A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JULY 23, 2002
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, 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: Robert A. Pool, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; Catherine C. Hanson; and Debbie Stivender. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; William “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Linda Green, Executive Assistant, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that Ms. Emogene Stegall, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, requested that a presentation she had scheduled for today’s meeting, regarding a change in precinct boundaries, be postponed until the Board Meeting scheduled for August 13, 2002; and that Tab 23, under the County Manager’s Departmental Business, a request for discussion of Comprehensive Plan Policies and the residential rezoning and subsequent development of 260 home sites, utilizing septic tanks, in the City of Clermont’s service area, be postponed until the Board Meeting scheduled for August 20, 2002. He stated that, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, he would like to request that Tab 4, a request for approval and authorization to execute a Resolution initiating the annual process for the preparation of the Assessment Roll for Fire and Rescue, for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2002, be pulled for discussion, as well as Tab 19, which is a request from Solid Waste Management for approval and authorization of the Initial Assessment Resolution for Collection, Management, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recovered Materials for Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, until discontinued or changed. He stated that there was also an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing two items under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda and two items under Reports.
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that she would like to add under her Reports, for discussion, a ceremony that has been planned in memory of the September 11th tragedy.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 18, 2002 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of June 25, 2002 (Regular Meeting), as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Bonds - Contractor
Request for approval of Contractor Bonds, New and Riders, as follows:
New
4984-03 Eddie T. Palmateer d/b/a Ace Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
5421-03 Von M. McElroy d/b/a McElroy, Inc. (Electrical)
5481-03 Kenneth Vining d/b/a Vining & Sons, Inc. (Air Conditioning)
5699-02 Chris Palmer d/b/a Palmer Pools
5961-02 Ray Jones d/b/a Home Connection
5962-02 Pro Cut of Lake County, Inc.
5963-02 Jonathan Vallon d/b/a Sunscape Lawn Service & Landscaping
5964-02 Ted P. Costello d/b/a Ocala Landscape Management, Inc.
5965-02 Warren A. Altman d/b/a Altman Sod & Landscaping, Inc.
5966-02 Russell Watson d/b/a R.A. Watson, Inc.
5967-02 Rob Durant d/b/a Daybreak Irrigation
5968-02 Robert Goodridge d/b/a Bob’s Landscaping
5969-02 Michael Dozier d/b/a Dozier Irrigation
5970-02 Central Florida Landscaping & Maintenance, Inc.
5971-02 Ronald Hagadorn d/b/a Rainbow Pool Maintenance
5972-02 Double J Nursery d/b/a Better Homes & Lawns, Inc.
5973-02 Ron J. Hunnewell d/b/a Hunnewell Landscaping & Irrigation
5974-02 J. Barry Paige d/b/a Barry’s Lawn Maintenance & Landscaping
5975-02 William Wintersdorf, III d/b/a Lake Lawn & Landscape
5976-02 Edward McManus d/b/a Sunshine Lawn Service
5977-02 Philip S. Penn d/b/a Sunbelt Irrigation Works, Inc.
5978-02 Dennis Bronson d/b/a Bronson’s Lawn Care
5979-02 R. L. Huffstetler d/b/a Huffstetler Landscape Contract
5980-02 Ground Effects, Inc. (Landscape Maintenance)
5982-02 Danny Legg d/b/a Danny Legg’s Landscape & Tree Trimming
5983-02 David Easter d/b/a Easter’s Landscaping & Irrigation
5984-02 Raymond Lee Erjavec d/b/a Land Design
5985-02 Alan Brower d/b/a/. Alan’s Lawn Care, Inc.
5986-02 Mike Moucha d/b/a Grassmasters of Central Florida
5987-02 Claire Bishop d/b/a Woodlandmar Lawnscape
5988-02 Rodolfo Vera d/b/a Vera’s Landscaping
5989-02 Steven T. Richart d/b/a Richart, Inc.
5990-02 Brian J. Shank d/b/a Clermont Scapes, Inc.
5991-02 Allen Snavely d/b/a Allens Landscape & Irrigation
5992-02 Bill (William) Kyle d/b/a/ Bill Kyle’s Outdoor Services
5994-02 Mike Burgess d/b/a Mike Burgess Irrigation
5995-02 Gregory Cardwell d/b/a Four Corners Landscapes, Inc. (Irrigation)
5996-02 Thomas Richards d/b/a Phoenix Landscape, Inc.
5997-02 Adam H. Gamble d/b/a A.L.S. Property Maintenance (Irrigation)
5998-02 Jesse McConnell, Jr. d/b/a McConnell Landscaping
5999-02 Daniel B. O’Keef d/b/a D.B. O’Keef Construction, Inc.
6000-02 Joseph D. Fannin, Jr. d/b/a Southern Pride Services (Irrigation)
Riders
5956-02 Change Shalimar Landscape & Irrigation
to Shalimar Gardens of Eustis, Inc.
5958-02 Change Sandra Mose to Tavares Landscape & Flower Shop
5962-02 Change Pro Cut of Lake County, Inc.
to Robert Hoffman d/b/a Pro Cut of Lake County, Inc.
5966-02 Change Russell Watson d/b/a R.A. Watson, Inc.
to Russell Watson d/b/a Mr. Irrigation
5968-02 Change Robert Goodridge d/b/a Bob’s Landscaping
to Robert Goodridge d/b/a Bob’s Landscaping & Tree Service
5970-02 Change Central Florida Landscaping & Maintenance, Inc.
to Paul Bonadonna d/b/a Central Florida Landscaping & Maintenance, Inc.
Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Request for approval of Satisfaction and Release of Fine, fully releasing Larry K. Casson from any claims of the Order of Fine, in the amount of $400.00, dated February 12, 1992, and recorded in OR Book 1151, Pages 463 through 464, of the Public Records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida, on February 27, 1992; and authorized proper signatures on same.
Satisfaction of Judgment
Request for approval of Satisfaction of Judgment for State of Florida vs. John S. Stahelek, Case No. 1986CT020588, in the amount of $100.00, fully releasing the Final Judgment Assessing Attorney’s Fees and Costs, which was entered on the 1st day of December, 1986, and recorded in OR Book 2907, Page 1449, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; and authorized proper signatures on same.
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Notice from City of Leesburg
Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice from the City of Leesburg to Public and Taxing Authorities of Proposal to Adopt Community Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Trust Fund, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and to Designate a Blighted Area.
Minutes of Board of Supervisors of Country Greens Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of Minutes of the Board of Supervisors of the Country Greens Community Development District, held on April 12, 2002.
Central Lake Community Development District’s Proposed Budget for FY 2003
Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of Central Lake Community Development District’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, for purposes of disclosure and information only, in accordance with Chapter 190.008(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The District will schedule a public hearing not less than 60 days from the date of this letter, for adoption of same.
Commission Conference Agenda from Florida Public Service Commission
Request to acknowledge receipt of Commission Conference Agenda from the Florida Public Service Commission - Conference Date and Time: July 9, 2002, 9:30 a.m.
Proposed Budget for Village Center Community Development District for FY 2002/03
Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of Proposed Budget for Village Center Community Development District, for Fiscal Year 2002/2003, in accordance with Chapter 190.008(2)(b)(c), Florida Statutes.
Annexation Ordinances from City of Tavares
Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinances from the City of Tavares, as follows:
Ordinance No. 2002-08, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares, by annexing approximately 1.5 acres located on the southeast corner of Nightingale Lane and U.S. Highway 441; rezoning the property from County RP/CUP to City of Tavares C-1 (Commercial); subject to the rules, regulations, and obligations ordained by the City of Tavares Council on June 5, 2002; providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2002-10, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares, by annexing approximately 5.64 acres located at the southeast corner of Mt. Homer Road and U.S. Highway 441; rezoning the property from County C-1 (Commercial) to City of Tavares C-1A (Highway Commercial); subject to the rules, regulations, and obligations ordained by the City of Tavares Council on June 5, 2002; providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2002-12, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares, by annexing approximately 5.21 acres located on Dora Avenue, approximately 1/4 mile east of David Walker Drive; rezoning the property from County R6 (Residential) to City of Tavares PCD (Planned Commercial District); subject to the rules, regulations, and obligations ordained by the City of Tavares Council on June 5, 2002; providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2002-14, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares, by annexing approximately 9.8 acres known as the Golden Triangle YMCA, located on David Walker Drive, south of Dora Avenue; rezoning the property from County CFD (Community Facilities District) to City of Tavares PFD (Public Facilities District); subject to the rules, regulations, and obligations ordained by the City of Tavares Council on June 5, 2002; providing an effective date.
Unclaimed Excess Proceeds for Tax Deeds
Request to acknowledge receipt of unclaimed excess proceeds for tax deeds totaling $71,010.58.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:
Budget and Administrative Services - Budget
Request for approval of the following:
General Fund budget transfer from Public Works, Repairs and Maintenance, to Buildings, in the amount of $47,090.00. This transfer is requested, per instructions from the County Finance Department. Funds needed to re-roof Building G (416 W. Main Street) and the American Legion building. Funds were originally allocated in the Repair and Maintenance account. The County Finance Department now states that the cost should be paid from the Buildings account, since the re-roofing will extend the life of the two buildings.
General Fund budget transfer from Constitutional Offices/Sheriff, Contingency - Sheriff, to Law Enforcement Operating, in the amount of $15,000.00. Pursuant to F.S. 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting a transfer, in the amount of $15,000.00, from Contingency - Sheriff to the Law Enforcement Operating account.
General Fund budget transfer from Constitutional Offices/Sheriff, Contingency - Sheriff, to Corrections - Capital Outlay, in the amount of $24,000.00. Pursuant to F.S. 30.49, the Sheriff is requesting a transfer, in the amount of $24,000.00, from Contingency - Sheriff to the Corrections - Capital Outlay account.
Budget and Administrative Services - Geographic Information Services
Request for approval of Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Minneola, relating to the creation, distribution, and sharing of geographic information.
Community Services
Request for approval of the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Agreement, Contract No. AL933, and any required Resolutions.
Request for approval of the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trip and Equipment Grant Agreement, Contract No. AL971, and any required Resolution.
Request for approval to submit grant application for the Florida Library Literacy Grant application for the Adult Literacy Program; and to authorize the Chairman to sign the grant agreement, if the application is approved.
Request for approval of amendments to annual funding agreement with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Lake and Sumter Counties, the Children’s Home Society, and the Lake Sumter Children’s Advocacy Center; and request for permission to encumber additional funds, in $1,000.00 increments, to each group.
Economic Development and Tourism
Request for approval of Impact Fee Deferral to G & T Conveyor Company, Inc.
Request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 2002-104, approving the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Locklando Door and Millwork, Inc.
Request for approval of Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement and Option to Purchase between Lake County and Anthony and Brenda Lopresto, for the purchase of Lot 2 B, at the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, in the amount of $106,400.00.
Request for approval to accept Local Arts Agency Grant, No.03-8014, in the amount of $4,536.00, of which 25% may be in-kind, for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.
Public Works
Request for approval to accept a Maintenance Map for a portion of Quail Grove Road
(4-6883), to clear title to lands along said route.
Request for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit, for Performance, in the amount of $213,384.45, that was posted for Royal Highlands, Phase 2, subdivision.
Request for approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Project Agreement Extension with the Department of Environmental Protection, to extend the deadline for the closure of the Land and Water Conservation Program Grant.
Request for approval to accept, maintain, and keep safe the donated WW II Carriage Gun, on display at McTureous Memorial Park; and for the Chairman to sign the Assurance of Compliance.
Request for approval to accept the following deeds:
Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds
Huffstetler Enterprises, Inc.
Huffstetler Drive
Florida Hospital/Waterman, Inc.
Huffstetler Drive
Freddie and Edna Teate
44C/C 468 Intersection
George F. McCabe Family Trust
44C/C 468 Intersection
Statutory Warranty Deed
Huffstetler Enterprises, Inc.
Huffstetler Drive
Drainage Easement Deed
Florida Hospital/Waterman, Inc.
Huffstetler Drive
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)
Budget and Administrative Services - Procurement Services
Request for approval and authorization to purchase carpet for the Clerk of Courts new Records Center, in the amount of $51,397.44, for the Department of Public Works, Capital Projects Division.
Request for approval and authorization to award Bid No. 02-128; encumber funds; and authorize a contract, subject to the County Attorney’s approval, to Blankenship Land & Marine, Inc., in the amount of $123,217.20, for drainage improvements in the Sun Eden Subdivision, in Yalaha.
Public Works
Request for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Stonegate at Silver Lake and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Stonegate at Silver Lake plat. Subdivision consists of 121 lots in Commission Districts 1 and 3.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21, WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE
DISPOSAL, LAKE COUNTY CODE
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 21, LAKE COUNTY CODE, WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE DISPOSAL, TO PROVIDE FOR UNIVERSAL COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECOVERED MATERIALS, TO PROVIDE FOR A NON-ACCESSIBLE PREMISE CREDIT; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE II, LITTER, SECTION 21-21, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-60, FEES FOR THE USE OF SOLID WASTE OR RECOVERED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-61, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 3, EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE, FRANCHISEE OR PERMITTEE REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-111, GENERAL REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-115, CHARGES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-148, HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE, ONSITE DISPOSAL CREDIT AND ANNUAL VACANCY CREDIT; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-148.2, ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL DROP-OFF CONVENIENCE CENTERS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to thank the Keep Lake County Beautiful Committee, the Solid Waste Study Committee, and the Solid Waste Department staff for all their patience and hard work, noting that the process involved with this Ordinance has been a long one.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2002-57, amending Chapter 21, Water Supply and Waste Disposal, Lake County Code.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that staff is meeting with the various franchise haulers, to negotiate a rate schedule that would be implemented under this Ordinance. He stated that they held their first meeting on Monday, July 22, 2002, and that by mid-August they hope to be bringing a report back to the Board as to the results of the negotiations.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether the savings would be passed along to the consumer and was informed that they would be.
