this piece of property down and request that it come back as a PUD; or that the Board be presented with a Developer's agreement that is binding and runs with the land, and to turn down any straight zoning, until the Board has that in front of them. Mr. Richey stated that they are willing to run the risk of it being developed as a mobile home park in R-6 zoning, or as a conventional home park in R-6 zoning, because they feel that the County's LDRs protect them more than the RMRP straight zoning.
Ms. Campione explained that, about a year ago, the Board approved a rezoning request for Mid-Florida Lakes on about 15 acres, which is an existing manufactured home community, to allow a commercial piece to be rezoned to RMRP, for four units to an acre, and it is a wonderful enhancement to that neighborhood. Ms. Campione stated that, at that time, she represented the same company that she is representing today, and they did exactly what they told the Board they would be doing, and they intend to do the same thing today. She stated that they have purchased the adjoining property and invested substantial amounts of money in plans, and they have an investment in the existing part that is there, and they intend to go forward with their plans to put in 54 units. Ms. Campione presented a picture, which showed what the lots were going to look like and stated that they have no desire to take out trees. The picture was submitted and marked as Exhibit A-7. She stated that they have prepared a master park plan and almost all of the engineering has been finished. The plan was submitted and marked as Exhibit A-8. She further stated that the plan recognizes the 50 foot buffer mandated by the LDRs, the 25 foot buffer from the property line to the lot line of these lots, and a 15 foot buffer adjoining the other lots. Ms. Campione stated that she did not see why this could not be put into the record and attached to the zoning ordinance, because it is a master park plan, and they are willing to offer it. The property is zoned R-6 and it can be developed right now to the extent that they can meet the points, for four units to an acre. Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Whalen's widow owns the property, and she has contracted to sell it, and she is planning to live within this community on one of the 54 lots. Ms. Campione clarified that, with the R-6 zoning, there is no requirement that there be tree protection in addition to what is already in the Code. She suggested that, if there is a requirement that this be revised to a PUD, then perhaps they need to look at the LDRs and take out every single straight zoning and go to planned zoning on everything, because there is no need to have straight zoning, if they are going to require anyone that comes in here to go to a PUD regardless of the situation. She stated that it is simply not a practical solution, or requirement, in this case. This is an extension of an existing park; the lots are larger and, with the density restrictions, they would end up with larger lots, so that is something that can be guaranteed, but if they choose to cluster, they could do so in R-6, and you would typically cluster in a PUD, so the lot size should not be an issue, but ultimately the number of units. Ms. Campione stated that her client came in here about a year ago and they did exactly the same thing for a minor expansion of Mid-Florida Lakes subdivision, and they were instructed in their meetings with staff to use RMRP zoning, and they have the same situation here today. She stated that they will proffer this into the record and suggest that it be attached to the ordinance and, if they are instructed, they will execute an agreement with the adjoining property owner as to the buffers. Ms. Campione explained that the existing house is to be a clubhouse, and it has been designed to have a common passive recreational area around the homes, which will be a real asset to the whole community.
Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Hanson stated that she had attended a seminar that was put on by East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) in Seminole County where Mr. Randall Arendt, an advocate of conservation planning, discussed a different kind of concept for conservation design. She explained that his concept was to take an existing piece of property and look at the natural resources that might be there, and what you wanted to preserve, and then develop around that. She stated that perhaps this has been done to a certain extent but she feels it is going to be very difficult to preserve all of the trees. She questioned whether this concept could be applicable to a piece of property like this one.
Mr. Beliveau stated that he has just finished a design exercise for the ECFRPC to do an analysis of the concept described by Commr. Hanson, and they have found that, when you get to four units per acre tracts, the ability to cluster and do anything productive is very hard. He explained that the parcels are too small to have the flexibility and design ability to open it up to create the open space.
Commr. Hanson stated that, under the smart growth concept, she would prefer to have smaller roads, but the roads, the lot sizes and mobile homes were not concerns to her, when you have central utilities, but protecting the resources would be extremely important. She could also see why they would not want to have two story mobile homes in this area, because it would probably not work in a 55 and older community.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, in looking at the Whalen's lot where they had built their house, it looks like they were concerned at that time about a buffer for density. He did not know if a 15 foot buffer could give anyone a comfort level, with a conventional home or a mobile home in somewhat of a rural area and in this strip of lots that are between the higher densities. The number of lakefront lots is a concern to him, and the analogy of the Mid-Florida Lakes zoning, because, as he recalled, it was a different case than this one. As far as the things that they can already do in R-6 zoning, Commr. Cadwell did not feel that they would have gone through the expense of zoning, if they had wanted to develop in R-6. The 25% open space in a PUD is important and is there for a reason and, in terms of design, it can be done, with ten acres being the minimum. Commr. Cadwell stated that PUDs are there especially for smaller parcels to provide a vehicle for unique properties, and he feels this is a unique piece of property. He stated that the versatility a PUD would give this piece of property would be a better fit for the property, and it would take into consideration the concerns of the neighbors. In regards to a Developer's agreement, Commr. Cadwell stated that he would not want to try and negotiate one today in this meeting, because these are the types of things that, if there are concerns, and the applicant does not want to go to a PUD, then they should have tried to work out a Developer's agreement before they got to this point. Commr. Cadwell stated that he was prepared to make a motion.
