A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation
and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Commr. Hill recognized Mr. Scott
Kearney, Mayor of the Town of
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr.
Pool requested that Tab 5 regarding the Lease Agreement with C & P
Properties be pulled; he will not be voting on the item.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Items 1,
2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, as follows; pulling Tab 7 to be rescheduled; and pulling Tab
5 for a separate motion; and the consent item on Addendum No 1:
Resolution/Budget/Federal Disaster Relief/State
Disaster Relief/Hurricane
Request from Budget for Resolution 2005-156 to amend
the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year
2004-2005 in the amount of $17,797,000.00 deposited into Federal Disaster
Relief and $931,621.00 deposited into State Disaster Relief. The Resolution
will provide appropriations for the disbursement for Overtime [$450,000.00],
Professional Services [$4,100,000.00], Contractual Services [$15,019,142.00],
Communications [$100.00], Repair and Maintenance [$90,000.00], and Operating
Supplies [$1,000.00]. The County's obligation of five percent (5%) of the
anticipated expenses will be funded from Economic Stabilization
[($931,621.00)]. The revenue was received for Hurricane
Resolution/Budget/Federal Disaster Relief/State
Disaster Relief/Hurricane Jeanne
Request from Budget for Resolution 2005-157 to amend
the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year
2004-2005 in the amount of $1,610,343.00 deposited into Federal Disaster Relief
and $13,696.00 deposited into State Disaster Relief. The Resolution will
provide appropriations for the disbursement for Overtime [$250,000.00],
Contractual Services [$1,080,835.00], Communications and Freight [$700.00],
Utility Services [$4,000.00], Rentals and Leases [$1,200.00], Repair and
Maintenance [$300,000.00], Other Current Charges [$500.00], and Operating Supplies
[$500.00]. The County's obligation of five percent (5%) of the anticipated
expenses will be funded from Reserve for Contingency [($13,696.00)]. The
revenue was received for Hurricane Jeanne assistance.
Check Request/Sheriff’s Office/Florida Contraband
Forfeiture Act
Request from Budget for approval of Check Request
(Direct Pay) from the Sheriff's Office for payment of Law Enforcement Trust
fund costs, pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The request
exceeds the
Check Request/Sheriff’s
Office/Reimbursement/Automation Funds
Request from Budget for approval of Check Request
(Direct Pay) from the Sheriff's Office for reimbursement of invoice from
automation funds. The request exceeds the
Certification for Annual Report/Affordable
Request from Community Services for approval and
signature on the Certification for the Annual Report for Affordable Housing
State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program for Fiscal Years 2002-2003,
2003-2004, and 2004-2005, and approval and signature on the Certification for
Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities, to become a part of the Annual
Report.
First Amendment/Community Development Block Grant
Partnership Agreement/Town of Astatula
Request from Community Services for approval and
signature on the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Community
Development Block Grant Partnership Agreement between
Self-Insurance Programs/A. J.
Gallagher & Company
Request from Employee Services for approval to renew
the County's self-insurance programs with A. J. Gallagher & Company
effective October 1, 2005 and continue Public Entity Package, Excess Workers'
Compensation, Excess Property, Boiler & Machinery, Public Official's &
Employment Practices Liability, Storage Tank Liability, and Railroad Protective
Liability Insurance Programs for Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
First Amendment to Agreement/General Physics
Corporation for Emergency Management Consulting Services/State Homeland
Security Grant (SHSG)
Request from Public Safety for approval and execution
of the First Amendment to Agreement between
Supplemental Agreement Number 4/South Clermont
Connector Project
Request from Public Works for approval and signature
on the Supplemental Agreement Number 4 for the South Clermont Connector Project
in the amount of $24,000.00.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 –
Extension of Community Development Block Grant
Partnership Agreement/Community Care Health Services, Inc.
Request from Community Services for
approval of the extension of the Community Development Block Grant Partnership
Agreement with Community Care Health Services, Inc. to December 31, 2005.