Commr. Cadwell questioned the time frame involved for privatizing the recycling and was informed that the County has sent out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the materials recycling portion of it, which are due back by the end of next week. He stated that the County is in the process of working with the affected employees and feel that, by October 1, 2002, all those individuals currently employed by the County will have been placed in other vacant positions within the County. He stated that they are making good progress along those lines.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that Rezoning Case No. CUP 02/5/3-2, Danis Industries/Dallas Wolford, a request for revocation of a CUP, had been before the Board on two other occasions and had been postponed, therefore, requested that, due to the fact that it was strictly a request for a revocation and the fact that the rezoning portion of this meeting is anticipated to be a long one, it be moved up to the first part of the Rezoning Agenda, rather than being last on said Agenda.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that she had received the following requests for postponement:
Joe Swiderski/Steven J. Richey
Rezoning Case No. PH32-02-1
Tracking No. 53-02-Z
30 day postponement, until the Board Meeting scheduled for August 27, 2002, to allow the applicant to take another look at some of the uses that they are including in the request.
Tom Dougherty
Rocky Mount Development
Rezoning Case No. CUP01/10/1-2
Tracking No. 55-02-CUP/AMD
60 day postponement, until the Board Meeting scheduled for September 24, 2002, to work out some Code Enforcement issues.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the requests for postponement, as noted, and the request to move Rezoning Case No. CUP 02/5/3-2, Danis Industries/Dallas Wolford, to the first part of the Rezoning Agenda, as requested.
REZONING CASE NO. PH28-02-3 - RM TO R-7 - G. B. AND JUDY COLVIN
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request to place a single family residence in the Thompson’s Estates Mobile Home Park, which would need a rezoning to R-7 (Mixed Residential District). She stated that such a request has been approved for the park in the past; therefore, staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2002-58 - G. B. and Judy Colvin, Rezoning Case No. PH28-02-3,Tracking No. 49-02-Z, a request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-7 (Mixed Residential District).
REZONING CASE NO. PH30-02-1 - A TO AR - EUCLEE F. CARRY
EDWARD DALE NELSON
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it was a request from A (Agriculture) to AR (Agriculture Residential). She stated that the applicants would like to do a lot split and, in order to do so, will
have to rezone their property from A to AR. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval, as well.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. 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 Ordinance No. 2002-59 - Euclee F. Carry/Edward Dale Nelson, Rezoning Case No. PH30-02-1,Tracking No. 51-02-Z, a request for rezoning from A (Agriculture) to AR (Agriculture Residential).
REZONING CASE NO. PH29-02-4 - AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE NO. 69-89,
ORDINANCE NO. 34-86, AND CP ORDINANCE NO. 7-84 - THEODORE C.
CLARK/RICHARD AND SHERON BUSH, HOMESTEAD EXTERIORS, INC.
CECELIA BONIFAY, AKERMAN, SENTERFITT, AND EIDSON, P.A.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves taking two old CP (Planned Commercial)Ordinances that are located on Hwy. 19 and merging them, to provide for C-2 (Community Commercial) uses, less a used car lot. She stated that it was a straight forward request, merging two ordinances into one, however, noted that the applicants would have to go through site plan review. She stated that the site is less than one acre in size, so there will be less than 10,000 square feet of warehousing on it. She stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, Akerman, Senterfitt, and Eidson, representing the applicants, addressed the Board and clarified the fact that the request was for a CP, for up to 10,000 square feet, noting that staff’s original recommendation was for 5,000 square feet. She stated that 10,000 square feet would be the maximum amount that the applicants would put on the site. She stated that it would be the same as combining two individual parcels into one, noting that each one of the parcels, as a C-2 use, could have up to 5,000 square feet. She asked the Board to recommend approval of the request. She submitted, for the record, a Conceptual Plan (Applicant’s Exhibit A) for the site, which she had reviewed with the Board.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether Ms. Bonifay had seen the letter from the City of Mt. Dora and, if so, whether she had a problem with it.
Ms. Bonifay stated that she had seen the letter and did not have a problem with it.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the building to be located on the site would be one or two levels and was informed that it would be just one level.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, 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 Ordinance No. 2002-60 - Theodore C. Clark/Richard and Sheron Bush, Homestead Exteriors, Inc./Cecelia Bonifay, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.,Rezoning Case No. PH29-02-4,Tracking No. 50-02-CP/AMD, a request for an amendment to CP Ordinance No. 69-89, Ordinance No. 34-68, and CP Ordinance No.7-84, to allow additional uses of the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district to be added.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP02/5/3-2 - REVOCATION OF CUP NO. 616-3(A&B) -
DANIS INDUSTRIES/DALLAS WOLFORD
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it has been before the Board a couple of times. She stated that the applicant has brought the property in question up to the County’s current codes, at which time she submitted, for the record, a memorandum (County’s Exhibit A), dated July 23, 2002, from Mr. David Higgins, Environmental Specialist, Water Resource Management, indicating that staff conducted a site inspection of the Prestige Gunite - Old Danis Landfill property on July 16, 2002, as a follow-up to the required action items the current owner, Prestige Gunite, and county staff agreed upon, to restore the required buffer between the property in question and the adjacent residential properties to the south, and found the property to be in compliance, along with several (13) photographs of the property, which she displayed for the Board, showing that it was in compliance.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Danis Industries’ successor, Prestige Gunite, who purchased half of the property in question, addressed the Board stating that Prestige Gunite has been working with staff, trying to come into compliance with the County’s codes. He stated that they purchased the property believing that everything was in compliance, however, discovered later that there were some issues. He stated that Prestige Gunite has restored a berm between their site and some adjacent residential properties and that they are continuing to work with staff, to make sure that they remain in compliance with all the regulations. He stated that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) revocation will leave MP (Planned Industrial), with HM (Heavy Industrial) and LM (Light Industrial) uses on the property. He stated that there was some confusion about said fact, noting that the old zoning ordinance files cannot be found, indicating what the uses were before the CUP was approved. He stated that the CUP states it amended the existing MP zoning, with HM and LM uses, so, if the applicant removes the CUP, there will be no landfill, but the MP, with HM and LM uses, will remain in place.
It was clarified that the landfill will no longer exist on the property; however, the other uses will remain.
Mr. Joseph Maxwell, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he wanted to know what the rules and regulations were at the time that the CUP was granted; therefore, he researched the matter and found that the CUP stated the transfer of ownership, or lease of any or all of the property described in Ordinance No. 47-91, shall include in the transfer of the lease agreement the fact that the purchaser, or lessee, is made aware of all conditions pertaining to the MP (Planned Industrial) zoning classification. He stated that it further states that the purchaser, or lessee, may request a change for the existing plan and conditions. He stated that the applicant, Prestige Gunite, had to be fully aware of anything that was going on with the property when they purchased it, however, noted that, if they were not aware of it, they are still fully responsible for it. He stated that the Ordinance further states that all operations shall maintain a setback of 100 feet from any public right-of-way, or public or private easement. He stated that it also states that there shall be a 200 foot setback from any church, school, park, hospital, residentially zoned properties, and properties used for public purposes, and 50 feet for all other setbacks. He stated that the applicant was operating well inside the 200 foot setback from his property line, noting that there are trucks parked within 50 feet of his property line, which they start up every morning at 5:30 a.m.
Commr. Pool stated that staff needs to make sure that the applicant is abiding by the required setbacks. He questioned whether Mr. Maxwell understood the fact that the overall operation for what the zoning allows does not prohibit the applicant from parking trucks within a certain distance of the property line.
Mr. Maxwell stated that, when the applicant was excavating dirt from the pit, they should not have come within 200 feet of his property line, however, noted that they came within 160 feet of it, which was illegal. He stated that Prestige Gunite has owned the property for approximately three months and nothing has been resolved or settled. He submitted two digital photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit A) of the site in question, showing debris scattered about and the fact that no berm is present. He stated that Ordinance No. 22-91, with regard to CUP No. 616-3, states that, with regard to transportation improvements, the applicant shall construct all necessary road improvements required by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Lake County Public Works Department, and excel and decel lanes shall be provided on Route 50; however, to this day, ten years later, not one lane has been constructed on Route 50, as required. He stated that, if the applicant is operating under the Ordinance he referred to, the rules and regulations should apply. He stated that he would like to see the case be postponed, until all his questions can be answered. He stated that the site is totally unacceptable, at which time he noted that the Department of Environmental Protection is not happy with anything involving the site at the present time.
Ms. Farrell stated that the applicant continues to work with staff regarding the matter, however, noted that there is nothing that precludes them from working with the Department of Environmental Protection, if there is still an issue involving the landfill, and it would not prohibit the County from addressing those concerns.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that staff has stated all the conditions of the CUP have been fulfilled; however, Mr. Maxwell is saying that they have not been fulfilled. He stated that, if the County revokes the CUP, the bond will go away, but, in order for the Board to revoke the bond, they would have to make a finding that all the conditions of the CUP have been fulfilled.
Commr. Pool questioned whether the applicant would still be responsible for what is on the ground, because they purchased what is there, if the County revokes the CUP and the bond goes away.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, under the County’s rules, the conditions of the CUP would no longer be in effect, so the applicant would not have to comply with them.
Ms. Farrell interjected that, if there were any other violations on the site, the County would still be able to take the applicant before the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, representing the applicant, informed the Board that the applicant would not have a problem with a 30 day postponement, however, noted that he did not feel Mr. Maxwell would be satisfied after the August rezoning meeting either.
It was noted that, if the property reverts back to the original zoning, which is LM (Light Industrial) and M-1 (Heavy Industrial), it only requires a 10 foot vegetative berm and the concrete business that is currently located on the site would be a permitted use.
A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Hanson to postpone Rezoning Case No. CUP02/5/3-2, Danis Industries/Dallas Wolford, Tracking No. 41-02-CUP/REV, a request for voluntary revocation of CUP No. 616-3 (A&B), which was permitted for use as a borrow pit and landfill, for construction and demolition debris and disposal of shredded tires, until the Board Meeting scheduled for August 27, 2002.
Under discussion, Commr. Stivender stated that she would like for staff to meet with Mr. Maxwell, to explain to him what will be allowed to be put on the property, so that it is very clear to him.
Mr. Maxwell questioned whether Ordinance Nos. 47-91 and 22-90 would still be in effect for the property.
Ms. Farrell stated that, if the Ordinances are tied to the landfill, they would not be, because the landfill is now closed. She stated that the property now has just a straight LM zoning.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP02/6/2-5 - AMEND LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND
INCLUDE USE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHIN CUP - JOHN
NEWBOLD, FRESH CUT, INC./STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves an old CUP in an R-1 zoning district. She stated that, in an R-1 zoning district, if one has over five acres and wants to do a nursery, one has to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). She stated that this particular CUP had some fairly strange language, in that it did not include the use of a single family residence, so staff is clarifying that and lessing out 45 acres, which is going to be split out for residential lots.
Commr. Hill disclosed the fact that she had discussed this case with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, prior to this meeting.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant’s representative was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2002-61 - John Newbold, Fresh Cut, Inc.,Steven J. Richey, P.A., Rezoning Case No. CUP02/6/2-5, Tracking No. 48-02-CUP/AMD, a request to amend the legal description to remove 88 acres from the CUP and to include the use of a single family residence within the CUP.
REZONING CASE NO. PH31-02-2 - R-6 TO CFD - LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD, ROGER PATTULLO/GREG A. BELIVEAU, LPG URBAN AND
REGIONAL PLANNERS
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a little over 20 acres in the Clermont area, which is currently zoned R-6 (Urban Residential). She stated that the request is to rezone the property to CFD (Community Facility District), to allow the construction of an elementary school on the site. She stated that she has been working on this site with Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, for the past 14 months and, because of the student population that is currently in the subdivisions in the area, and, due to the fact that the request met the County’s new school siting criteria, staff was recommending approval of the request. She stated that there was no opposition to the request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of it, as well.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant’s representative was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
Commr. Hill questioned who was going to be responsible for the road improvements (ingress/egress), sidewalks, and landscaping for the project and whether it would be paid for with impact fees from the County, or whether the School System would be responsible for it.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, addressed the Board, representing the applicant, stating that the road improvements would be the responsibility of the Lake County School Board. He stated that the ingress/egress access to the facility would be off of a paved county maintained road that has capacity. He stated that the School Board will be responsible for the landscaping in front of the facility, as well. He stated that, with regard to sidewalks, the School Board will construct sidewalks on their property, however, noted that they will not construct a web of sidewalks out into the community.
Commr. Hill stated that, according to the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, there are no sidewalks in any of the surrounding subdivisions, so it is highly unlikely that the students will walk to school.
Mr. Beliveau stated that, historically, parents do not let their children walk to school, whether there are sidewalks or not, considering recent news releases.
Commr. Hill stated that she noticed the school will be building a package plant and questioned where the spray field will be located, due to the site’s close proximity to the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.