Commr. Hanson stated that she agrees that the LDRs leave a gap because, as they have moved through this process over the years, they have gone from a straight zoning to more site specific, but she does not feel that a PUD goes far enough to protect the resources. She did not know what the County could do to modify the LDRs, and the Board was not here today to do that, but she did feel that there was a need for language that looks at a site specific, and she did not feel that the Board has looked at this enough as a Board historically, to see whether there was enough language to protect the resources and the development around those resources. She felt that more emphasize should be placed on this issue.
Ms. Farrell noted that the Conservation Element has some language to address the protection of resources and the development around the resources and usually these issues are considered at the development review stage.
Commr. Stivender noted that, according to staff, the request is compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs, but she was concerned that the staff recommendation on Page 2 of the backup did not reflect correct information from the Planning and Zoning minutes, as she explained. She stated that staff information on Pages 4 and 5 states that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements within this area. There is R-6 across the street; RMRP next to it; R-6 next to it; the density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and it is actually a transition with larger lots. Commr. Stivender felt that it was an acceptable request and she would want a developer's agreement attached to the ordinance that states that it will be developed as a master park plan.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that he did not have any argument about the R-6 being compatible with what was going on in this area, and they should keep it, if they are going to develop it under R-6, as opposed to the mobile home rental park.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to deny Case PH#63-01-5, Madeline Whalen, et al, Leslie Campione, Esquire, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to RMRP (Mobile Home Rental Park) for expansion to the existing Grand Island Resort Mobile Home Park, Tracking #129-01-RMRP.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool stated that he shares the concerns expressed by the other Board members, and he was concerned that the applicant did not have a PUD prior to this meeting today. He clarified that he would not have a problem with the proposal today but, at the same time, there are no guarantees that this would happen, which concerns him the most. He feels that they have every intention of doing what is being proposed, but things do change and that would leave it wide open for anything to happen in the future.
Commr. Hill stated that, under discussion, right now they have three different zonings that the Board can consider. Under the PUD, they could cluster at three different spots, which may not be acceptable to them; with RMRP and a developer's agreement, they would have to come back with the agreement and incorporate the master park plan. She noted that there was a concern about having the homes on the east side, and she questioned whether they could reverse their design or make the home sites more on the west side, and the shoreline homes seem to be a little further down than the existing homeowners that have homes, as shown in the picture, and they would not have a view, but all of these things could be worked out in a developer's agreement.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, at the beginning of the meeting, in looking at the Planning and Zoning minutes and the staff report, he had asked the question as to why they did not do a PUD or go a different route, but the applicant indicated that they felt that they had a good legal case, and they were ready to come forward. He feels that the Board needs to let that stand on its own merit and, if they thought that what they brought forward today was something that this Board would pass, they made that decision at the beginning of the meeting and for the Board to try and mediate a Developer's agreement now is inappropriate and it should have been done ahead of time and, even though the Board may have done this type of thing before, he did not know that this was always good policy.
Commr. Hanson stated that the Board could postpone this case until next month, for the parties to work out a developer's agreement, or until such time that the Board wants it to come back to them.
Ms. Campione stated that she would be agreeable to a postponement, but the things that were discussed as possible concessions seem to be somewhat outrageous and seem to be unreasonable restrictions, but she would appreciate the opportunity to postpone the request for a month and see if they can work it out, even if they come back with different versions to work out with the Board.
Commr. Pool stated that this is what needs to happen, because he agrees that this is something that should have been done before they got here today.
Commr. Hanson stated that, once again, her concern is not the lot sizes, but she would be more concerned about the buffers and the trees that could be left there. She stated that they could look at some design models between the two of them, with the help of Mr. Beliveau, and develop something that would be acceptable to all parties, because the direction that the Board seems to be moving is to be a no win for everybody, and she does not like to see this happen.
Commr. Pool withdrew his second to the motion to deny the case.
Commr. Cadwell stated that his motion will stand without a second, because he is not inclined to change his motion. He stated that Ms. Campione has just indicated that the things that they want are kind of ludicrous and those are the major points. He feels that, under R-6, the property will not be developed in a way that would reflect the best use of the property.
It was noted that the motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Richey stated that, if is unreasonable for them to ask that there be some setbacks further from the lake, and to ask that the lots be flipped so there is more buffer along their line, then they have been unreasonable, but he was told that this is the plan and, if that is the case and that is the approach, then they would rather see it developed in R-6, because they feel it is going to be a better plan for them in the long run. Based on the meeting today, if there is a desire to come up with an alternative to the plan before the Board that accommodates more of their concerns, then they would be willing to work that out 100%, but he did not want to mislead this Board, because some of the comments made today are the very issues that his clients had concerns about, and he was presented with a master park plan with no flexibility. If there is no flexibility in the plan that has been presented with regards to the placement of units and buffers, then there is no use for a postponement.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Case PH#63-01-5, Madeline Whalen, et al, Leslie Campione, Esquire, Tracking #129-01-RMRP, for 30 days, for the parties to attempt to develop a developer's agreement.