LEASE
AGREEMENT/C&P PROPERTIES/COOPER MEMORIAL LIBRARY
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-0
vote, the Board approved the request from Facilities Development and Management
for approval and authorization to amend the Lease Agreement with C&P
Properties in the amount of $18,794.0 for the Cooper Memorial Library
relocation and approval of the associated budget transfer.
Commr.
Pool declared a conflict of interest and abstained from voting noting that Dan
Pool is his brother.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: VACATIONS
PETITION NUMBER 1057 – R. E. OSWALT – GROVELAND AREA –
COMMISSION DISTRICT 2
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed the Board to discuss
Petition Number 1057 and the request for approval and execution of Resolution
by R. E. Oswalt to vacate a right of way and cease maintenance on a portion of
Jack Underwood Road (Number 1630), in the Plat of Groveland Farms, located in
Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, in the Groveland area –
Commission District 2. Mr. Stivender
explained that
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a
5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1057 and approval and execution of
Resolution 2005-158 by R. E. Oswalt to vacate a right of way and cease
maintenance on a portion of Jack Underwood Road (Number 1630), in the Plat of
Groveland Farms, located in Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, in the
Groveland area – Commission District 2.
REZONING
Mr.
Jeff Richardson, Planning Manager, addressed the Board and stated that staff
has a change to the rezoning agenda, to Agenda Item No. 6, Hartman Golf Course
Management, PH#82-05-1. Staff has
received a written request for withdrawal of that case.
In
regards to Agenda Item No. 14, LPA#05/8/1-2, Tom Harb/
Mr.
Richardson clarified that this does not affect the Board’s action today,
because this is the Comprehensive Plan amendment at this point in time.
Commr.
Stivender disclosed Agenda Item Nos. 1, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 on both sides;
Commr. Hill disclosed the same; Commr. Pool disclosed the same; Commr. Cadwell
disclosed that he talked to one of the neighbors on Agenda No. 11; Commr.
Hanson disclosed 11, 12, 13, and 14 but that 1 does not need to be included. Commr. Hanson also disclosed that, on Tab 5,
for clarification, Scotty Hanson is her son, but he no longer owns that
property; he sold it a couple of months ago; and she will be voting on that
item.
REZONING CASE PH#80-05-3 –
Ms.
Jennifer Dubois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning
Case PH#80-05-3, Florida Made Door Manufacturing Company, Owner; Steven J. Richey,
P.A., Applicant; Tracking #91-05-MP; a request to amend Rezoning Resolution
#10-73 to add 23.54 acres presently zoned Agriculture to the existing MP
(Planned Industrial District) zoned door manufacturing facility. The property
is located in the Astatula area east of CR 561 approximately one mile north of
the intersection of CR 561 and CR 48. As
reported in the Summary Analysis, the current operation and the proposed
expansion area are in the immediate vicinity of several large industrial
facilities including the Florida Concrete Pipe Corporation, and the Astatula
Sand Mine. It is the opinion of staff
that the expansion of the operation would constitute a continuation of the
development pattern of the surrounding area.
The request complies with applicable provisions of the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) but it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as seen
in Policy 1-1.14(4) (f), which states that industrial uses shall be served by
central utilities; however, the parcel is located in the Astatula area, and the
Town of Astatula does not operate a municipal water and wastewater system; the
existing facility is served by a septic system and well as the other industrial
uses in the vicinity. Any new or
upgraded septic system or well associated with the expansion would require
approval from the Florida Department of Health.
In accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policies 6A-2.5 and 6D-2.5, a
connection to that system shall be mandatory, at such time that a public
wastewater and/or water system become available. Staff recommends approval to rezone from A to
MP.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Board and
stated that, as noted, this business has operated at this location since the
1970s and this is an expansion. Pursuant
to the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, he would
respectfully request that the Board approve this; the Zoning Board approved it
unanimously and there was no opposition at that meeting. In response to Commr. Cadwell’s question, Mr.