Mr. Beliveau stated that the School Board currently has elementary and middle school sites that have package treatment plants. He stated that they have a history of having them and have not had a problem with them to date, at which time he noted that they have licensed and certified operators who inspect the plants and keep them operating.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether anything was being planned in the design of the school to encourage closer interaction with the community, such as a more cooperative effort between the school and the community for use of the facility.
Mr. Beliveau stated that he could not answer that question at this time, however, noted that, for the first time, the County will have a site plan review process available to them, with regard to the school site, noting that school sites have always been exempt from that under the Florida Statutes. He stated that the School Board does not have a problem with the County going through the process of reviewing the site plan and looking at how the school is laid out, access, etc. He noted that there is a new statute which requires the County and the School Board to work together and one of those factors is utilization of facilities after school hours, which he feels is a positive thing for both sides.
Commr. Pool applauded the School Board for trying to plan ahead and project what may or may not come in the future and for their leadership, in trying to work out and help resolve some recreational issues and after hours programs that schools can provide. He stated that he feels it is a win/win situation.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, addressed the Board and verified that there is available capacity on CR 561 for the school. He stated that there will be periods of congestion, when parents pick up and drop off their children, however, noted that the overall segment of the roadway will meet the adopted level of service.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2002-62 - Lake County School Board, Roger Pattullo/
Greg A. Beliveau, LPG Urban and Regional Planners, Rezoning Case No. PH31-02-2, Tracking No. 52-02-CFD, a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of an elementary school.
REZONING CASE NO. PH53A-00-2 - AMENDMENT TO PUD ORDINANCE NO.
2001-11 - ZUREIQ INVESTMENT COMPANY/M. SAMI ELI-BEHIRI/SILVER
CREEK SUBDIVISION
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves a 35 acre PUD. She stated that, when the applicant got to the final plat stage, staff realized that what they thought were public easements that would be vacated with the plat were not, they were private easements and there were some setback issues to deal with. She stated that it only consists of eight lots, however, noted that, in order to get the applicant through the platting process, they need to amend the PUD, so that housing can be placed on the eight lots.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
The applicant, or the applicant’s representative, was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved Ordinance No. 2002-63 - Sami El-Behiri, Zureiq Investment Company/Silver Creek Subdivision, Rezoning Case No. PH53A-00-2, Tracking No. 54-02-PUD/AMD, a request for an amendment to PUD (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance No. 2001-11, to allow for five foot setbacks from underlying private access easements for eight lots.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP02/6/1-3 - AMENDMENT TO CUP ORDINANCE NO.
1999-73 - HOWARD H. HEWITT/TED WICKS, WICKS CONSULTING
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained this request, stating that it involves an 86 acre site in the Okahumpka area. She stated that, in 1999, the Board approved a C&D (construction and demolition) landfill for the site. She stated that the request was before the Board this date to add a Class III materials, an air curtain incinerator, and a waste tire collection center as accessory or secondary uses to the landfill. She stated that it has been in place since 1999, with no concerns from Water Resource Management. She stated that there is to be no processing on the site, there will be no asbestos, via the Ordinance contained in the Board’s backup material, and there will be a change in the hours of operation, per a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She stated that staff looked at the request from a land use perspective, a Comprehensive Plan perspective, and an environmental perspective and were recommending approval. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request, by a 7-2 vote, with the elimination of the public address system and with the hours of operation being from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. She noted that there were several letters of opposition on file.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that the biggest change in the existing CUP was going to be the waste tire collection and the air curtain, noting that some of the concerns indicated in the letters that the County received are already permitted under the current CUP.
Ms. Farrell stated that Class III and C&D is practically the same thing, which is confusing to some people.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether there had been any Code Enforcement violations under the current CUP since 1999 and was informed that there had not been any violations.
Commr. Pool disclosed, for the record, that he had met with Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, as well as many residents in the area of the landfill, prior to the meeting.
Commr. Stivender disclosed that she had met with Mr. Richey, talked with Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing the opposition, met with Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting, and did a site visit with Mr. Howard Hewitt, the property owner, prior to the meeting.
Commr. Hanson disclosed that she had met with Mr. Richey and Mr. Wicks and had a telephone conservation with Mr. Duke Crittenden, an adjacent property owner, regarding the request, prior to the meeting.
Commr. Hill disclosed that she had met with Mr. Richey and Mr. Wicks and had received numerous e-mails and faxes from Mr. Crawford, prior to the meeting.
Commr. Cadwell noted that he had been gone for the past couple of weeks, therefore, had not met or corresponded with any of the parties mentioned.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, addressed the Board stating that they had before them an application for the applicant to amend his CUP (Conditional Use Permit), under which he is currently operating a C&D landfill. He gave a brief background history of the case, noting that, in 1985, the property in question was approved for a clay and sand extraction (borrow pit) operation. He stated that a CUP was filed, which, as part of the reclamation plan for the operation, called for the property to be returned to a depressed area. He stated that, in 1999, the applicant amended the reclamation plan for the clay and borrow pit operation, adding a restoration/reclamation plan, which required the applicant to bring the property back up to its original grade. He stated that the reclamation plan was amended in 1999, allowing the applicant to take it from leaving a depression, which the borrow pit operation would have done, to restoring it to 86 acres of pasture, which is what the reclamation plan that is currently in operation for the C&D landfill provides for.
Mr. Richey stated that this year the applicant applied for an amendment to the CUP, to add a Class III materials and accessory use, which allows the applicant to accept furniture and yard waste, in addition to the C&D debris. He stated that there was a discussion about the operation of the C&D and how many tires the applicant would be allowed to have on the site, therefore, as part of this application, the applicant applied for a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) waste collection site for tires, as well as a permit to allow the transporting of tires that are collected to reclamation facilities. He stated that the applicant was asking, as part of the CUP amendment, that the tire collection facility be included as an accessory use to the existing C&D operation. He stated that, historically, air curtain incinerators have been accessory uses in borrow pit operations in Lake County, without a specific kind of permit. He stated that the applicant obtained a DEP permit for the air curtain incinerator, however, noted that it was called to their attention by staff that they were requiring it to be in the CUP, as an accessory use. He stated that what was before the Board this date was a request to add those three things to an existing operation. He stated that, should the Board choose not to approve the amendments being proposed this date, the applicant’s borrow pit operation has been going on since 1985 and would continue in its current state of operation and the C&D landfill would continue in its current state of operation, as well. He stated that the opportunity to reclaim the property in question in a more expeditious way is what adding Class III materials does, noting that it would allow reclamation of the land in half the time than it would if the applicant’s request is not approved.
Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting, representing the applicant, was called to the podium by Mr. Richey, at which time he was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter, and answered questions regarding the technical aspect of the proposal before the Board this date. It was noted that he had appeared as an expert witness before the Board on numerous occasions and was a registered professional engineer. He stated that the landfill has been properly permitted by the County and the applicant has DEP permits, as well. He stated that the operation is such that the applicant has spotters and people operating the landfill that are required to meet the training requirements of the State of Florida. He stated that they look at incoming waste and extract materials that are not supposed to be in the landfill. He stated that there are designated disposal sites and collection sites for said materials, so that they can be transported off the site for proper disposal. He stated that, as the applicant goes into a Class III operation, very little will change, as far as the daily operation is concerned. He stated that the applicant will simply be accepting additional waste, consisting of yard debris and furniture. He stated that the applicant originally was not able to have much more than 25 tires on the site at any time and the way he has overcome that is by obtaining a permit from the State, allowing him to operate the facility as a waste tire collection center. He stated that, at the same time, the applicant permitted his vehicles, to be able to transport them off the site. He stated that they have only set aside a very small area of the landfill for the tires; therefore, it is prudent upon the applicant to make sure that the tires get transported off the site. He stated that the tires have some value, from a resource standpoint, so the applicant needs to keep that cash flow going.
Mr. Richey clarified the fact that the tires will be kept covered and the applicant will be required to maintain vector control, which is to keep the tires from collecting water and breeding mosquitos.
Mr. Wicks stated that the area has been reviewed by the County’s Fire Department and the applicant has an emergency management plan that addresses the issue of fire, should it occur. He addressed the issue of the air curtain incinerator, explaining what an air curtain incinerator is and how it operates. He stated that it is not really an incinerator, per say, as a lot of people have perceived it to be. He stated that the current facility, without any of the amendments being proposed this date, has a 30 to 40 year life, however, noted that the proposal to add the Class III materials will cut that time in half. He stated that land clearing debris is considered clean debris; therefore, the applicant is presenting what he feels to be a much more environmentally friendly way of disposing of land clearing debris.
Mr. Wicks answered further questions from Mr. Richey, with regard to the volume of truck traffic (50 per day projected) going to and from the landfill and what level of service it will create (currently level B, will possibly be changed to level C); the public address system (one has not been designed or approved for the facility); setbacks (required to maintain 200 feet from water body on south side of property, 50 feet from east and west property lines, and 200 feet from north property line); four foot berm for stormwater and buffering within the property; the timetable under the current C&D and under the current amendments for the property to be monitored and bonds to be posted (required to maintain financial assurance for up to 30 year period, in form of bonding mechanism in favor of both Lake County and the State of Florida); and asbestos (landfill will not accept). He then answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray, Harris and Robinson, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was representing Mr. Duke Crittenden, President, Bright Lake Groves, an adjacent property owner. He questioned Mr. Wicks about the number of trucks that will be traveling down CR 33 to and from the landfill; the average amount of waste that each truck will haul into and out of the landfill; whether the bond that is required on the DEP permit will run out in 30 years from the date of inception; and whether the bond will cover filters, mitigation, or deepening of surrounding property owners’ wells, if contamination is found in any of them ten years after closure of the landfill.
Mr. Dennis Horton, Attorney and owner of Sunburst Groves, Inc., a 135 acre grove which borders the property in question to the south, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he understood Mr. Wicks to state that the setbacks from the property in question to the north and to the south, where his property is located, were substantial, however, noted that there is a ditch that runs close to his fence line on the southern boundary to the east of the lake. He stated that there is not a substantial setback, as far as his property is concerned, east of the lake.
Mr. Wicks stated that the impact of it is fairly negligible, noting that it is only a small strip of land.
Mr. Horton questioned whether the bond that Mr. Crawford alluded to would cover any damage to his citrus grove, from materials being dumped in the landfill, since his grove goes right up to the fence line of the landfill.
Mr. Wicks stated that the bond covers the proper closure of the landfill and long-term care of the landfill, however, to his knowledge, it does not extend to off site properties.
Mr. Nicholas Andreyev, Andreyev Engineering, Inc., representing the applicant, was called to the podium by Mr. Richey, to answer questions regarding the request, at which time he was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.
It was noted that Mr. Andreyev had appeared before the Board on numerous occasions and that the Board accepted him as an expert witness.
Mr. Andreyev was questioned by Mr. Richey regarding the fact that he had been involved with this project through the permitting of it, through the C&D operation, and, prior to that, through the excavation operation, and is now involved with it, with regard to the addition of Class III materials. He discussed the characteristics of the site and why the proposed proposal is appropriate for the site, at which time he noted that the site would not require a liner, due to the layer of clay that is located underneath the landfill, and due to the fact that there should not be any leachate produced, because all materials are placed above the water table; and the fact that the landfill is required to have monitoring wells located around it, to test the water for contamination as it goes through the clay and again as it goes through the lime rock.
Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Crawford, Attorney, representing the opposition, produced a letter (contained in the Board’s backup material) at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, dated April 15, 2002, from Ms. Gloria-Jean DePradine, Compliance and Enforcement Supervisor, Solid Waste Section, Department of Environmental Protection, with regard to a ground water monitoring report of the Hewitt C&D Landfill and the submittal of same, at which time he questioned Mr. Andreyev about the letter.
Mr. Andreyev stated that the letter referred to the fact that a high level of nitrates, aluminum, and iron were detected in the monitoring wells and suggested that the wells be retested, to see if they really existed, or whether it was an error on the part of the lab. He stated that the wells have been retested, to verify said fact. He stated that they found one of the reports from the lab contained a typographical error, indicating that a high amount of nitrates were present when they were not. He stated that nitrates is not something that would be produced by the landfill, but most likely by the prior agricultural use of the land, which was an orange grove. He stated that aluminum and iron were present, however, noted that they are naturally occurring materials in the soil and, due to the fact that the wells are in clay, they tend to have a high amount of natural aluminum and iron. He stated that the DEP is not concerned about it. He submitted, for the record, a report (Applicant’s Exhibit A), dated July 22, 2002, from his firm to Mr. Howard Hewitt, regarding the re-sampling of seven monitoring wells located at the landfill, due to an elevated concentration of aluminum and iron that was detected during the last semi-annual sampling of the wells conducted in April of 2002.
Mr. Richey then referred to a memorandum (contained in the Board’s backup material) from Ms. Deborah Helle, P.G. to Mr. Jim Bradner, P.E., dated March 4, 2002, regarding the CR 33 Class III Landfill Application Review, in which she addresses the permeability of the confining layer of clay found on the site. He questioned Mr. Andreyev about the memorandum.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, representing the opposition, addressed the Board and questioned Mr. Andreyev about the monitoring wells (14) clustered on nine sites around the perimeter of the property, at which time Mr. Andreyev displayed a map (Applicant’s Exhibit B) that he had prepared of the site in May of 2002, showing the location of the wells. Mr. Crawford then questioned him as to which direction the ground water flows on the site; the thickness of the clay layer (40 feet thick below the bottom of the landfill); how far down one would have to go to reach the layer of clay (10 feet from the top of the hill and approximately 5 feet toward the areas of the landfill where it is shallow); what happens if a volatile organic compound goes into the landfill, by mistake (will soak into the material and then try to percolate down through the clay); and what happens to it after it hits the clay layer (should be absorbed by the soil, if it is a small amount, and, if it is a large enough amount, will continue to percolate down into the soil, but will take several years to penetrate the clay).