Commr. Stivender reiterated the point that was brought up earlier that, if people are coming in and applying for a zoning, and staff wants them to go in another direction and in terms of a PUD, then staff needs to make that very clear, because it is unfair to the clients, to the people who own the land, and to the Board.
Commr. Hanson stated that, as she pointed out earlier, on the issue of protecting resource based properties, it is not emphasized enough in the LDRs, and even though it may be there, it is not to the same extent that was presented at the seminar that she had attended, and she feels that they need to be looking at that and making sure that it is an option up front.
PH#64-01-2 - CHESTER FOSGATE CO. - CLERMONT AUTO SALES
TRACKING #130-01-MP (CONTINUED)
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and stated that, in Case PH#64-01-2, Chester Fosgate Co. - Clermont Auto Sales, Ms. Bonifay and her client are aware of the staff position, and they have asked that the case go forward.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that she has talked to her clients at length, and they are ready to go forward. They do not see any reason that staff would want to postpone this case other than they have given them conditions, and they have indicated that they agree with all of the conditions. Her clients feel that they need a determination on this request, based on their business relationships with both the owner and with trying to obtain a franchise for this property, so they would like the case heard today.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether it was Ms. Bonifay's position to move forward, with the understanding of the position that the Board is in today, in regards to joint planning agreements and what they are trying to do with the cities, and with the letter the Board has received from the City of Clermont.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she is well aware of the position of the Board, and the letter from the City, and she feels that they will present some litigating evidence this morning. She feels that it will be a policy decision that the Board will have to evaluate, in terms of what has been requested by the City, because she feels that the City has placed the County in a very difficult position.
Commr. Hanson called for public comment on the request for postponement. There being none, she asked for further comment by the Board.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether staff is still recommending to the Board a postponement, based on the letter from the City of Clermont.
Ms. Farrell responded that staff was making a recommendation for postponement, and she clarified that Ms. Bonifay is aware of the recommendation being made by staff today. She explained that staff should not have acquiesced to commercial zoning in this particular location, because it does not meet commercial locational criteria, and staff is prepared to argue this point. She further explained that the staff report would clarify that the request does not meet commercial locational criteria, and the report would clarify what the Comprehensive Plan policies state regarding commercial on this property.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she will try to present evidence as to what staff told her clients to do; what the Comprehensive Plan provides; what the policy of this Board has been in the past; what the surrounding land use is; because she was just advised within hours of the hearing that staff made a mistake and should not have recommended approval of the request.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, because of the letter the Board received from the City of Clermont, and the months that the Board has worked through the joint planning areas, and whether the City of Clermont was derelict in waiting too late to send this letter, the Board has the letter, and it is a request from them to postpone the rezoning.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to postpone Case PH#64-01-2, Chester Fosgate Company, Clermont Auto Sales, Tracking #130-01-CP, for 30 days.
Under discussion, Commr. Pool stated that he did not feel that the applicant would have gotten a favorable remark from him, if they had proceeded with the case today, but this will give the Board and staff a chance to come back, and unfortunately, the letter from the City was faxed to them at the last minute.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she feels that, for the Board's protection, as well as their protection, since she advised the City of Clermont of their application and notified them and made a formal request as of August 1, 2001 and told them what the rezoning was and requested utilities and made repeated phone calls to the City Engineer and Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, and they sent a letter to Mr. Saunders outlining this on September 28, 2001, perhaps the Board ought to give the City some directive that the request is coming back to the Board in 30 days. She feels that the Board should also notify the applicant's lawyer who has been in touch with Mr. Saunders for three months, as well as the applicant, and staff, before 7:45 a.m. of the zoning hearing. She explained that the client was told to advise the City Engineer, and also the City Manager, in both writing and by phone, and by voice mail.
Commr. Stivender noted that the City of Clermont will have their Council meeting in the evening on November 27, 2001 and this request would come to the Board in the morning of November 27, 2001.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the Board gives the City a 30 day notice letting them know that they are going to meet on November 27, 2001 and, if they do not hear from them before that date, then the Board has done what they can do. Commr. Cadwell clarified that he is basing his motion on the letter from the City of Clermont, and the Board is letting them know that they are postponing the hearing for 30 days, and they need to address the issue before then, if they want to have a voice in the rezoning.
Commr. Hanson stated that she has a concern about the letter, because it says that "the Council continues to maintain the position that the County should not approve projects, rezonings, or land use changes without City approval for areas around the City prior to the establishment of Joint Planning Area Agreements." She was not sure that the Board has ever been notified of that but it was certainly not her intent.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that he was not basing the motion on that comment, as noted by Commr. Hanson, and the County is certainly trying to work through these joint planning areas and, by giving them 30 days, the Board is acting in good faith to the City of Clermont.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the City has been placed on notice, and they have correspondence and, for them not to ever contact anyone or to have this be a point of discussion at a meeting, then she questioned how they were going to make a determination on whether they approve what the Board does or does not do, when they do not even have the benefit of a presentation by the person that is proposing the use.
Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion to postpone the case for 30 days, which was carried by a 4-1 vote.