Richey noted that they do not plan to use any other access other than their
existing one; they employ approximately 25 people; and they would have to go
back through site plan review for any expansion there.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
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 Zoning Board and approved
Rezoning Case PH#80-05-3, Florida Made Door Manufacturing Company, Owner;
Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #91-05-MP, Ordinance 2005-76, a
request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to MP (Planned Industrial
District), to expand the existing door manufacturing facility.
REZONING CASE PH#75-05-5 – RAYMOND JONES/PECS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. – TRACKING #95-05-Z – R-1 TO R-3
Ms.
Jennifer Dubois, Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented Rezoning
Case PH#75-05-5, Raymond Jones/PECS International, Inc., Owner/Applicant; a
request to rezone from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential) 9.7
acres for the creation of a single family residential subdivision. The property
is located in the
Mr.
Rob Ern of Farner Barley addressed the Board and stated that he is here representing
the applicant and to answer questions of the Board.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she had a question somewhat specific to this request. She stated that there is an over capacity of
students in Leesburg. She knows that the
County uses the same criteria that the School Board uses to figure capacity but
obviously they do not include portables.
Her recommendation would be for the Board to consider developing their
own criteria. If they question the
School Board’s criteria for capacity, then they may want to at least bring that
into consideration, the location of portables, if they are being considered in
this formula.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that this is going to be the biggest question when the Board
looks at school concurrency. He stated
that he does not want to see the Board pre-establish their opinion today,
because that is one of the things that they really need to work out with the
School Board; how capacity is figured is going to be the key to whether they
will really have concurrency.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she agrees with Commr. Cadwell but she believes that the
Board should have that information when they say a school is under capacity or
over capacity, and they need to look at the number of portables (student
stations) at that school.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, if they do that, then the Board goes into the meetings
with the School Board with a pre-conceived notion that they are going to count
portables when this Board has not even decided that.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she would like to have the information, not to make a
decision one way or the other, but to base her personal decision on.
Commr.
Pool stated that he agrees 100%; it is nice to know the actual figures in terms
of the number and location of those student stations. He noted that Senator Carey Baker spoke last
night, and it is very evident that, in the very near future, with this class
size amendment, they are not going to reach that level; neither the Lake County
School Board nor any other school board is going to reach that goal and
objective, so they better start counting every student station.
Commr.
Hill stated that she did not know if the School Board counted portables within
this request but two of three schools are under capacity; one is over capacity
by two percent and that is the same school that the School Board had a
discussion about whether they wanted to sell property around that school as
surplus. So it did not seem like that
was an issue of concern with that school and that capacity number. She felt that, in the future, the School
Board should hold onto some of that property that they own around the schools
for future needs. It was noted that this
issue was still under discussion with the School Board.
Seeing
as a School Board member did vote for approval of this request, Commr. Hill
stated that she did not have a concern at this point.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Rezoning Case PH#75-05-5, Raymond Jones/PECS International Inc.,
Owner/Applicant; Tracking #95-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-77; a request to rezone from
R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Residential) for the creation of a
single family residential subdivision.
REZONING CASE PH#74-05-5 – JOSEPH E. AND CARRIE B.
PREVEDEL – TRACKING #94-05-CFD – A TO CFD
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#74-05-5, Joseph E. and Carrie B. Prevedel, Owner; David
Lindstrom of DML Associates of Palm Beach, Inc. for Nextel Communications,
Applicant; Tracking #94-05-CFD; to rezone Nextel Communications lease site from
A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) to bring the zoning
district and existing uses (cellular communication tower, equipment shelters
and associated accessory uses) into compliance and to allow for an additional
20’x30’ lease area for another equipment shelter. As noted in the Summary Analysis, the site
consists of portions of two parcels located in the
Commr.
Cadwell pointed out that, in the Zoning Board minutes, it indicates that the
Zoning Board recommended approval to CFD with staff and the applicant meeting
prior to this meeting to discuss additional buffering, and he wanted to know if
this meeting took place with the residents.
Ms.