Mr. Horton, Attorney, representing himself, readdressed the Board and questioned Mr. Andreyev as to whether there is any slope to the clay level and, if so, whether it slopes to the south towards his property; and whether, if there are contaminants, they will run down and hit the clay and run between the clay and the sand with the slope toward his property and the lake that is located on his property.
Mr. Andreyev stated that the property does slope toward Mr. Horton’s property, as well as a lake that is located on his property, and that any contaminants will run down through the clay to his property and lake.
Mr. Richey clarified that Mr. Horton’s property is located on the southern end of the property in question; therefore, the surficial and deep aquifers are moving across the property in question to the northeast and not flowing toward Mr. Horton’s property, but away from it.
Mr. William B. Robertson, a property owner to the east of the subject property, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request. He submitted, for the record, a photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit A) that he had taken on July 21, 2002, of the “retention pool”after a rain the night before, which he stated reminded him of a giant man-made lake; an aerial photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit B)of the excavated site, where the applicant plans to dump the landfill material; a faxed copy of Page 9 of Ordinance No. 1999-73 (Opposition’s Exhibit C), dated July 11, 2002, in which he has highlighted Paragraph h., which states, “All landfilling operations shall take plans a minimum of two (2) feet above the ground water table and shall not take place in standing water. If there is standing water in the pit, clean sand fill must be placed in the bottom of the pit until this condition can be met.”, noting that water follows the path of least resistance; a photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit D) of the sign at the entrance to the landfill, noting that 100% of the residents in the area said they knew nothing about the landfill, until they saw the signs on CR 33; a copy of the legal description (Opposition’s Exhibit E) that appeared in the May 19-27, 1999 editions of The Orlando Sentinel regarding this case, which he feels was very general and would not direct one to the actual site, unless they were knowledgeable about the area; a copy of the Notice of Advertisement (Opposition’s Exhibit F) from The Orlando Sentinel, indicating that said ads had appeared in the May 19-27, 2002 editions of said newspaper; an excerpt (Opposition’s Exhibit G) from the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting of June 22, 1999, regarding this case, in which he highlighted the fact that there was no opposition to the request, however, pointed out the fact since there were so many people present at this meeting in opposition to it, because they feel the landfill exists under false pretenses, should raise the eyebrows of the Board; a copy (Opposition’s Exhibit H) of the Notice of Public Hearing to Abutting Property Owners, from the Lake County Growth Management Department, indicating that a public hearing would be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday, June 2, 1999, and before the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, and the fact that it was only sent to eleven (11) of the individuals and businesses who are listed as either abutting the property, or, are located within a 500 foot range of the site in question; a copy (Opposition’s Exhibit I) of the Notice of Public Hearing to Abutting Property Owners, from the Lake County Growth Management Department, indicating that a public hearing would be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday, July 3, 2002, and the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, but, that it was only sent to six (6) individuals and businesses this time, questioning how there could be such a discrepancy in such a short period of time; a copy (Opposition’s Exhibit J) of Page 1 of the Conditional Use Permit for this case, where he has highlighted Paragraph F. - Phasing, which states, “The mining operation shall be in ten (10) acre phases. The “Permittee” may operate in the first ten (10) acre phase, commence work in the second phase, but shall not operate in the third phase prior to the complete restoration of the first ten (10) acre phase.”, noting that the applicant is not following the conditions of the CUP, in that respect; a copy (Opposition’s Exhibit K) of Page 8 of Ordinance No. 1999-73, regarding this case, where he has highlighted Paragraph J. - Operation Standards, b. - Security, which states, “Before any activity is initiated, the following requirements shall be satisfied: The site shall be enclosed with a security fence and gate, as specified in the approved Operation Plan. Such fencing or gates shall remain in place and in good repair until site reclamation has been completed and approved by the County. Warning signs of at least six (6) square feet shall be permanently posted ten (10) feet within the perimeter fence lines of the site. Such signs shall be placed at each corner of the fence line and also not more than 100 yards apart along any fence line accessible to the public. The sign shall be printed in letters of not less than five (5) inches in height, and shall state: “NO TRESPASSING” or another approved appropriate warning, the name of the owner, or operator of said land and a telephone number at which the owner or operator may be contacted. The signs shall be positioned so as to be clearly visible from outside the fence line.”; and photographs (6) showing the security gate and fence (Opposition’s Exhibit L) around the property in question.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP02/6/1-3 - AMENDMENT TO CUP ORDINANCE NO.
1999-73 - HOWARD H. HEWITT/TED WICKS, WICKS CONSULTING (CONT’D.)
Mr. William Robertson, a property owner to the east of the subject property, readdressed the Board, to continue his presentation, at which time he read into the record what Ordinance No. 1999-73 states about warning signs and submitted, for the record, three photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit M) of the northeast corner and the west side of the property in question, noting that it is 1,680 feet from the northeast corner to the first sign going south, that there are about 15 warning signs missing around the northeast to the northwest perimeter, and that there are no warning signs along the entire north property line, or at the northwest corner; a copy of Page 4 of Ordinance No. 1999-73 (Opposition’s Exhibit N), where he highlighted the fact that the Ordinance requires an inventory of all wells within 1,000 feet of the proposed landfill site, noting that none of the people he spoke to have had their wells inventoried, with regard to this landfill; a couple of photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit O), one showing a well owned by Mr. Jack Strickland located within 75 feet from the fence line of the property in question, and one showing Mr. Campbell’s property looking northeast, where he has a well that is located 300 feet behind the fence line; a digital photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit P) of himself walking near the air curtain incinerator, where he found a piece of pressure treated lumber, something that is prohibited from being burned in the incinerator; and a digital photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit Q) of the applicant (Mr. Hewitt) holding the piece of pressure treated lumber. He submitted said piece of lumber (Opposition’s Exhibit R), for the record.
Mr. Robertson continued with his presentation, at which time he quoted a verse from the Bible (Opposition’s Exhibit S), which states, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.”, which he submitted, for the record; an excerpt (Opposition’s Exhibit T) from the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated July 3, 2002, in which he highlighted the following language: “Mr. Wicks said the air curtain incinerator has been in operation for several months, because they thought it was an allowable accessory use. The County requested that this be included in their application. He explained that the air curtain incinerator must be operated at least 1,000 feet away from the landfill operation and 400 or 500 feet from adjacent property lines. This device will be used for land clearing debris, clean wood, unpainted wood, and possibly some yard trash.”; another digital photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit U) of the air curtain incinerator, which he noted is located approximately 70 feet from Mr. Strickland’s property line, which is in violation, according to the statement made by Mr. Wicks during the July 3, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, in which he states that it must be operated at least 400 or 500 feet from adjacent property lines; a printout (Opposition’s Exhibit V) from Air Burners, L.L.C., Palm City, Florida, taken from the Internet, explaining how an air curtain incinerator operates, at which time he noted that it will extend the life of the landfill, because the marketing behind such an incinerator is its high efficiency burn, which creates a mass reduction in waste; three photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit W) taken from the top of a fire tower that is located next to the landfill, showing numerous homes located in the area around the landfill; a photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit X) of his home, consisting of over 5,000 square feet, which he and his wife built three years ago; an appraisal (Opposition’s Exhibit Y) of his property, dated November 7, 1997, from Mr. John L. Rocker, Jr., SRA, State Certified General Appraiser, Appraisals, Inc. of Central Florida, in which Mr. Rocker states that Mr. Robertson’s property is appraised at $399,000.00; a copy of a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit Z) from Mr. David Pruett, Broker/Registered Appraiser, with Coldwell Bankers, from Ricker Realty, in Leesburg, dated July 2, 2002, in which he addresses the marketability of Mr. Robertson’s home, noting that it is a subject that is very near and dear to his heart - probably one of the most important issues being discussed this date - the loss of property value, at which time he noted that a landfill will depreciate his property and make it undesirable for subdividing and selling. He noted that Mr. Pruett states, with the proposed landfill being located across from his property, it would have a devastating impact on the marketability of the property; therefore, the only residential appeal would be to sell the property at a 50% discount.
Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, asked the Board to weigh the evidence submitted by Mr. Robertson, with regard to the letter from Mr. Pruett indicating a loss in Mr. Robertson’s property value, because of its close proximity to the landfill, and the appraisal from Mr. Rocker indicating that Mr. Robertson’s home was valued at $399,000.00, due to the fact that said individuals were not present at this meeting for cross-examination, to verify Mr. Robertson’s statements.
Mr. Robertson informed the Board that he submitted a petition containing 216 signatures, in opposition to this request, at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 3, 2002, at which time he submitted, for the record, an excerpt (Opposition’s Exhibit AA) of the Minutes from said meeting, in which he highlighted the fact that Mr. Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, questioned the petition, since the basis upon which the people signed it is not known, however, noted that he now has a petition (Opposition’s Exhibit BB) containing 250 signatures, in opposition to the request, which he submitted, for the record.
Mr. Richey stated that, as the Board looked at the petitions, they would notice what he pointed out to the Planning and Zoning Commission, being that he has no idea what the basis of the people who signed the petition were. He stated that he does not know if they were told that there is already a C&D operation operating there, he does not know if the people understand that there is already an air curtain incinerator in place that has been there for three to four months, that he does not know if the people know that the borrow pit has been on the site since 1985, and, more importantly, would ask the Board to look at the addresses, noting that there are a lot of them that are local, but there are a lot of them that live in Paisley, Sorrento, Fruitland Park, Summerfield, Eustis, Leesburg, and Tavares. He stated that there may be people who live near the landfill that have a legitimate concern and have information available to them, who may have signed the petition, however, noted that he would have to question the ability of all the people who signed the petition to know and understand the nature of the request, the nature of what has already been approved, and the limited nature of what is being requested this date.
Mr. Egor Emery, a resident of Eustis, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he feels long term compliance issues are something the County needs to worry about, with regard to the landfill. He stated that the Board needs to make sure that they look at the design criteria and that the water is being treated, rather than just being allowed to run into the lake. He stated that he was also concerned about the landfill being a borrow pit, noting that he would like to know what the nature of the operation was, since its approval in 1985. He stated that he wondered whether it was like so many speculative approvals that have come before the Board, where the applicant got the request approved and then sat on it, until there was a commercial market for it, then began to dabble at it a little bit, until the market got better, then came before the Board to obtain approval for something more intensive, and now the market has gone up again and they have come back for something even more intensive. He questioned the landfill’s compatibility with the surrounding properties, noting that it appeared to him that it was not a compatible land use. He suggested that the Board look at the issues he brought to their attention, before they consider approving the request. He stated that he would like to see the Board do everything they can to make sure that the applicant complies with not only the written law, but the spirit of it, which he elaborated on, and whether or not they feel a landfill and C&D operation is the best use for the land.
Ms. Janice Longordo, a resident of the area in question, whose residence is on CR 33, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that, with regard to the signatures on the petition alluded to earlier, she was one of the individuals at Mr. Robertson’s home helping to get signatures on the petition, during a meeting that was held there regarding the landfill issue, and she told everyone signing the petition that, if they had any questions, whatsoever, to wait until the meeting was over, so that they would be well informed about the matter. She stated that, with regard to some of the people who signed the petition having addresses other than the Okahumpka area, noted that some people have more than one piece of property and, just because people live in another area of the County, it does not mean that they do not own property in the area in question, or that they do not have a vested interest in the County. She stated that, with regard to the borrow pit being in effect since 1985, she has lived in the area for approximately 13 years and knows that the land was purchased by the applicant, but, it has not been in active use until recently. She addressed the issue of traffic, noting that growth has been tremendous along CR 33. She stated that a child almost got killed by a dump truck one foggy morning last year, because the driver of the truck did not see the child. She presented, for the record, a letter (Opposition’s Exhibit CC) from Mr. Gary Schreiber, Senior Forest Ranger, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, dated July 18, 2002, which she read into the record, stating that a public address system is not located at the Groveland Firetower on CR 33, in response to a concern that the residents in the area have been experiencing very loud public address system type noises, which they were informed were coming from the firetower, but, apparently, were not. She stated that she was informed that the tower is an active tower; however, the forest rangers only climb it when there are very high levels of fire danger, which would be the only time, if at all, that they might turn their radios up on their units, which might be heard from the towers. She stated that she has only heard the radios once or twice in all the years that she has lived in the area.
Ms. Longordo presented a power point presentation to the Board, at which time she displayed 13 photographs, contained on a compact disc (Opposition’s Exhibit DD), that were taken from an airplane, showing the landfill and surrounding properties, which she submitted, for the record. She stated that the area is growing, noting that it is no longer just an agricultural area. She stated that there are agricultural properties in the area, however, noted that there are many, many homes in the area, as well, and she does not feel that it is the type of setting for a landfill. She addressed the issue of the C&D aspect of the landfill, noting that she took it upon herself to investigate the matter, after reading the Minutes from the original CUP, in June of this year, and noticed that there was no opposition to the request at either the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, or at the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting. She stated that, in discussing the matter with numerous people, she was told that they were not notified. She submitted, for the record, seven (7) letters of opposition (Opposition’s Exhibit EE) from residents in the area, indicating their concerns about the landfill and the fact that they were not properly notified about any of the meetings where the matter was to be addressed, two of which she read into the record. She recommended that the County send certified letters to the abutting property owners, notifying them of the meetings, so that they will know in fact that people have received the notices. She submitted, for the record, an aerial map (Opposition’s Exhibit FF) showing the property in question, as well as surrounding properties. She urged the Board to look at the original CUP and see what an injustice has been done to the property owners in the area of the landfill and to listen to their concerns and consider the facts being presented this date.