Commr. Pool voted "no".
Commr. Cadwell directed staff to make sure that the City of Clermont is notified that the Board will be meeting on November 27, 2001 at 9 a.m., or soon thereafter, to hear this case.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the client has informed her that they are very confused at this point, because they were originally told to apply for LM, which they did; then they got a staff recommendation for denial of LM saying it was not appropriate for industrial; they were told it would be appropriate for commercial; they then got a staff recommendation to Planning and Zoning and a unanimous recommendation for CP, yet they have staff here today telling them that it does not meet CP.
Commr. Hanson suggested that perhaps these issues can be resolved, once Ms. Bonifay meets with staff, with Ms. Farrell being actively involved with this process.
CASE #55-01-3 - ALBERT KREIBICK - LESLIE CAMPIONE - AMENDMENT TO EXISTING ORDINANCE - TRACKING #118-01-MP/AMD
Commr. Hanson disclosed that she had met with Ms. Leslie Campione on this case, as did Commr. Stivender, Commr. Hill, and Commr. Pool, and Commr. Cadwell disclosed that he had a brief discussion with Ms. Campione and the applicant.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to present the request for an amendment to the existing Ordinance #1997-33 to increase the number of cars permitted on the described site. Ms. Farrell explained that this case came before the Board in 1997, and she has provided the Board with the minutes from that public hearing. She stated that Mr. Kreibick has been doing some auto salvage type work on his property for quite some time. In 1997, staff excluded the back portion of his property and rezoned it to RP to add some protection to the lakefront, and to limit the number of vehicles on his property with the front MP. At that time, as a pro-active measure, there were several conditions placed in the ordinance. Over the years some of those conditions were met and some were not met, and to avoid getting into the code enforcement issues, Ms. Farrell stated that Mr. Kreibick has some unresolved issues, but he has been working towards bringing this property into compliance. Ms. Farrell stated that, when staff went to the Planning and Zoning Commission, due to some outstanding code violations, they were very uncomfortable recommending approval to grant additional vehicles on this particular property. She stated that she met with Ms. Campione two weeks ago, and they came to some agreement on what they could do for this particular property. Ms. Farrell stated that staff feels that there is a need for this in the community, so the staff report has been revised from a recommendation of denial to a recommendation of approval with conditions. She has placed in the backup a revised ordinance that sets a limitation of 300 cars on site with no stacking. The operating hours and the setbacks for the vehicles remain in the conditions, but they have added inspections, which she explained. In regards to the environmental concerns, staff added some improved language regarding stormwater and groundwater monitoring and, in this revised language, it requires a report every two years, which will not be such a financial burden on the applicant. The ordinance also states that the requirements may be modified based on the sampling and the technical report, which she explained. There were some concerns that, although it is not in the County purview, there was a community well for some cottages, but Ms. Campione has assured staff that she and her client will address those issues with the related agencies. Ms. Farrell stated that staff is comfortable adding the 300 cars and getting the groundwater monitoring plan and the annual inspections in place. Staff feels that this is a need in the community, because a lot of the code enforcement cases are for salvage vehicles that need to be removed and people need a place to take them. Although staff did cut out the back parcel in 1997, Lake Saunders has a better water quality index than Lake Gertrude, and they feel it is very necessary to protect the lake through the monitoring. Ms. Farrell referred to an aerial from 1994 that showed that they did have some vehicle storage and some activity in the rear of the property but stated that they feel it is very critical, from an environmental standpoint, to get the monitoring in place, but at the same time allow Mr. Kreibick to add the vehicles and move forward with his industrial activities.
In response to Commr. Stivender's questions about the actual number of cars allowed on site, Ms. Farrell clarified that 300 vehicles is the staff recommendation, and the monitoring was in the 1997 ordinance, but the work was never completed.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that the request was primarily to address the number of salvaged cars on the property. Ms. Campione explained that, for the record, after the Planning and Zoning hearing, Mr. Kreibick has crushed 220 cars. She explained the salvage business process noting that there will be times when there will be a larger amount of vehicles on the property, therefore, they are requesting the change in number. As to the issue of monitoring, Ms. Campione stated that she was not opposed to the inspection, because it probably serves the best interest of everyone, but she was concerned that the inspection can be conducted following complaints, as noted in the ordinance and, therefore, she felt that perhaps if a violation is found, then a fee would be assessed, and the Board would be agreeable to adding that provision.
Discussion occurred regarding adding the following language to Page 3, 2., as follows: "If an inspection is necessary during non-working hours, and a violation is found, then an emergency inspection fee shall be assessed."