Allen explained that the applicant submitted a landscape buffer plan around
their portion of the lease site. During
site plan approval the entire buffer will be addressed.
Mr.
Dave Lindstrom representing Nextel Communications addressed the Board and
stated that he did not have anything to add to Ms. Allen’s comments; he was
here to answer any questions of the Board or public. He explained that there will be no additions whatsoever
to the tower.
Commr.
Stivender stated that there is a petition in the backup, but it did not appear
that anyone was at the Zoning Board meeting other than Mr. Gibson who had
concerns against it.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms.
Nancy Regero,
Commr.
Cadwell explained that an individual is required to have a site plan with a CFD
zoning, so they could not put anything else on the property without coming to
the Board at a full public hearing.
Ms.
Regero pointed out that the residents are concerned about the buffering of the
buildings because, when the first building was built in 1996 or 1997, it was
supposed to be buffered, but it has yet to be buffered. They were hoping that everything could be
done at one time when the equipment shelter is built. Mr. Lindstrom did present a schematic of the
landscaping that they will provide around their portion of the lease
parcel. It was explained that, when the
site plan is submitted to staff, the entire parcel will have to meet the
landscaping requirements. Iit did not
meet those requirements before because it was an existing tower when the Board
enacted the new rules.
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
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 Zoning
Board and approved Rezoning Case PH#74-05-5, Joseph E. and Carrie B. Prevedel,
Owners; Dave Lindstrom of DML Associates of Palm Beach, Inc. for Nextel
Communications, Applicant; Tracking
#94-05-CFD; Ordinance 2005-78; a request to rezone Nextel Communications lease
site from A (Agriculture) to CFD (Community Facility District) to bring the
zoning district and existing uses into compliance and to allow for an
additional 20’x30’ lease area for another equipment shelter.
REZONING CASE PH#84-05-4 – JACK CASSELL, OWNER –
LESLIE CAMPIONE, APPLICANT – TRACKING #99-05-PUD – R-3 TO PUD
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#84-05-4, Jack Cassell, Owner; Leslie Campione, Applicant;
Tracking #99-05-PUD; a request to rezone
34.77 +/- acres from R-3 (Medium Residential) and A (Agriculture) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development), for a planned single family subdivision with open
space or conservation based design. As
noted in the Summary of Analysis, the existing home site and accessory
structures will remain along with portions of the orange grove, forested area,
and wetlands near the lake. The site is
located on the corner of CR 44 and CR 44A in the Eustis area. If approved, the request would actually
downzone the property as 12 acres that is currently zoned R-3 allowing three
dwelling units per acre, and the Urban Area Residential Density Analysis
results would allow a maximum of 5.5 dwelling units per acre; however,
development is capped by a maximum density allowed in the Urban Expansion
Future Land Use category of four dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a residential
density of less than one dwelling unit per acre. As noted, the request is consistent with the
Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and Comprehensive Plan, and the City of
Commr.
Pool pointed out that, even though Ms. Allen noted that all of the schools are
currently over capacity, Eustis High is under capacity, as shown in the backup.
Commr.
Stivender disclosed that she talked to Ms. Campione; Commr. Hill disclosed the
same.
Ms.
Leslie Campione, Attorney on behalf of Mr. Jack Cassell, owner of the property,
addressed the Board and stated that this is a design, as shown, that was
actually formulated by Mr. Randall Arendt recently to incorporate the
conservation based subdivision design.
It has about 50% of the property remaining as open space. She stated that this will be modified a
little bit, because they will need to plat the existing buildings into a lot,
or they may actually do a few lots that incorporate those. Ms. Campione stated that there is something
that she overlooked that she would ask that the Board include in the Ordinance
and that is that the agricultural uses would be permitted to remain on the
property until the property is developed and thereafter that they would be
permitted within the common space. She
knows that this becomes an issue sometimes in Mr. Ed Havill, Property
Appraiser’s Office, that they actually include that language in the
Ordinance. The they would only be interested
in citrus and possibly horses. The
School Board commented on the negative impact of this and yet the R-3 zoning
already on the property would permit 48 units without a rezoning, so they are
actually reducing the number of students that would be generated as a result of
this subdivision. If they had asked for
a rezoning of the entire property to the R-3, they would be up to 136 units, so
this is truly a down zoning and will have a lesser impact.