Mr. Byron Voorheis, Manager, Pine Lake Retreat, a facility located just south of the property in question, on CR 33, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that Pine Lake Retreat is a Christian facility, consisting of 120 acres. He stated that they host different churches, for approximately 10 to 12 weeks during the Summer, and during the rest of the year, they have weekend groups, where different churches come and have family retreats. He stated that, because of the location of the retreat, they are concerned about an increase in truck traffic that they have noticed recently on CR 33, at which time he submitted, for the record, an excerpt (Opposition’s Exhibit GG) from the July 3, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, where he highlighted the following language, “Mr. Crawford was informed by Mr. Wicks that the original projection was about 25 to 30 trucks per day. He did not have any traffic counts at this time. If the Class III addition is to half the life of the mine, Mr. Crawford questioned whether this would double the truck traffic. Mr. Wicks said it would probably only increase the truck traffic by 50 percent, since the trucks will haul both C&D and Class III materials.” He stated that, on two different occasions, they have had people count the trucks that travel down CR 33, just to see how many actually travel the road and found that, on July 17, 2002, a gentleman and his son counted 32 trucks during a four hour period, and on Monday, July 22, 2002, several people counted 64 trucks that traveled down the road, during a 10 hour period. He stated that, if additional trucks are added to the roadway, it will create a very high volume of traffic, which they are very concerned about, due to the amount of children that live in the area and the fact that, when the trucks are loaded and come flying down CR 33, they cannot stop. He submitted, for the record, a couple of photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit HH) that were taken of CR 33, one-half mile north of the landfill, showing skid marks on the road, where a dump truck almost hit Mr. Robertson, while he was stopped, waiting for oncoming traffic to pass, so that he could turn into his driveway (shown in the picture). He stated that the truck traffic and a potential increase in said traffic is a major concern to those people who use the Pine Lake Retreat. He submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition’s Exhibit I I), containing the number of trucks that were seen on CR 33 on July 17, 2002, during a four hour period (32), and again on July 22, 2002, during a ten hour period (64).
Mr. Neville Sankey , a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was also concerned about the truck traffic that travels down CR 33. He stated that, on several occasions, he has had to overshoot the street where he lives, off of CR 33, go down the road and turn around and come back, because trucks are traveling down the road behind him so fast that they cannot stop in time for him turn onto his street. He stated that he was also concerned about what will be burned in the landfill and whether it will affect his health.
Mr. Duke Crittenden, President, Bright Lake Groves, the owner of a parcel of property east of the landfill that borders on CR 33, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was very much opposed to any expansion of the landfill, for a number of reasons. He stated that, when he was considering donating the right-of-way to get into the property, he asked what the property was going to be used for and was told that it would be used for a cattle ranch. He stated that it was used a little while for a cattle ranch, however, noted that it is anything but a cattle ranch today and it is affecting everyone in the area. He stated that he owns a lot of property in Central Florida and the thing that gets his antenna up is sand mines, landfills, borrow pits, and high tension power lines, because they all adversely effect property values. He stated that he has seen it happen too many times. He asked the Board to not expand the landfill, but to reign it in and put something on the property that everybody can live with.
Ms. Paula Paradiso, a resident of the area, who lives a little north of the landfill, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, at which time she displayed and submitted, for the record, twelve (12) digital aerial photographs (Opposition’s Exhibit JJ) that were taken of the site in question, showing the landfill, various homes in the area (which she identified), and several lakes in close proximity to the landfill, which the residents are concerned might become contaminated by the landfill. She stated that she recently talked with a gentleman from the Department of Environmental Protection, and he sent her an 89 page document (Opposition’s Exhibit KK), containing requirements and stipulations (Chapter 62-701 - Solid Waste Management Facilities), with regard to solid waste management facilities, at which time she noted that she had gone through and highlighted several areas of the document pertaining to landfills and the operation of same. She stated that she is concerned about things such as asphalt from the landfill contaminating the lakes in the area, at which time she displayed and submitted, for the record, a soup can containing asphalt (Opposition’s Exhibit LL) that was left over from a roofing job that one of her neighbors, who is a roofer by trade, had given her, demonstrating how asphalt does not get hard, but stays gooey. She stated that roofing buckets have been seen in the landfill, which concerns the residents, due to the fact that they contain the gooey asphalt residue. She stated that she was also concerned about the fact that carpet is going to be allowed in the landfill, too, noting that it contains toxins, which cause allergies and asthma in some people, and is concerned about what is going to happen when it is burned in the landfill. She stated that she was told that clean wood would be allowed in the landfill, which is free of paint, glue, filler, creosote, tar, asphalt, and other preservatives or treatments, at which time she pointed out the fact that furniture has treated materials on it, such as paint, varnish, polyurethane, etc. She stated that it is not clean wood and the landfill is going to accept it. She talked about the fact that she has a shallow well and is concerned about it becoming contaminated, noting that all of her neighbors have much deeper wells.
Ms. Paradiso addressed a concern she had about truck traffic on CR 33, noting that she counted a dump truck every three minutes one morning recently and that was without constant checking, because she was doing other things at the time. On another morning, she counted approximately 22 trucks on the road, during a brief period of time. She stated that she and her husband have all their money and their lives invested in their property and hope to be there a while and that they plan to leave it to their children and grandchildren and do not want them to be bothered 20 to 40 years from now with stuff that they are being told today will not effect them. She stated that the residents in the area are getting conflicting stories and would appreciate the Board paying close attention to everything involved with the landfill.
Mr. James Revels, a third generation roofer, who has been in the roofing business for the past 18 years, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that roofers dump a lot of asphalt on top of plywood when they are putting on a roof, because it is a convenient way of scraping it out of the way and he is concerned about the fact that wood is going to be allowed to be burned in the landfill. He stated that asphalt contains 20% asbestos, which, by burning it, will cause fibers from it to stay in the air for long periods of time. He stated that, if it is being burned in an incinerator, with a giant fan forcing heat onto it, to incinerate the wood, it is going to push those asbestos fibers into the air like a hot air balloon, which, in turn, is going to fall down on everybody, who will breath it in. He stated that, once it is inhaled, the body cannot eject it, because it sticks to the lungs. He stated that, over the years, thousands of cans of roofing cement are buried in the landfill and he is concerned about them being burned in the incinerator and ejecting hazardous materials into the atmosphere, as well. He stated that this type of stuff has got to be stopped and the Board is the only one that can do it. He stated that it is a health hazard and he feels the incinerator should be shut down immediately.
Mr. Jack Strickland, an abutting property owner to the landfill, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that his home is probably the closest one to the landfill. He noted that he had written a letter to the Board, in opposition to the request, which was submitted by Ms. Janice Longordo, for the record, along with some other letters that she submitted from residents in the area, indicating their concerns about the landfill and the fact that they were not properly notified about any of the meetings where the matter was to be addressed. He stated that he has a citrus grove on his property, which is his livelihood. He asked the Board to research the matter carefully, noting that 75% of his income comes from his grove. He stated that the people of Lake County put the Commissioners in office to protect their rights and asked the Board to do so.
Mr. Larry Earley, an abutting property owner to the landfill, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he has lived in the area since 1975 and wanted to clarify a few points that were made this date. He discussed the hours of operations at the landfill, noting that he is a firefighter in Orlando and leaves his home prior to 7:00 a.m., to get to work on time. He stated that the gates to the landfill are open prior to 7:00 a.m. on a regular basis. He stated that the applicant’s representative gives the impression that the landfill has been operational since 1985, however, noted that it was speculative, because they did not have access to the landfill prior to that. He stated that he has photographs to verify it. He stated that carpet emits gases when it is burned and, no matter how well the fan blows, those gases are still emitted and disbursed into the atmosphere. He stated that 280 poisonous gases are emitted by carpet, when it is burned, which he elaborated on. He stated that there are three industrial zoned areas within five miles of the site in question, which have been predetermined to be more appropriate for the disposal of such items.
Mr. Gerald Robinson, a property owner in close proximity to the landfill, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was a licensed water/wastewater plant operator and that he had done some research, with regard to the effects of leachate on ground water in Florida. He displayed and submitted, for the record, a handout (Opposition’s Exhibit MM) from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, explaining what ground water is and how to protect it, as well as a report (Opposition’s Exhibit NN) that he had obtained from the Internet, from Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly #90, titled “ Leachate From Municipal Dumps Has Same Toxicity as Leachate from Hazardous Waste Dumps.” He stated that, according to the report, there are 113 different toxic chemicals in leachate from municipal landfills and 72 different chemicals in leachate from hazardous waste landfills. He stated that what the data shows is that there is more toxic material coming out of a municipal landfill than from a hazardous waste site. He stated that there are 32 chemicals in industrial landfill leachate that cause cancer, 10 that cause birth defects, and 21 that cause genetic damage and there are 32 chemicals in a municipal landfill that cause cancer, 13 that cause birth defects, and 22 that cause genetic damage. He stated that the leachates that are leaking out may not affect our health, but may affect the health of our grandchildren and their children. He stated that something needs to be done about it now, because the decisions that are made now will affect the children of the future.
Mr. Horton, Attorney and owner of Sunburst Groves, Inc., readdressed the Board stating that he wanted to address the issue of property values, noting that no one wants to buy property next to a dump. He stated that he has $400,000.00 plus invested in his property, which borders the landfill. He stated that the property consists of 135 acres and that it contains a 70 acre grove, a lake (Horton Lake), and some wetlands. He stated that he feels the landfill is going to reduce the value of his property, as well as other properties in the area. He stated that he was against expanding the landfill and is concerned about the possible contamination of his grove, as well as his lake. He stated that, if the Board allows the landfill to continue, he would like to see a restriction be put on the number of years that it will be allowed to operate.
Ms. Joyce Frazier, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, at which time she displayed and submitted, for the record, a photograph (Opposition’s Exhibit OO) of the landfill property that was taken in 1999, as well as several photographs that she displayed from her lap top computer, one of which showed smoke coming from the landfill, after the residents were told that there would be no smoke generated from it, and another one showing some small trees, which she noted looked like sticks, that were planted on the landfill property to shield the residents in the area from the landfill. She stated that she put everything she owns in her five acres of property and would like to see the landfill closed down and have the property revert back to the way that it looked in the original photograph that she displayed, which was taken in 1999.
Mr. Eugene Rank, the owner of a parcel of property across the street from the landfill, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was the most affected resident in the area, as far as visibility of the landfill was concerned, because he lives right across the road from it. He stated that he has had his property up for sale for a few months and would like to get it sold, but, he does not feel that it will happen now, with the landfill being located across from it.
Mr. T. J. Bryant, President of the Hammock Grove Estates Homeowners’ Association, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, and submitted, for the record, a copy of the plat book page(Opposition’s Exhibit PP)pertaining to the property in question, which substantiates the fact that there are a lot of residential homes in the area. He stated that, due to that fact, he does not feel a landfill is an appropriate use for the area. He stated that he has had people who own property in Hammock Grove Estates indicate to him that they are wanting to sell their property, because of the landfill. He stated that he built his home one year ago and had hoped to live there for a long time. He stated that the landfill does not help the property values of anyone living in the area.
Mr. Jeff Schroeder, the owner of 120 acres located one half mile west of the landfill site, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that there were some things, with regard to the incinerator, that he did not feel had been properly addressed. He stated that the roads to the west of the landfill property are non-county maintained roads and he is concerned about emergency vehicles being able to access them, should the air curtain incinerator cause a fire. He stated that he knows the air curtain incinerator is supposed to be safe, however, pointed out the fact that it is mechanical and will malfunction and break down. He stated that, should a fire be started in the area, it will spread quickly, because it is dry season and some of the properties contain tall weeds. He stated that he was also concerned about the number of tires that will be allowed to be collected on the site, because he is afraid that they will become breeding places for mosquitos, which cause diseases like encephalitis, West Nile Virus, etc. He stated that he was also concerned about the issue of rain water, which will be settling on the bottom of the landfill, noting that contamination and debris could leach into the water and be pumped across the property to the high percolation area, which is close to the property lines; therefore, he wanted to know if there will be any test wells located on the other side of where the water is being pumped. He stated that, if there is not, there is no way that their test wells are going to show contamination, because it is being pumped outside the perimeter of the property. He stated that, although staff stated that the applicant is in compliance, there are some things that indicate they may not be. He stated that he feels more review of the request needs to be done, before the Class III request is approved.
Mr. Jack Allen, a resident of Highland Lakes, located south of Leesburg, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that his subdivision has approximately 1,900 residents; Royal Highlands has approximately 1,950 residents; Plantation at Leesburg has approximately 2,500 residents; Spanish Village has 250; Legacy has 150; and Hawthorne has approximately 2,000. He stated that said residents are not located close to the landfill, but are within breathable distance of it, which concerns them, because most of them are old, retired people who have trouble breathing on a good day.