In regards to the stormwater retention and treatment facilities, Ms. Campione stated that she would like to submit a copy of their permit that they obtained to put in a stormwater management pond. The document was marked as Exhibit A-1. She explained that the purpose of this is for the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to assure them that they do not have surface water runoff that is polluting Lake Saunders. At this time, Ms. Campione pointed out the location of the pond on the aerial located in the backup material. She reviewed a letter dated July 23, 2001 from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding a hazardous waste complaint and an inspection that was conducted at the facility on May 10, 2001. The letter indicated that no violations were noted during this inspection. She submitted the letter and attachment, which were marked as Exhibit A-2, and the permit information dated September 28, 1998 from the SJRWMD, which was marked as Exhibit A-3. Ms. Campione stated that they hired a firm to do some sampling on the drinking water wells and the report from Enviro-tech, Ocala, Florida, indicated that the analysis on the well did not detect any of the metals, or volatile compounds found in petroleum and other solvents in the water. She was afraid that this monitoring requirement was a remnant of the 1997 ordinance, and she wanted the Board to know that monitoring groundwater was a very expensive undertaking, as she explained. They had obtained a quote to comply with what staff had indicated would be necessary, and it was about $4,000 and to repeat it under the old ordinance, they were looking at spending $1,000 to $2,000 every six months, when there was no indication that there was a violation. She referred to Page 4, H. 2, the underlined language pertaining to a groundwater monitoring plan and stated that she was concerned that they were overstepping into the boundary of the DEP. She stated that, if the Board feels that this is absolutely necessary, then they will do it, because they need to keep Mr. Kreibick in business, but she would request that January 1, 2002 be changed to March 1, 2002 and she would ask that Paragraph 4 be stricken.
Mr. Allan Hewitt, Water Resource Management Director, addressed the Board and stated that DEP did the inspection, and they would be looking for hazardous waste on site. They did not do any inspections in the actual surficial aquifer, and they do not know what is in the groundwater, but there is the potential for contamination. He explained that the cost of the analysis will be about a couple of hundred dollars per well for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) .
Commr. Hill referred to the ordinance in the backup from 1997, Page 3, D. Inspections, which stated that the Code Enforcement Division and Water Resources Division shall perform inspections for compliance with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). She stated that this is not a CUP, so she was questioning whether the wording needed to be changed and, if so, who would be performing the inspections for compliance.
Mr. Hewitt stated that code enforcement would be inspecting such things like setbacks, stacking, and number of cars, but his inspections would be primarily through the analysis and only if a report is received indicating that VOCs were found. He stated that there has not been a groundwater monitoring plan submitted.
Commr. Stivender stated that there has been quite a bit of industrial along Old US Highway 441 for a number of years, and she questioned whether the County has required what is being requested today of anyone else who has come in and amended their CP or MP.
Ms. Farrell explained that there has been about two rezonings in this area, and each one was to reduce the intensity, so staff has seen, over the last three to fours years, a change on Old Highway 441. She stated that, if they were coming in today, staff would have recommended denial to put any type of industrial use that close to a water body.
Commr. Hanson questioned what the possibility would be of requiring additional landscaping in the front of the property.
Ms. Campione explained that, if they were to put in a new building and they brought in a site plan, then they would have to bring it up to the County's landscaping requirements, but they have not pursued a site plan that would trigger the need for additional landscaping.
Ms. Farrell explained that the additional landscaping was part of the request in 1997, and there was also discussion about signage.
Commr. Stivender stated that she has a problem with it right now, because of everything that surrounds it. The complaints that she receives are not about Mr. Kreibick's property, they are about the ones to the west of him which the County cannot seem to do anything about and is more of a health hazard than anything else.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff has done a lot of code work in this particular area of Old Highway 441 and worked with the people in getting this area cleaned up, whether it be with fencing or with landscaping, and there has been quite an improvement there.
Commr. Cadwell stated that some of the regulations may seem cumbersome to the applicant, but there is no way that this would be approved in this location near this lake today, but since historically it has been there, and he has been a good business man, the Board needs to try and help him to continue to work at this location, and he feels that the monitoring and the things that staff brought forward will allow them to do that.
Mr. Hewitt explained that staff is asking to take a look at where the surficial aquifer is located and sink a well and have a five to ten foot screen on it and let their hydro geologist submit a plan to them, and they will make a recommendation.
Commr. Hanson noted that the Board would take public comment while Ms. Campione addressed Page 4, Section H. 4.
Ms. Glenda Mahaney stated that she owns property to the west of the property in question, and she owns another piece from the west of there all of the way to Lake Saunders. Ms. Mahaney stated that she had several questions before she made her argument to the case. She stated that the first question was regarding postponements, because this case was postponed and none of the people were renotified. Ms. Mahaney questioned whether it was the law that the applicant needs to notify the property owners within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, explained that, if the case was postponed at the properly advertised meeting the first time, which it was to a time certain, then you do not have to notify the property owners again. She further explained that you have to give reasonable notice and you have to do it in accordance with the Florida Statutes. So those individuals attending the first properly advertised meeting were informed of the postponement to a time certain.
Ms. Mahaney stated that her second question was whether the applicant was required to submit a survey for this type of zoning, because he has never submitted one.
Ms. Farrell stated that staff has a 1997 survey done by Walling Engineers for the Kreibick property, which is in the public hearing file. She explained that it is a site plan, but the property is surveyed on the site plan and this meets their requirements for a legal description and the location of existing structures on the site. It was noted that one survey is sealed in the filed. Ms. Farrell submitted the noted site plan, which was marked as Exhibit C-1.