Commr.
Cadwell asked Ms. Campione about her logic to not go into the City of
Ms.
Campione stated that it is really an issue of timing; they met with the City of
Commr.
Cadwell wished that the City of
Ms.
Campione explained that the City of Eustis actually came to their Development Review
Staff (DRS) meeting and, because this is a PUD, they have already had a meeting
with County staff, and Mr. Alton Roane attended that meeting and provided
comments; none of those comments were negative and the City of Eustis does not
have a problem with this request.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he knows that in that particular area, the City of
Ms.
Campione explained that this property is actually outside of what they are
calling their conservation overlay where they are looking at as much as 40% to
60% open space areas in the
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know if Ms. Campione would have any trouble putting some type
of language in the PUD that would say another percentage other than 25% to
insure that they have greater than 25%.
Ms.
Campione noted that they have not had the opportunity to do the engineering on
the site, but she would have no problem with such language, but they might have
instances where they want some of the lots to be a little bit larger and in
other areas cluster more so it would be nice to have the flexibility.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the
Ms.
Campione pointed out that the County’s standard right now for open space is
25%. She feels that they are bringing in
a very nice plan and, while they plan to go beyond the 25%, until they get to
the next part of this, the preliminary plat, she would like to have some
flexibility.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know if there was anything planned for the little piece of
property that touches
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Stivender asked staff for clarification of what was actually said at the DRS
meeting when Mr. Roane was in attendance, and she wanted to know if what has
been explained to the Board is correct.
Mr.
Richardson stated that what has been explained to the Board by Ms. Campione is
correct, but there is one issue they did not bring up in the Ordinance relating
to setbacks. They are going to add a
provision for setbacks; the 30’ front, 10’side and 10’ rear being requested is
fine by staff but, if they are going to do additional clustering, they may need
to discuss that now to reduce those a little bit to make it work on smaller
lots. Staff does not agree with the
wetlands setback for a minimum of 15’ and an average of 50’; it should be a 50’
setback as stated in the Code.
Ms.
Campione pointed out that this would be another reason to go with the 25% open
space because they may have to enlarge those lots, even though that area, the
50’ setback, would not be usable.
Commr.
Hanson stated that there is going to be water and sewer and that is the perfect
opportunity for even smaller lots and larger lots, but it gives them the
opportunity to cluster even more. She
stated that the Board would like to encourage her to have greater than the 25%
if possible.
Mr.
Richardson stated that, to encourage that in cluster, he would suggest going to
the minimum as stated in the Code, which is 25’ from the property line on the
front and 5’ side and 5’ rear; that allows for a smaller setback. With a good size home with central water and
sewer, they will not have to worry about septic and drain field and having to
provide room for that so that should provide adequate space. Staff will add a clause to the Ordinance for
setbacks as established by the Board today.
He would suggest that, to encourage clustering, they should decrease the
setbacks as they were proposed in the master development plan, 25’ front, 5’
side and rear, and 50’ from wetlands. In
looking at the proposed development plan that was discussed at DRS and the one
that Mr. Arendt put together, there really should not be an issue with the
wetlands anyway, because it is more less a setback from the lake itself. In terms of the request for agricultural
uses, staff can write a clause that agricultural uses may be pursued;
agricultural uses shall include citrus, equestrian, or they could even just
include it as pasture.
Ms.
Campione explained that what they are trying to do here is a very high end
subdivision, a gated community, and they would like to have wide enough lots
where they can have side entry garages.
She does not think this is sprawl in any means and, if they reduce the
size of the lots, they may significantly impact their ability to address this
particular market. She thinks they will
end up probably going to 35%; she just does not want to lock them into that at
this point until they actually get it designed noting that 25% is more than
what they can get in straight zoning; they could stay with the R-3 and cluster
and leave everything open and double the number of lots. She stated that this could really serve as a
model for future projects, and they are hoping that this could set a standard.