Mr. Barry Visna, a truck driver who lives behind the landfill, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that, since the landfill has been open, the dust in the air has tripled and his wife suffers from asthma. He stated that most truck drivers get paid by the load, not by the hour; therefore, they travel down CR 33 at very high speeds, so that they can dump their load and pick up their next load. He stated that, if the Board allows the Class III permit to be granted, it will triple the truck traffic on CR 33and put a lot of people in danger.
Ms. Mary O’Brien, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she wanted to address the truck traffic that travels down CR 33, as well. She stated that there are three bus stops on CR 33, in close proximity to each other, at which time she displayed an aerial photograph previously shown by Ms. Paradiso showing Hammock Grove Road, Thomas Cove Drive, and Desert Lane, noting that said roads are where the three bus stops she alluded to are located. She stated that CR 33gets very foggy at times and she is concerned that, with the speed that the trucks travel down said road, increased truck traffic is going to endanger the children in the area, because the trucks carry such heavy loads and travel so fast that they will not be able to stop in time to prevent an accident. She stated that no one seems to understand how fast the trucks travel down that road. She stated that she has contacted the Lake County School Board and requested flashing lights for the school bus stops, to warn motorists about them, but the School Board has not erected the lights, because no one has been killed yet. She noted that the speed limit on CR 33 is 55 mph, but the truck drivers have been known to drive up to 80 mph on the road.
Ms. Donna Robinson, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she was one of the fortunate residents in the area, because she lives beside the firetower and it blocks her view of the landfill. She stated that she feels sorry for those residents who have to look at the landfill every day. She addressed the issue of the truck traffic that travels down CR 33, noting that she has witnessed a dump truck almost hitting the back of a school bus. She stated that the people of Lake County put the Commissioners in office to take care of their needs and that is what she was asking them to do this date - protect them. She asked the Board to really think about the request, before approving it, noting that it is not going to stop here. She stated that it will continue to grow, because she has seen it happen before. She asked the Commissioners to put themselves in the place of the residents.
Ms. Kirsten Ballard, the owner of ten acres of property in the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that she lives to the west of the landfill. She stated that she and her husband purchased their property in 2000 and had planned to make a home for themselves, start a family, and then later on expand their home. She stated that they invested all they had into their home and she is very concerned about the loss of property values in the area, due to the landfill. She stated that she could not see investing more money into their property, with the view of a big mound of dirt behind them and motors running all night long. She stated that the thought of additional investments that people will not make is something else for the Board to consider.
Mr. Herbert Suter, a resident of Royal Highlands, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he was unaware of what was going on, until he saw the article in the newspaper. He stated that, before he retired, he worked at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio and was aware of what the air base spent, with regard to water and air pollution - the result of many years of military operations there. He stated that, when he retired in 1999, Wright-Patterson had spent almost $1 billion in ameliorating effects of the groundwater pollution and it was anticipated that, during the next ten years, they would spend another $1 billion. He stated that the situation involving this landfill is not as big as Wright-Patterson and does not have the chemical potential that the air base did, but it is still a serious business and he would ask the Board to consider the request very carefully. He asked the Board to consider the potential impact, noting that it is not a five year problem, or a ten year problem, but a 100 year problem that is not going to go away.
Mr. M. L. Spikes, a resident of the area in question, addressed the Board, in opposition to the request, stating that he had asked Commr. Pool to look at a garbage dump on SR 50 a couple of years ago, which turned into something terrible, after it ceased being a garbage dump. He stated that the County informed him that the only thing the dump could be used for, after it was no longer a dump, would be a cow pasture or, at the most, a golf course, however, noted that immediately after the dump was closed it was turned into an automobile wrecking company, where they crushed automobiles and burned things. He stated that approximately three days per week a black powder would drift over his house and onto his automobiles, which took the paint off the hoods of his cars. He stated that he purchased his property in 1998 and the landfill was not in place at that time, contrary to what was stated earlier, and that there was no visible borrow pit. He stated that, like the rest of the people present at this meeting, he learned there was a landfill for the first time, when the signs were erected indicating that a landfill was present on the site. He stated that the landfill will hurt the property values of the residents in the area. He stated that he is a builder and has carried debris to the landfill on SR 50 and knows that they will accept anything. He stated that the Board needs to look backward, as well as forward, to see what the County used to have, versus what it has now, and what it will have if they do not do something about the landfill.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Mr. Duke Crittenden, President, Bright Lake Groves, the owner of a parcel of property east of the landfill, readdressed the Board and gave some closing remarks, stating that there are Comprehensive Plan Policies that protect existing residential neighborhoods and that protect the rural character of Lake County. He stated that all one has to do is look at Chapter 14 of the Conditional Use Permit Standards, which state that a landfill cannot be approved, if it will create an undue adverse impact on the surrounding neighbors, or, if it is inconsistent with the existing or planned character of the surrounding properties and that is what the Board needs to keep in mind, when they consider the evidence and the testimony that has been presented. He stated that the residents in the area continue to worry about the quality of their water, noting that, in a perfect world, the confining layer works great and does not allow anything to go through it; in a perfect world, that can of acetone and those batteries do not go into a landfill; in a perfect world, when they do the monitoring, the well picks them up; in a perfect world, an air curtain incinerator does not get placed within 75 feet of a property line, when it is supposed to be 600 feet from the property line. He stated that human error happens and that is why the County has to build extra safeguards into what it approves. He stated that the residents are also worried about their property values, noting that, with the exception of two residents, all the people that spoke owned their properties prior to the 1999 approval of the C&D landfill. He stated that Commr. Stivender indicated she purchased her home in close proximity to the County Landfill, however, pointed out the fact that she purchased her home knowing the landfill was in place, which is a big difference than purchasing a home ,or property, and then having a landfill move in close to you, after the fact. He stated that it does not take an appraiser to tell someone that locating a landfill next to your property will devalue it. He stated that the residents object to the air curtain incinerator, as well, at which time he noted that, if it is burning a considerable amount of yard waste, he does not see how the increase in truck traffic, which is going to at least double, if not triple, is going to do anything to decrease the life of the landfill, as indicated earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Crawford stated that he submitted, for the record, a memorandum (Opposition’s Exhibit QQ), which he noted he had copied to each of the Commissioners, containing conditions that his client had requested, should this request be approved, however, stressed the point that his client wants this request to be denied. He asked the Board to look at those conditions, should there not be sufficient votes to deny the request. He stated that he was not aware of the fact that the bond, alluded to earlier in the meeting, would not qualify to help people off site, should there be problems in the future, which he feels is something that would need to be addressed, if there are any problems in the future. He stated that the time limit is a primary concern, noting that he feels the landfill should have a time limit placed on it, such as eight to ten years. He stated that the Board has the power, the ability, and the responsibility to interpret the evidence and the testimony presented this date. He stated that they are the ultimate deciders of the issue.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 3:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.
REZONING CASE NO. CUP02/6/1-3 - AMENDMENT TO CUP ORDINANCE NO.
1999-73 - HOWARD H. HEWITT/TED WICKS, WICKS CONSULTING (CONT’D.)
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, readdressed the Board and rebutted some comments that were made regarding this case. He recalled Mr. Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting, to the podium and clarified the fact that some of the photographs that were shown by Mr. Robinson of the water/stormwater system indicate that the applicant might be in violation of his permits, at which time he asked Mr. Wicks to explain how the stormwater system works. He clarified the fact that, as material is buried in the landfill, the construction of the tipping floor of the landfill is such that the rainwater runs away from it and does not co-mingle with the material that is being covered up or buried; that the water that is being collected in the area that Mr. Robinson showed as a large area of water being pumped into another area is not contaminated water, but stormwater, which is being collected, pursuant to the applicant’s permit; that, with regard to the phasing in of one ten acre section before starting to work on another ten acres was done away with, as part of the reclamation plan that was filed in 1999, which has the applicant restoring the area where material is being buried back to pasture land; that the applicant is not taking the land above the original grade where it was when the applicant started taking material off, as part of the borrow pit; that it is common practice to have the perimeter of a borrow pit, or landfill, surrounded by barbed wire fencing; that the warning signs, indicating a landfill is present, are at the entrance to the landfill, where public access is permitted, according to the conditions of the CUP and the County’s Code; that the only access to the site is by way of the gate, which is located on the entrance road; that the applicant had to provide an inventory of wells within 500 feet of the site; that, if an individual put in a well and it showed up, the applicant would be required to inventory it, as per the requirements of the CUP; that, when DEP gets the inventory of wells, as part of where they tell Mr. Andreyev, with Andreyev Engineering, to put his test wells, around the perimeter of the property, related to where the applicant shows them wells exist, is one of the factors that they look at; that the 14 wells in the cluster that Mr. Andreyev talked about are based on the topography and on the drillings that he did and where in the applicant’s inventory they showed that there were wells within 1,000 feet and that the applicant complied with the DEP permit for the C&D landfill, when they did it.
Mr. Richey further clarified the fact that the applicant will have to fill 1.2 million cubic yards of air space in the landfill, based on the material available, the yardage, truck traffic, etc.; that it has been calculated, in order to fill up the landfill, it will take 50 trucks per day, containing 20 cubic yards each, and, assuming a compaction factor in the landfill of four, it brings the life of the landfill up to approximately 18 to 20 years, based on the volume coming in, however, noted that, when the recycled material is taken out, it brings the life expectancy of the landfill down to approximately 15 years of life; that, even with the air curtain incinerator, the calculation of 50% quicker is still the case; that the setbacks the applicant is currently operating under are at least 300 feet from any pre-existing building located off site and that it must be located at least 1,000 feet away from the landfill, unless it is controlled with a separate access point, or check station; that the DEP inspections and the county inspections of the air curtain incinerator meet the DEP requirements; that there is a piece of diesel equipment at the air curtain incinerator that loads debris into the burning unit, which has a potential for emitting black smoke, which it is felt might be the smoke that several of the residents in the area noted they had seen coming from the landfill, from time to time; that the only thing that can be burned in the air curtain incinerator is land clearing debris and clean wood; that carpet and wood that has tar and asbestos on it cannot be burned in the incinerator; that carpet can be buried, under Class III materials, in the landfill and all the materials that have been discussed this date can be buried, with the exception of asbestos, which can be accepted at a Class I landfill; that the leachate that was alluded to during the testimony heard this date is not the same as leachate from municipal and industrial hazardous waste; that this landfill cannot accept domestic garbage, because it is not a Class I landfill; that Class III landfills do not have the ability to produce leachate, by their own character, especially after there has been closure on a cell, because there is no ability for anything to percolate, or come into contact with material; that the amount of trucks (50) that are anticipated will travel CR 33 to and from the landfill will not generate the need for accel/decel lanes and turn lanes on CR 33; however, if some determination is made that a public safety or a traffic volume issue is involved, the applicant will not have a problem with providing whatever transportation improvements the County deems necessary for that type of operation; that Mr. Wicks has been involved in the borrow pit operation since its inception, which goes back to 1985, at which time a CUP was granted for it, even though it was inactive for a few years; that even though cows may have been on the property in question in the early days, material was being removed from the borrow pit since early 1986, although the pit was not visible from CR 33; that the landfill is below grade; therefore, all the materials that are seen stacked up above grade, which is what some of the pictures displayed this date show, is part of the borrow pit operation; that, regardless of the C&D, the Class III, the air curtain incinerator, or the tires being collected and stored on the site, the material that is on the site this date goes back to 1985 and does not go away, because it is part of the borrow pit operation and is destined to be hauled off site; that the landfill does not have any type of public address system and the applicant does not have a problem with the denial of one being part of the conditions of the cup.
Mr. Richey continued to clarify the fact that the Class III materials that will be accepted at the landfill, beyond what is currently being accepted, will largely be yard debris, clean wood, and furniture; that it will not be a very high probability that the tires that will be collected on site will generate mosquito breeding, because they will be emptied of any water that may be in them, before they are put on the pile, and, once the pile is covered up, there is very little chance that there will be any accumulation of water, which is what can generate the mosquito breeding situation; that, in the applicant’s application to add Class III, they added the hours of operation as being from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., five days per week, and until 12:00 Noon on Saturday; that, in the original borrow pit operation and in the CUP for C&D, no such hours are specified in either one of those documents, so, what the applicant is proposing to do is put some conditions on the landfill to deal with some of the concerns that were raised this date; that, on the south and north ends of the property, there is to be a 200 foot setback from Horton Lake, which was approved by county staff and by the DEP, for the C&D, based on jurisdictional lines and field surveys by the DEP, Mr. Wicks’ staff, and the environmentalists; that said setbacks are noted in the conditions of the CUP and are being enforced; that all the test wells that are located around the perimeter of the property are in place, to gauge the migration of water off site coming onto the site in question, if the water is moving in that direction, and from on site to off site, for purposes of detecting any kind of pollutants; that the applicant has met the requirements for both emergency preparedness and fire protection, as specified by the State and the County; that any flames generated by the air curtain incinerator are completely extinguished at the end of each day, before the operators leave the site; that the operators of the landfill are trained and certified by the State, before being allowed to operate and maintain the landfill; that spotters are required to go through any materials that are dumped and spread over the landfill and, if they find any materials that are unacceptable, to relocate them to an area where they can be sent off site; and that there have been no such reports at the landfill.