Ms. Mahaney stated that she has reviewed the record several times and has never been able to find a sealed survey for that property. She explained that the applicant had his property surveyed several years ago, but he will not submit it to the Board, because his surveyor explained to her, at that time, that they were on her property because there were overlapping boundary lines. She stated that the County's LDRs say that he is supposed to submit a survey, and he has never submitted one, and she believes that she is entitled to that protection under the law.
Commr. Hanson directed Ms. Farrell to make a copy of the site plan and survey available to Ms. Mahaney for review.
Ms. Mahaney stated that she had another question regarding whether the applicant is rezoning his entire property, or just the front MP portion, because the legals that he gave and the ones that she saw appear to be the legals for the entire property.
Ms. Farrell explained that the rezoning is only for the property that is zoned MP, as filed in the application by Ms. Campione.
Ms. Mahaney stated that all of her questions are relevant to this situation in that Mr. Kreibick does not have to comply with the same rules and regulations as the rest of the County, and one of her arguments is that his legal is for his entire property. She requested that staff read the legal description.
Commr. Hanson stated that staff has indicated that the legal is not for his entire property, so she will not request staff to read it.
Ms. Mahaney stated that, for the record, if the legal is not for the entire property, then she would assume that they will correct it later, if it is the legal for the entire property. She addressed the issue of the applicant getting a reduced rezoning fee and stated that she will be expecting that same reduced fee for her MP property.
Ms. Farrell explained that staff has a provision in their fee schedule that, if the staff is of the opinion that a reduced fee would meet the needs as far as the staff research involved, then they can waive or reduce fees. When there is a request, staff looks at the application and the staff time that will be involved and, if it is warranted, then staff sends the request to the County Manager, and the County Manager has to approve that reduction. She stressed that it was a reduction, not a waiver of fees. She further noted that anyone that applies is subject to the same treatment.
Ms. Mahaney addressed the groundwater issue and stated that the applicant was able to get this zoning by telling the Board that he was going to put in a few antique cars and salvage parts off of those cars, and he was originally required to store those antique cars inside a building. Then he kept coming back to the Board for additional cars and now he is asking for 300 cars, as clarified by staff. She was asking the Board to revoke his current zoning, which is within the Board's power, because he has not been in compliance with the requirements for many years. She addressed the requirement for a fence on the east and west sides, which were to be screened in their entirety, and stated that she has complained about this for the last 15 to 20 years and nothing has ever been done. She further stated that he is also not in compliance with the ordinance and the language pertaining to hours of operation. His hours of operation affects her family's income and disturbs their tenants. In regards to the groundwater, Ms. Mahaney discussed the process being used by Mr. Kreibick to crush the vehicles and stated that she has concerns regarding the leakage of gasoline and oil when the cars are picked up and moved from the site, and the release of obnoxious odors during this process, which her tenants have also complained about. Ms. Mahaney explained that Mr. Kreibick is currently running a full blown salvage operation and junkyard, which is not allowed in this zoning and should not been allowed in this zoning, and no one else would be allowed to do this today, therefore, he should not be allowed to increase the number of vehicles. She felt that, if she were to make the same request today, and the Board did not give her the same zoning that they have given him, then they are not providing her with equal rights under the law, and they are failing to give her equal protection under the law. Ms. Mahaney discussed the case that the County has against her, which declares her site as a public nuisance, and stated that the site in question has rodents and vermin and mosquitos, which her tenants complain about. Ms. Mahaney talked to the person who installed the water system for the mobile home park on the east side, and she was told that the monitoring will not pick up petroleum products. Ms. Mahaney stated that Mr. Kreibick has cottages on his property, and he lives somewhere else and does not have to drink the water, and if the Board decides to give him this zoning, she would suggest that the Board require him to live on this property. Ms. Mahaney explained that they are in an argument in the court of law over her being able to open a gift shop selling jewelry and antique collectibles, and she noted that, in the record, Mr. Kreibick has an occupational license for retail sales. She stated that an affidavit has been filed saying that she has numerous inoperable vehicles on her property, which is false, and for the Code Enforcement Board to cause the County taxpayers such as waste of money to sue her is a ludicrous situation. She suggested that the County can pay for the incinerator a lot quicker if the Board did not hire contract attorneys from Orlando to sue her. At this point, she stated that she was of the understanding that the Board would have to give the County Attorney's Office permission to sue her, because they are not allowed to file suit without the Board's permission.
Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Case PH#55-01-3, Albert Kreibick, Leslie Campione, a request for an amendment to the existing Ordinance #1997-33, to increase the number of cars permitted on the described site, Tracking #118-01-MP/AMD
Ordinance 2001-135, with the conditions resolved by staff, and the total number of cars being 300; with the wording change on Page 3 that clarifies that a violation must be found before an emergency inspection fee is charged; Page 4, H. 2. changing January 1 to March 1; and deleting all of Paragraph 4 except the last sentence pertaining to monitoring requirements, Ordinance 2001-135.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson suggested that the applicant provide landscaping, even though it may not be a requirement, as a good neighbor, and stated that whatever screening that has not been done should be done.
Ms. Farrell explained that the applicant has a lot of existing vegetation.
Commr. Stivender stated that she did not want to add that requirement to her motion.