Commr.
Hanson stated that she appreciates Ms. Campione going with the PUD, because
that allows them to do a lot more things than they could do with straight
zoning.
Mr.
Richardson stated that, if the Board is comfortable, staff can prepare the language
as open space greater than 30%.
That allows them some flexibility but still provides more open space than the
traditional planning and development.
Commr.
Hanson noted that the School Board member did vote for it and, even though the
middle school is over capacity, she is assuming that 35% is in portables and,
with the current zoning in place, without even coming to the Board, the
applicant could get even a greater density.
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved PH#84-05-4, Jack Cassell, Owner; Leslie Campione, Applicant; Tracking
#99-05-PUD; Ordinance 2005-79, a rezoning request from R-3 (Medium Residential)
and A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), with additions to the
ordinance, as follows: setbacks to be 25’
from the property line on the front; 5’side and rear; 50’ setback from the
wetlands; agriculture uses that would include citrus, equestrian and/or pasture;
and open space greater than 25%.
Ms.
Campione wanted to note on the record that she has presented a map and staff
has a copy of it, but she is going to copy it and get it to the Clerk after the
meeting. The map was received and marked
and entered as Exhibit A-1 for the applicant.
REZONING CASE PH#83-05-4 – DAVID BARTELS AND KYLE
BURNETT – TRACKING #97-05-Z – A TO RP
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#83-05-4, David Bartels and Kyle Burnett, Owners/Applicants;
Tracking #97-05-Z; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to RP (Residential
Professional), for a site that totals 0.13 acre and contains a single family
residence; it is located in the Mount Plymouth area on SR 46. As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the site
is located in the UNC Wekiva Future Land Use category within a
Mr.
Kyle Burnett, applicant, addressed the Board to answer any questions of the
Board.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a
5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and approved
Rezoning Case PH#83-05-4, Kyle Burnett and David Bartels and Kyle Burnett,
Owners/Applicants; Tracking #97-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-80; a request to rezone
from A (Agriculture) to RP (Residential Professional).
REZONING CASE PH#78-05-4 – MILDRED M. HOBDY – TRACKING
#89-05-CP – A TO CP
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#78-05-4, Mildred M. Hobdy, Owner; Solid LLC/Ben Champion,
Applicant; Tracking #89-05-CP; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture
District) to CP (Planned Commercial District) to allow limited neighborhood
commercial uses such as professional office, banking, consumer services and
repair, personal care service, church, and single-family dwelling unit. As noted in the Summary Analysis, the
property is located within the adopted Mount Dora Joint Planning Area (JPA),
and the site will be served by individual well and septic. Staff finds the request to be in compliance
with applicable provisions of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this
is a six acre parcel located between
Commr.
Cadwell pointed out that, in the letter received from the City of Mount Dora,
it sounds like they were pretty much on board other than a concern for single
family dwellings, and Mr. Hartenstein explained that, in C-1 you can have
single family dwelling connected with a business.
Commr.
Hill stated that, in looking at the letter from the City of Mount Dora, they
would like the Board to delete consumer service and repair and single family
dwelling; to include research, banking and medical services. She also wanted to know if these uses can be
put under professional office.
Mr.
Hartenstein stated that research and medical services is a specific category in
the zoning ordinance and would not go under professional services.
Mr.
Jack Champion stated that he is a managing member of Solid LLC. His son Ben Champion was mentioned as a
representative; he was unable to be here today.