Mr. Richey then recalled Mr. Andreyev, Andreyev Engineering, to the podium, at which time he questioned him about the issue of potential off site contamination of wells and the fact that he had done a full hydrological study on the parcel of property in question, which is part of the County record; that the applicant is not putting in an artificial layer of clay and the reason for it is because the 40 feet of natural material that is on the site is better than if the applicant had an artificial liner put in; that the ground water, the surficial aquifer, and the lower aquifer moves to the northwest and that the monitoring wells are designed to detect anything beyond the background materials that are currently in the ground water; and that it is his expert opinion that the confining layer is such in this area that a concern some of the residents had about tar buckets and carpet being buried in the landfill is minimized.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the applicant would continue to have excavation and mining operations, which were approved and started in 1985 and has had no code violations imposed upon it, and whether the landfill will continue to have C&D operations, which is the reclamation plan for the borrow pit operation, to which Mr. Richey stated that the applicant would. She questioned whether the applicant currently has permits from DEP to burn and a permit to collect tires and was informed that the applicant has an air curtain incinerator permit from DEP and two permits from DEP, with regard to tires - a collection permit, to store up to 1,500 tires, and the ability to transport said tires on the public roadways to a recycling facility.
Mr. Richey clarified, upon questioning by Commr. Hill, that DEP has looked at the applicant’s plans and have approved what the applicant is planning to do. He stated that they looked at the applicant’s plans and inspected the site, before they gave the applicant the initial permit, and the applicant is in full compliance with those plans and conditions. He stated that the DEP is also the one that gave the applicant the stormwater permit, as part of the original C&D operation. He stated that, when the applicant applied for the addition of Class III, the applicant was asked to put some additional monitoring wells in, which Mr. Wicks alluded to, and the applicant is prepared to proceed with the Class III now.
Commr. Hill questioned whether, if she approved what the applicant is planning to do, the existing conditions will be improved upon, to which Mr. Richey stated that the applicant can continue to do 99.98% of what he is already doing, for up to 40 years, because there is no time table involved, which he noted would include the C&D operation and the borrow pit, under the current terms and conditions of the CUP, which does not have any hours of operation and does not have several other things; therefore, in consideration of the applicant being granted the Class III, which expedites the reclamation, they feel they can live with some reasonable conditions, which he noted he would be happy to review with the Board. He stated that, with regard to the marketing of the property in question, what it is worth, and how it has affected property owners, noted that several people have stated they did not know the landfill was there, but he found it very difficult to see how somebody who lived in the area in 1999, with the expanse of the borrow pit operation that was shown in the pictures that were displayed, would not be aware of it, because, at least from 1999 forward the applicant has had substantial amounts of material stored on site, staged under the borrow pit operation, for purposes of sale. He stated that the large hills that were seen in the photographs were based on that borrow pit operation. He stated that one cannot see the C&D operation, until one comes into the facility, because it is below grade, so everything that was shown in the photographs has been there.
Mr. Richey stated that the property in question is designated Rural on the Comprehensive Plan Map and is divided into five acre tracts, or greater. He stated that the applicant is proposing to return the property to pasture in half the time, under his reclamation plan, which is contrary to the prior reclamation plan, that would have left a depression. He stated that, with regard to the hours of operation, the applicant does not have a problem with having a condition that states the landfill will not operate on major holidays, being Christmas, New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, Easter, and the Fourth of July. He stated that he has already indicated to the Board that the landfill will not accept asbestos, as a condition of the Class III, and asked that the Board put a condition in the CUP that states, if traffic volumes increase to the point where the Public Works Department determines that the applicant needs to do excel /decel lanes and turn lanes, that the applicant is ready and willing to do it and that, with regard to the hours of operation, the only condition he would add would be, if an emergency is declared by the Board, where they might want the facility to be operated longer, justifying keeping the facility open for emergency purposes. He discussed the issue of a berm, noting that there is already a berm within the project and noted that Mr. Crawford asked him to discuss berming outside the project, along the property line between Mr. Crittenden’s property and the landfill. He stated that they have already started burying material within 50 feet of that line, so he suggested that, if Mr. Crittenden would like for the applicant to berm along that line, the applicant would be happy to do so, with a six foot berm on Mr. Crittenden’s property, only because the applicant has already done the stormwater and has the system in place, based on the C&D. He stated that the applicant has no problem with replacing the backup alarms with lights, if OSHA approves it. He stated that the DEP permit allows up to 1,500 tires to be stored on the site and the applicant would like to store 500 tires, because that is what will fit into a truck, to be hauled off the property. He stated that, with regard to the request that the landfill be limited to 10 years, noted that the economy controls how long the facility operates, which he elaborated on. He stated that adding the Class III dramatically increases the applicant’s ability to reclaim the site in a timetable that is half that time.
Mr. Richey stated that he did not know who got noticed in 1999, however, noted that, in researching the matter, found a Notice of Public Hearing Abutting Property Owners (Applicant’s Exhibit C) that the Growth Management Department sent to Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Revels, which he submitted, for the record, notifying them about the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, as well as the Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting where this case would be discussed, which was returned to the County with a note stating that he and his wife were giving consent for the applicant to use his property for a C&D (construction and debris) facility, to fill an existing borrow pit site. He noted that Mr. and Mrs. Revels had also attached a post-it note to the Notice, dated May, 1999, in which they state that they were giving permission for him to do anything he wanted to with his land. He stated that he knows the notice was advertised in the local newspaper and that it was posted on the property, because he saw it posted on the property in 1985, and that further notices went out about it in 1999. He stated that, if the Board looked at the five criteria that is in the Code that asked them to judge CUPs, and, if they looked at the Staff Report, they would find that staff found this particular amendment, as conditioned, met the criteria. He stated that, if the Board looked at the evidence presented this date, they would find that people bought and sold property in the area, that it has happened since the C&D, and that there has been no evidence that would say the air curtain incinerator, the tire collection, and the Class III has had an adverse effect, in addition to what has already happened by the C&D. He stated that what the Board would be judging this date would be whether the amendment in question will adversely affect the neighbors and the property rights of the neighbors. He stated that there is no competent substantive evidence on record that suggests the contrary is true, because staff found that all five of the requirements that are required to be met, to amend the CUP, have been met and are complied with. He stated that, if the Board denies the request before them this date, the landfill can continue to operate, which is not conditioned, as far as hours of operation and days of operation, and noted that there are substantial safeguards in the Ordinance and in the process that the County puts people through, to protect the environment and the people and allow reasonable use of the property. He stated that a Class III landfill is needed in Lake County, at which time he noted that it will allow people to haul Class III materials a shorter distance, saving taxpayers money and helping the Board out. He then answered questions from the Board regarding the matter.
Commr. Hill stated that she felt the security fence needed a little more upgrading and care and would like for the applicant to look into it.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether this CUP would be subject to yearly inspections by the County and was informed that it would be. He questioned how extensive the inspections would be and was informed by Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, that the County uses the Operation and Reclamation Plan that is on file and that they also have a check list from the Code. She stated that the County just inspected the site in April of this year and found everything to be in good shape. She stated that she had 100% confidence in the annual inspections.
Commr. Cadwell questioned what uses would be available for the property, once it is reclaimed, and was informed that there would still be an agricultural zoning on it, so it would have agricultural uses.
Mr. Richey stated that, under the DEP permit, the property has to go back to being a pasture and will have to stay as such for 30 years. He stated that rooftops will not be allowed to be put on the property, noting that it can be used for ball fields, open space, etc., but, it cannot be used for residential.
Commr. Pool questioned whether anything Ms. Farrell or staff had heard this date would change their opinion, or their recommendation to the Board.
Ms. Farrell stated that nothing she heard would change the Staff Report, at which time she noted that there is a $500,000.00 bond for reclamation and a $290,000.00 bond for the closure. She stated that, with regard to the setback requirement, it was 500 feet in 1999, however, noted that it is only 300 feet today. She stated that, with regard to the property owners being properly notified, noted that her office has an envelope that was returned to them, so she knows the original notices went out. She stated that the landfill was a vested mine until 1993, when the applicant came in with the first operation and reclamation plan, and that is when staff started looking at the 10 and 20 year phasing, which they knew was not working. She stated that, over the years, as the applicant has come back to modify their permit, the County has been getting better reclamation plans, better closure plans, and all the bonds in place, so, although the applicant has somewhat intensified the use, the County is in a lot better shape than it was with the vested mine.
Commr. Cadwell clarified the fact that the landfill will operate under the County’s new mining rules.
Commr. Hanson stated that, when the County first changed its policy to allow C&D materials in some of the County’s abandoned clay pits, it was with the idea that inert materials would be landfilled, thereby, extending the life of the Lake County landfill, which is a very expensive lined landfill, and questioned what the results have been for the County by doing so.
Mr. Bill Gilley, Senior Director, Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board stating that, by doing what Commr. Hanson alluded to has extended the useful life of what he calls a precious resource - a Class I facility, and the County’s capital has been extended to where it does not have to invest every dime to take care of materials that are inert and better suited to being disposed of, as part of a reclamation effort, which is what would be called an attractive nuisance, which is the old pits.
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that, in 1985, the State’s Solid Waste Management Act mandated the C&D landfills, as well as the Class III landfills, and prohibited this type of material in the Class I landfills, to preserve the Class I space for the County’s garbage and municipal solid waste.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned about the fact that the County is expanding what it had set up before, to add the additional items. She stated that she does not have a problem with the tires, or the yard waste, but did have a concern about adding the other items. She stated that she feels there will be others that will come forward with the same type of requests, so the Board needs to be prepared for that, if that is the policy the County is going to have. She stated that she feels the County needs to change the policy, to allow for it, noting that, at the present time, the County’s policy just allows for C&D materials. She questioned whether, in existing clay pits, or borrow pits, it is customary to allow C&D materials, or whether it is customary to allow C&D materials, along with the Class III materials, being leaves and grass clippings.
Ms. Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management, readdressed the Board stating that either way the applicant would have to go through the public hearing process to add that use to the landfill.
Commr. Hanson stated that she thought the County created a policy allowing it and questioned whether that was a fact.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not feel the County had a formal Comprehensive Plan Policy, or a Land Development Regulations Policy, with regard to said area.
Commr. Cadwell interjected that he felt the Board just stated that, if the County was not providing a site for said materials, they would have to go somewhere and the market would take care of it.
Mr. Minkoff concurred, stating that he felt that was the discussion.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this request was not in his district; however, he hoped that whoever made the motion, if there was a motion to approve the request, would include the stipulations that were discussed earlier in the meeting, with regard to the hours of operation; the traffic volumes being monitored by the County, and the agreement by the applicant to make improvements, when they are deemed necessary by staff; having the backup alarms replaced by backup lights; and setting a limit on the number of tires that can be collected on site. He stated that he is generally not in favor of landfills, or new mines, however, noted that, if he has approved any over the years, he has tended to lean toward existing sites, especially if there is an end of the operation in the plan, which there is in this case. He stated that he felt the actions taken this date would speed up the end of this site and get it reclaimed and turn a clay pit back into some useable pasture. He stated that it was not a pleasant thing for anybody, but it was not going to go away and he did not feel the Board’s action this date was going to make it any worse than it already was.
Commr. Stivender stated that she agreed with Commr. Cadwell’s comments, at which time she made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve Ordinance No. 2002-64 - Howard H. Hewitt, Ted Wicks, Wicks Consulting, Rezoning Case No. CUP02/6/1-3, Tracking No. 47-02-CUP/AMD, a request for an amendment to CUP Ordinance No. 1999-73, to allow Class III materials and accessory use of a state permitted Air Curtain Incinerator and Waste Tire Collection Center to the existing construction and demolition debris disposal facility, knowing that it will be restored in half the time back to rural land, with the following conditions: The hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a statement that, if the Board of County Commissioners has an emergency within the County and the landfill needs to be opened, there will be no problem with it; that no asbestos will be allowed to be dumped in the landfill; that an accel/decel lane be installed as soon as possible; that the Public Works staff be directed to work with the Lake County School Board, to have some lighting installed for the school bus stops that are located along CR 33, as well as some signs indicating the blind driveways that are located along the road; that a six foot high berm be planted along Mr. Duke Crittenden’s property; that there be a 50 foot setback on the east and west sides of the property, with a 200 foot setback on the north and south sides of the property; that there be a 300 foot setback from the air curtain incinerator to the buildings and 1,000 feet from the landfill itself; that the backup alarms be replaced with backup lights, if permitted by OSHA; that only 500 tires be allowed to be stored on the site, to be hauled to a recycling facility elsewhere; and that a timetable be set for completion, with a ten year review, to determine the status of the landfill, with a report to be brought back to whatever Board happens to be in place at that time.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether Commr. Stivender would want to add, as part of the motion, that the buffers be landscaped.
Commr. Stivender stated that she felt the County’s reclamation plan required said landscaping.
Ms. Farrell stated that she would have to check into the matter, but, felt that there was no landscaping requirement.
Mr. Richey informed the Board that Commr. Stivender quoted only half of the DEP requirement, with regard to the air curtain incinerator, noting that there was a second sentence which states that it does not have to be 1,000 feet from the landfill, if there is internal control, which is what the applicant is doing. He also stated that he had indicated that the applicant would be happy to plant a berm on Mr. Crittenden’s property, however, noted that it would have to be on Mr. Crittenden’s side of the property line, because the applicant does not have the ability to do it on his side of the property line. He stated that there is a dense pine forest along said line; therefore, one would not be able to see the berm, unless somebody decided to build there. He stated that another problem with installing landscaping is that, because of the nature of what is done on the site, the applicant cannot put down a well, so water would not be available for the landscaping; therefore, it would not be in place very long. He stated that, if the applicant installed a berm, it would vegetate and he would be happy to do so.