Ms. Farrell noted the following minor changes that she would like to have included in the motion: delete "and stormwater" and "and/or lake" from the language in Paragraph 3.
Commr. Stivender amended her motion to include the deletion of wording, as requested by Ms. Farrell, and Commr. Cadwell amended his second to the motion.
Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
RESOLUTIONS/GROWTH MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)
Commr. Cadwell asked that the Board address the resolution that had been presented earlier regarding Sugarloaf. He stated that staff has brought back a revised document, which expresses the desire of the Board to explore the possibility of purchase of the Sugarloaf DRI property by other agencies through the use of private, state or federal monies.
Commr. Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to approve Resolution No. 2001-212 expressing the Board's interest in exploring the possibility of the purchase of the property subject to the Sugarloaf DRI (FLWAC Case Number APP-00-001) by other agencies through the use of private, state or federal funds.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill clarified that she is comfortable with the revised resolution, however, the decision ultimately is not theirs and it is up to the legal system and the Governor, and she is hoping that the final determination will prove to be in the best interest of their community.
Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated Commr. Hill's's comments which is probably the feeling of the entire Board.
Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
CASE PH#57-01-1 - PIERCE HARDY REAL ESTATE CO./HARDY MGMT. CO. INC. - STEVEN J. RICHEY, PA - AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE #69-90 AND ORDINANCE #31-80 - TRACKING #116-01-CP/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for an amendment to CP Ordinance #69-90 and Ordinance #31-80 to allow use of the site for retail sales and service of automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles (RV's) and personal watercraft. Ms. Farrell explained that the property is a little under four acres on US Highway 441 and there are currently structures on the site, but there is not an existing business. Staff is recommending approval of the requested uses, and there were some issues at Planning and Zoning regarding noise and lighting, as far as the neighbors were concerned, so staff would like to add the following language to the ordinance:
Lighting:
Fenced vehicle storage:
Noise:
COMMISSIONERS
At 12:55 p.m., it was noted that Commr. Cadwell left the meeting.
CASE PH#57-01-1 - PIERCE HARDY REAL ESTATE CO./HARDY MGMT. CO. INC. - STEVEN J. RICHEY, PA - AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE #69-90 AND ORDINANCE #31-80 - TRACKING #116-01-CP/AMD (CONTINUED)
Commr. Stivender clarified that the request before the Board is in District 1.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and stated that Mr. Mandy Alonso and Mr. Brett Singer were present. Mr. Richey stated that the language proposed by staff is appropriate for them, and they accept the wording. He explained that a community meeting was put together and all of the neighbors reviewed the conditions and other documentation, and the issues of concern were resolved at that meeting. Mr. Richey showed the Board the site plan and described the location of the site. He explained that the existing building is going to be completely renovated and in one side of the building they will be doing their mechanical repairs, and there will be a display room on the other side of the existing building. Behind the building there are some large existing storage sheds, and there will be RVs parked under them for purposes of refurbishing, but the motor work will be done inside. They will be upgrading the entire facility, as they go through detailed site plan review. Mr. Richey submitted the site plan, which was marked as Exhibit A-1.
Commr. Stivender stated that Public Works has an existing 25 foot wide cross access easement.
Mr. Richey explained that the easement comes in and serves another business at this location, and it does connect now. He stated that they delayed this request one month, because the personal watercraft and other things did not get advertised. He clarified for the record that they are not going to sell boats, but they will be selling personal watercraft like wave runners and servicing them.
Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. There being no opposition and no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case PH#57-01-1, Pierce Hardy Real Estate Co./Hardy Mgmt. Co. Inc., Steven J. Richey, PA, a request for an amendment to CP Ordinance #69-90 and Ordinance #31-80 to allow use of the site for retail sales and service of automobiles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles (RVs) and personal watercraft, Tracking #116-01-CP/AMD, Ordinance 2001-136, with the conditions as proposed by staff.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
CASE PH#74-01-3 - GENE SMITH, TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES - AMEND CFD ORD. #1996-70 - TRACKING #136-01-CFD/AMD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request to amend CFD Ord. #1996-70 to include government/institutional offices and facilities. Ms. Farrell explained that Mr. Smith has a building on the property that was formerly used as a church, and it has probably had several uses over the years. Staff wanted to add general office use and has recommended approval. The CFD Ordinance includes institutional and office uses; there was no opposition; and Planning and Zoning recommended approval.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that the County has leased the building and Mr. Smith actually owns the building, so the Board is actually requiring him to bring the zoning into conformance.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Ms. Glenda Mahaney addressed the Board and questioned whether this was a LM zoning request, and staff clarified that it was a CFD. Ms. Mahaney explained that there is a controversy between the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan, and the same controversy applies to offices as it does to retail sales; it is not allowed in LM zoning without being a part of an integrated development plan, but if this is some other zoning, she did not have any comment or complaint on it. Ms. Mahaney stated that she would like to speak under the citizen public comment.
Commr. Hanson noted that the agenda does not allow for citizen public comment on zoning days, but the Board would consider her request after this case.
Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. There being no opposition and no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Case PH#74-01-3, Gene Smith, Triangle Industrial Park, Department of Community Services, a request to amend CFD Ord #1996-70 to include governmental/institutional offices and facilities, Tracking #136-01-CFD/AMD, Ordinance 2001-137.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY -
COMMISSIONERS/COMMITTEES/COUNTY EMPLOYEES/COUNTY POLICY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager, stated that, after the Board discussion last week, he met with the Senior Directors, as well as the Employee Advisory Committee, and discussed the cost of closing the Monday before Christmas and the Monday before New Years and eliminating the floating day, which would result in one additional day off for employees. He stated that the actual overtime cost would be about $10,000 and, in addition, he would like to work something out with firefighters, which will cost about the same amount to provide some benefit for them. The cost would be about $20,000. Mr. Minkoff stated that the Directors were not in favor of closing Christmas Eve and leaving the floating day, because the floating day creates a lot of scheduling problems for them. So, if the Board was going to do anything, they would prefer that the Board close both Mondays, and the Employee Advisory Committee thought it was a great idea. He stated that the staff recommendation would be to close both of those days. He felt that most of the Constitutional Officers will follow suit, but some, like the Tax Collector, may have to be open New Year's Eve, because of the last day of business.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to declare December 24, 2001 (Monday) and December 31, 2001 (Monday) as holidays.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
COMMISSIONERS/LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney/Interim County Manager, informed the Board that staff was served yesterday with an Administrative proceeding where Liberty County has contested a decision by the Banking of Finance on how they distribute funds that come from the federal government and are made to ameliorate the federal forests being in the counties and affects 14 counties. He stated that Marion County is substantially affected in a negative way, and they have requested that Lake County look at this with them to determine the impact on the County. Staff will be doing this and if they feel the County should join the litigation, it will be brought back to the Board.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT #3
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/TAXES
Commr. Stivender addressed the issue of the one cent sales tax and informed the Board that the letter is ready for the Commissioners' signatures, and the brochure is to the printers and should be out next week. She stated that last week the Board approved $25,000 to cover expenses and now they are being told that there may actually be 97,000 households, so the cost may be an additional $5,000. She further noted that the website is up and running with all of this information.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels that a lot of the people are still under the impression that this is a new tax, but it is not a new tax, but an extension of an existing tax.
Commr. Hill stated that she knew that the Board was going to divide the costs between the three entities and questioned whether the Board has paid its portion and whether the additional costs should be burdened to someone else.
Commr. Hanson explained that the information will inform the voters of how the dollars have been spent; it is not a promotion of the tax.
Commr. Hill stated that, when the Board decided to split the costs of bringing this forward for information and educational purposes, it was to be split among the three entities.
Commr. Stivender explained that all of the cities have done their own fliers, and the County is doing their own information piece, as well as the League of Cities and the School Board. She clarified that this would be strictly County expenditures.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place the item for additional funds, for mailing purposes, on the agenda.
Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or vote.
Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve the additional $3,118 needed for the cost of mailing the letter and completing the information regarding the one cent sales tax.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that she feels uncomfortable that there would not be a unanimous vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present, and she was concerned that the Board did not have the exact numbers.
Commr. Hanson felt that Commr. Cadwell would support the additional funds, since he supported the $25,000. She noted that the information will be sent to all registered voters, not just property owners.
Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Cadwell as not present for the discussion or vote.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT #2
LEGISLATURE/LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY
Commr. Pool informed the Board that he will be traveling to Tallahassee tomorrow on behalf of the Board taking their message regarding Sugarloaf to the various staff members of the Governor and the Cabinet.
COMMISSIONERS/MISCELLANEOUS
Commr. Pool informed the Board that his Grandmother celebrated her 101st birthday on Sunday.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER HANSON - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #4
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY MANAGER
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that she will be going to Pensacola later this week to finalize the contract with Mr. William Neron, the newly selected County Manager. She noted that he anticipates being on board November 5, 2001.
ZONING
Ms. Glenda Mahaney addressed the Board and stated that she believes there is a problem with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), because they do not correlate and staff has had a difficult time interpreting them and, even if they are wrong, staff will move forward with their decision. Ms. Mahaney explained that she is trying to get an occupational license to run a small gift shop, and she has been in her LM zoning for many years. She stated that she is actually grandfathered for retail sales, as she explained, and there is now a lawsuit in the Federal Court. Since that time, she has filed several more applications, and each time she files to do something different, staff turns it down, and it becomes a different lawsuit, because staff refuses to admit that sales of alcohol are retail sales, and she has grandfathered property.
Commr. Hanson suggested that Ms. Mahaney work with her district commissioner.
Ms. Mahaney explained that she has made several phone calls to Commr. Stivender, and she has not returned them to this date. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan must be supported by ordinance and, as an example of the discrepancy, there is a table of allowable uses in LM zoning, and it says convenience retail sales are allowed in LM and, under the definition of convenience retail, it specifically includes gift shops. However, the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs do not coincide, because it says no retail in LM.
Commr. Hanson asked that Commr. Stivender and Ms. Farrell meet with Ms. Mahaney to discuss her application for an occupational license to run a small gift shop in LM zoning.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
TMR/BOARDMIN/10-23-01/10-31-01