Mr. Champion stated that he will be glad to answer any questions of the
Board. To comment on the single family,
Mr. Champione stated that they have no intentions of building single family
residences there. There is an existing
single family residence on the property, and they have not decided for sure
whether they will build a separate office building or remodel the existing
structure. If they build a separate
office building, depending upon the availability of tenants, it might be
advantageous for them, on a short term basis, to continue to use the single
family residence to offset expenses. They
have no problem removing consumer service and repair; he would be opposed to
any of those things going in adjacent to his office anyway.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
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 Zoning Board and
approved Rezoning Case PH#78-05-4, Mildred M. Hobdy, Owner; Solid LLC/Ben
Champion, Applicant; Tracking #89-05-CP; Ordinance 2005-81; a request to rezone
from A (Agriculture District) to CP (Planned Commercial District), with the
exception of consumer service and repair, veterinary clinic, and single family
dwellings other than the dwelling that is currently on site.
REZONING CASE PH#76-05-4 – GEORGE AND TINA WEEKS –
TRACKING #905-05-CP – R-6 TO CP WITH C-1 USES
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#76-05-4, George and Tina Weeks, Owners/Applicants; Tracking
#90-05-CP; a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential District) to CP
(Planned Commercial District) with C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) uses. As noted in the Summary Analysis, the request
is to rezone two lots to be compatible with their adjacent three lots that are
already zoned C-1.
Commr.
Hanson disclosed that she did discuss briefly this issue with Tina Weeks and
asked her to come to staff for direction.
As
noted in the Summary Analysis, Mr. Hartenstein explained that the applicants
have owned these five lots since 1982.
Mrs. Weeks has stated that they have a buyer for the properties and wish
to sell all as commercial. Staff has
reviewed this application and finds this to be infill to an existing commercial
area. He pointed out that the whole
designated area at the intersection has the future land use overlay of
neighborhood activity center. The two
parcels are .14 acres located in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area at the
intersection of CR 435 and SR 46. The
proposed rezoning does not conflict with the Land Development Regulations
(LDRs) within the Mount Plymouth/Sorrento Urban Compact Node Wekiva land use
designation; and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; it is situated
within the Neighborhood Activity center, therefore, meets commercial location
criteria. The Zoning Board recommended
approval with a 7-0 vote; staff received no letters of support of opposition;
staff is recommending approval of the request subject to the conditions outlined
in the attached Ordinance.
Commr.
Hanson wanted to know if Mr. Hartenstein had an opportunity to evaluate this
area and determine how recently there has been a change to commercial. Mr. Hartenstein noted that he has not seen
too much commercial change right in that immediate intersection area, and these
are about the same commercial enterprises that have always been there.
Commr.
Hanson stated that there has been very little commercial added to the area; it
is in the Wekiva; and it may be a little premature but she thinks it is
appropriate.
Ms.
Tina Weeks, applicant, addressed the Board and stated that, if the request gets
approved by the Board, she wanted to how long will it take to get her paperwork
on it. It was noted that it usually
takes seven to ten days.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
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 Zoning Board and
approved Rezoning Case PH#76-05-4, George and Tina Weeks, Owners/Applicants;
Tracking #90-05-CP; Ordinance 2005-82; a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban
Residential District) to CP (Planned Commercial District) with C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) uses.
REZONING CASE PH#81-05-5 – FREE
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#81-05-5, Free Methodist Church of North America, Tracking
#92-05-CFD, a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential) + CUP #959A-5 to
CFD (Community Facility District), a 5.9 acre parcel. As noted in the backup, there is one building
on site that is used as a church, and a mobile home on site being used as a
parsonage. The owner wishes to sell the
church facility to the
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know if the applicant has a clear understanding that the
additional rooms are for Sunday school and church related activities; not a
school.
Mr.
Hartenstein stated that there is nothing in the Ordinance that mentions a
school; if they every wanted to have a school, they would have to come back
before the Board with that request.
Mr.
Richard Lehman stated that he is here representing the Free Methodist Church of
North America and the South Atlantic Conference, and they are very pleased to
be able to have the
Mr.
Jim Ekberg,
Commr.
Cadwell explained that the CFD zoning is very specific in terms of what someone
can do with their property. If they want
to do anything else other than what is being described today, a church and Sunday
school classrooms, they would have to come back through a public hearing
process.
Mr.