Mr. Crawford, Attorney, representing the opposition, readdressed the Board and questioned whether the ten year requirement would be a sunset provision, where the applicant would have to come back before the Board in ten years for a renewal of the request, to which Commr. Stivender stated that it pertained to a staff review, to see how much longer the landfill would have to be on the site.
It was noted that that is currently being done, as part of the County’s normal annual review of the site.
Commr. Stivender stated that it could be that the applicant will have to bring the request back before whatever Board is in place at the time.
Mr. Richey stated that it would be very difficult for the applicant to have to go through the financing, if the ten years is a drop dead date. He stated that, if it is reviewed every year, to make sure that the applicant is in compliance, and the applicant gives the Board progress reports, the applicant will be doing ten of those between now and that tenth year.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, policywise, once the County started doing the yearly inspections of the CUPs, there have been some revocations and some opportunities to go back, which the County did not have before, when it did not have the annual reviews that it has now. He stated that he felt the review gives the County an opportunity every year for staff to bring the matter back before the Board, if there is a problem.
Commr. Stivender withdrew the requirement that a timetable be set for completion, with a ten year review, to determine the status of the landfill, with a report to be brought back to whatever Board happens to be in place at that time.
Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she had some concerns, with regard to the air curtain incinerator, because of the problems the County has had with the one on Wolf Branch Road.
Commr. Pool stated that he could not support the request, because of the concerns expressed by the residents this date, however, noted that he felt the Board was trying to ensure that the project, as it goes forward, is done correctly, is finished correctly, and is finished timely.
At this time, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified the conditions of the motion, stating that he wanted to make sure he got them right, because staff was going to have to change the Ordinance substantially. He stated that, if the motion passes, the hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, only, unless an emergency is declared by the Board of County Commissioners; that the developer is to install accel/decel lanes along CR 33; that no more than 500 tires can be stored on the site at any given time; that, if allowed by OSHA, backup lights will be used by the vehicles on the site, rather than backup alarms; that no asbestos can be buried or burned on the site; that the developer is to work with the County to install lighting and signs at school bus stops along CR 33; that the developer, at his expense, is to install a six foot berm on Mr. Duke Crittenden’s property, if he so wishes; that the setback for disposal of waste be 50 feet on the east and west sides of the property and 200 feet on the north and south sides of the property; and that the incinerator be set back 300 feet from any property line and 1,000 feet from where the landfill is being operated, unless the applicant has a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection giving separate control.
Commr. Stivender pointed out the fact that the landfill will be closed on the following holidays: Christmas, New Year’s Day, Easter, Thanksgiving, and the Fourth of July.
It was noted that DEP’s requirement was that the setback be 300 feet from any off site buildings, rather than from any property line.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Pool and Hanson voted “No”.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 5:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for five minutes.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - LEASE AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH LAKE ANNEX
FOR BUILDING SERVICES, ZONING, PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that this request involved the renewal of an existing lease for the South Lake Annex and staff was recommending that the Board approve the request. He informed the Board that the Health Department aspect of the request was for Environmental Health, not Public Health. He stated that staff was working on the Public Health issue and he hoped to bring something back to the Board, with regard to a potential site for Public Health, in the next 90 days.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval and signature on a Lease Agreement for the South Lake Annex, providing space for Building Services, Zoning, the Property Appraiser, and the Lake County Health Department, in the amount of $3,300.00 per month, for a period of 12 months.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT WITH SHAMROCK
HOMES, INC. TO PULL SIX BUILDING PERMITS IN BISCAYNE HEIGHTS,
SECOND ADDITION
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Growth Management for approval to accept and execute a Developer’s Agreement with Shamrock Homes, Inc., to pull six building permits in Biscayne Heights, Second Addition, prior to acceptance of the final plat.
PUBLIC WORKS - LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) AGREEMENT FOR
SOUTH TAV-LEE TRAIL PROJECT
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and execution of the Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement for the South Tav-Lee Trail Project; and approval of authorizing Resolution No. 2002-105.
PUBLIC WORKS - MAINTENANCE MAP FOR PORTION OF OLD COUNTY
ROAD 50 TO CLEAR TITLE ALONG SAID ROUTE
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and acceptance of a Maintenance Map for a portion of Old County Road 50 (2-1551), to clear title to lands along said route.
PUBLIC WORKS - CHANGE ORDER REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF RIGHT
TURN LANE ON LANE PARK CUTOFF ROAD RELATING TO CR448
EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 2001-10
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and authorization to execute Change Order No. 3, in the amount of $33,540.00, for the construction of a right turn lane on Lane Park Cutoff Road (3444), relating to CR 448 Extension Project No. 2001-10.
PUBLIC WORKS - CHANGE ORDER TO HUFFSTETLER DRIVE PHASE II
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 2002-11
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval and authorization to execute Change Order No. 1 to Huffstetler Drive Phase II Construction Project No. 2002-11, in the amount of $57,375.00, for construction of the Hunter Building parking lot; and approval of the budget transfer of monies from Infrastructure Sales Tax - Special Reserve to Infrastructure Sales Tax - Improvements Other than Buildings.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT OF DR. CHARLES MOJOCK TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Dr. Charles Mojock, President of Lake-Sumter Community College, to the Industrial Development Authority.
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER
TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES FOR COUNTYWIDE, AMBULANCE, AND
STORMWATER BUDGETS
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that, earlier in the meeting, he had pulled Tab 4, a request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget for approval and authorization to execute a Resolution initiating the annual process for the preparation of the Assessment Roll for Fire and Rescue, for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2002; and Tab 19, a request from Solid Waste Management for approval and authorization of the Initial Assessment Resolution for Collection, Management, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recovered Materials for Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, until discontinued or changed, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, and that he had distributed to the Board a handout containing information regarding the tentative millage rates, for advertising purposes, for the proposed budget, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that staff was recommending that the total Countywide Millage Rate be advertised, for the purpose of the trim notices, at 6.367 mills; that the Stormwater Management Millage Rate be advertised at 0.400 mills; and that the Countywide Ambulance Millage Rate be advertised at 0.5289 mills, which is the existing rate. He reminded the Board that the first public hearing regarding the budget will be held on September 3, 2002, at 5:05 p.m., with the final public hearing to be held on September 17, 2002, at 5:05 p.m.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hill to approve a request from the County Manager for authorization to advertise the total Countywide Millage Rate at 6.367 mills; the Stormwater Management Millage Rate at 0.400 mills; and the Countywide Ambulance Millage Rate at 0.5289 mills; and approval of the following requests: Request from Budget and Administrative Services - Budget for approval and authorization to execute Resolution No. 2002-106, which initiates the annual process for preparation of the Assessment Roll, authorizes the publication of the advertisement for the public hearing, provides direction to notice all affected parties of the proposed increase, and directs the imposition of Fire and Rescue Assessment fees for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2002; and Request from Solid Waste Management for approval and authorization of Initial Assessment Resolution No. 2002-107, for Collection, Management, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recovered Materials for Fiscal Year 2002/2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, until discontinued or changed.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill requested that a Budget Workshop be held on these two items, prior to the public hearings. She stated that she would like to evaluate the data and to see the level of service, because she would like to address some of the questions of how quickly the County must grow and how quickly it needs to grow. She stated that she has not seen substantial data, as to the fire issue.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was opposed to more than the one mill in the Solid Waste Fund and that she was also not in favor of increasing the Fire and Rescue assessment this year. She stated that she knew there were concerns, but she feels that significant improvements have been made in Fire and Rescue. She stated that, in view of the increase for Solid Waste, she does not feel this is the year to make that increase.
Mr. Neron, County Manager, stated that the County is going to need to do something in fire assessments, because the County has eaten up all the funds in the Reserve account and will not be able to meet the staffing levels next year. He stated that they could cut back on some of the amounts, however, noted that staff will have to come back to the Board next year for another increase, in order to meet staffing needs. He noted that staff would be going over it with the Board at the Budget Workshop.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the millage rates were set in stone and was informed that the Board could vote to decrease the rates, but they could not increase them.
Mr. Neron asked the Commissioners to look at their schedules, noting that he would work with their Administrative Assistants to try to get a Budget Workshop scheduled for some time in early August, prior to the public hearings.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, to advertise the tentative millage rates, as noted, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.
Commrs. Hanson and Stivender voted “No”.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS
COUNTY MANAGER (CONT’D.)
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS FOR 2002/2003 SCHOOL YEAR
Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that he had submitted to them a memorandum on July 18, 2002, with regard to a funding issue for School Resource Officers. He stated that, in the Sheriff’s current and proposed budget, they have budgeted for twelve (12) School Resource Officers, based on this year’s funding of $573,000.00 from the School Board, which covers about 80% of the $717,000.00 cost for the twelve officers. He stated that, in addition to that, the Sheriff employs four School Resource Officers funded by grants, however, noted that the grant for three of the officers expires the end of April, 2003, so there will be a need to cut back, or pick up the full funding for them after April. He stated that he has been informed by the Lake County School Board and Ms. Susan Moxley, Associate Superintendent, as well as representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, that the School Board has, at this point in time, only approved and proposed to pay Lake County up to $371,000.00 during the next fiscal year, which will fund seven School Resource Officers, excluding the cost of any new vehicles that will be needed. He stated that, in addition to that, the Sheriff’s Office has also applied for a Cop’s Grant, for two additional School Resource Officers, to be stationed at the new high school. He stated that, while the County has in the Sheriff’s budget funding for twelve positions, the revenue coming from the School Board to offset the School Resource Officers is not sufficient to cover the positions that are currently budgeted. He stated that staff anticipates a revenue shortfall of $493,770.00 next fiscal year, with an additional $66,000.00 for the remainder of this fiscal year. He stated that it will be necessary for the Board to either appropriate these amounts from the Reserves for Contingencies in this fiscal year and next fiscal year, or the County is going to need to communicate to the Sheriff that the revenues are not sufficient to fund the positions that are currently budgeted and ask him to reassign them, or take whatever action he needs to, to cut back on the number of School Resource Officers, to meet the funding that is available for them.
Ms. Susan Moxley, Associate Superintendent, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board, in response to a question from them as to what schools the School Resource Officers cover. She stated that they currently cover middle schools and high schools, either through deputies from the Sheriff’s Office, or through the Leesburg Police Department, who provides officers in the Leesburg area for certain schools. She stated that they also have a grant and the Eustis Police Department provides an officer at Eustis High School Cartwright Center. She answered further questions from the Board, regarding this request, at which time she submitted a handout titled, “SRO Cost in Surrounding Counties Plus”, for the record.
Major Chris Daniels, Lake County Sheriff’s Office, addressed the Board and discussed the issue of School Resource Officers at length, noting that the Sheriff has in his current budget enough money to pay for the twelve officers alluded to, until October 1, 2002, however, noted that East Ridge High School opens August 8th and there is no money in the budget for officers for that particular school. He stated that said school has indicated to the Sheriff’s Office that they would like to have two officers, because of the size of the student population. He discussed the issue of sharing officers between various schools, noting that they can share some of them, but not all of them.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Neron, County Manager, informed the Board that the County would have to tip into the Reserves account, if the Board wished to continue funding the School Resource Officers at the same level that they are being funded this year, and that, as their County Manager, he could not recommend that they do that.
Commr. Pool suggested using volunteers to do the job of the School Resource Officers.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, interjected that volunteers cannot be used for law enforcement related matters.
Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director, Budget and Administrative Services, addressed the Board and answered questions they had regarding the matter.
It was the consensus of the Board to postpone action regarding a request from the Sheriff’s Office for funding for School Resource Officers for the 2002/2003 school year until the Board Meeting scheduled for August 13, 2002.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT 3
CEREMONY IN MEMORY OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that the County is planning to hold a ceremony in memory of the September 11th tragedy on September 11, 2002, at Hickory Point, in Tavares, at 2:30 p.m., and requested authorization to solicit funding for said ceremony.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
REPORTS (CONT’D.)
COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT 5
APPOINTMENT OF CECIL J. SHUMACKER TO LAKE-SUMTER EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES BOARD OF DIRECTORS
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Cecil J. Shumacker as the Lake County Citizen Representative at Large to the Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services Board of Directors.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4
REMOVAL OF HAL TURVILLE AND LARRY BENTON FROM COUNTYWIDE
SOLID WASTE STUDY COMMITTEE
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request to remove Mr. Hal Turville and Mr. Larry Benton from the Countywide Solid Waste Study Committee, due to their lack of attendance at said meetings.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER HANSON - DISTRICT 4
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING WEEK OF AUGUST 27 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 2, 2002 AS LAKE COUNTY FIRE FIGHTERS WEEK
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2002-108, proclaiming the week of August 27 through September 2, 2002 as Lake County Fire Fighters Appreciation Week.
REPORTS
COMMISSIONER POOL - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING W.I.N. MINISTRIES TO HOST FIRST ANNUAL
DIVINE ALIGNMENT PROPHETIC CONFERENCE 2002
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Chairman’s Proclamation No. 2002-109, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, proclaiming the fact that W.I.N. Ministries will be hosting its First Annual Divine Alignment Prophetic Conference 2002, on August 10th, at The Women’s Club, in Eustis.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
________________________________
ROBERT A. POOL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/7-23-2002/8-16-2002/boardmin