Ekberg stated that he wanted to clarify the discussions that have been taking
place in the neighborhood. He explained
that the residents heard that the applicants could counsel sex offenders, or the
criminal element, in that facility under this zoning.
Commr.
Cadwell explained that the applicant will be able to do any type of what you
would consider a church activity, and he is certain that counseling is
something churches offer. There will
only be classroom structures on the site, not residential structures. The church will be a commercial type
building, so they will have to comply with a lot of state and local regulations
for the church building.
Mr.
Hartenstein explained that he received several phone calls about a petition
that was being circulated through the neighborhood opposing the request because
they thought that there was going to be a homeless shelter or some type of
housing for sex offenders.
Mr.
Anthony Frazier stated that he represents
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved PH#81-05-5, Free Methodist Church of North America; Tracking
#92-05-CFD; Ordinance 2005-83; a request to rezone from R-6 (Urban Residential)
and revoke Conditional Use Permit (CUP #959A-5) to CFD (Community Facility
District) subject to the provisions contained in the Ordinance.
REZONING CASE PH#79-05-2 – KATHLEEN D. PAGAN –
TRACKING #93-05-Z – A TO AR
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#79-05-2, Kathleen D. Pagan, Owner; Tracking #93-05-Z; a
request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to AR (Agricultural
Residential). As noted in the backup,
the subject parcel is approximately 4.8 acres and located off of
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Rezoning Case PH#79-05-2, Kathleen D. Pagan, Owner; Tracking #93-05-Z;
Ordinance 2005-84; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture District) to AR
(Agricultural Residential).
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At
10:10 a.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board will take a 20 minute
recess. The meeting was reconvened at
10:30 a.m.
REZONING CASE CUP#05/7/1-4 – ROBERT & SHIRLEY
GRANTHAM, OWNERS – JIMMY CRAWFORD, APPLICANT – TRACKING #65-05-CUP – CUP FOR
CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION (D&D) FACILITY
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case CUP#05/7/1-4, Robert and Shirley Grantham, Owners; Jimmy
Crawford, Applicant; Tracking #65-05-CUP; to permit a construction and demolition
(C&D) facility on an 11 +/- acre parcel located in the Light Zoning (LM)
zoning district. As noted in the backup,
the property has previously and is currently being used as a C&D
landfill. The owners are seeking a CUP
as a result of an order of a Code Enforcement Special Master decision (Case SM
2004-06-0238). The owners wanted to
expand the height of the landfill to 145’ msl over the original height of 133’
msl. It was determined in this case that
the owners were expanding a nonconforming use, as defined in Section 3.11.00 of
the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
The two options provided under this Special Master case were either to
seek a CUP to increase the height of the landfill to 145’ msl, or to remove all
fill above 133’ msl. The owners have
received a permit modification from the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) to expand the height of the landfill not to exceed 45’ NGVD. Mr. Kruse reviewed information provided in
the Summary, as noted, and stated that, since the owners are seeking an
increase in height of the landfill and would be expanding a nonconforming use,
staff would recommend a 200 foot setback from residentially zoned property and a
50 foot setback from all other property lines to stay consistent with previous
approved C&D landfills; however, it appears that the owners will not be
able to meet this requirement and therefore, it would not be consistent when
compared to other C&D landfills. Staff
is unable to support the applicant’s request for a CUP in LM to increase the
height of the existing landfill since it would be an expansion of a
nonconforming use without meeting the same requirements imposed on other
C&D landfills. The Zoning Board
recommended approval 6-0 for a construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfill,
with the suggestion to incorporate the termination dates of December 31, 2009
with a one year reclamation (December 31, 2010) that were part of the 2003
settlement agreement. Staff is
recommending denial of this request.
Commr.
Hanson explained that, back in the early 1990s, when the County eliminated all
landfills in the County, this was an existing clay pit that had State permits,
not necessarily County permits, and it has been an ongoing issue. She has been to the site; it is an issue on
the northern side where residential folks have nice homes; there is no way to
make this go away; but they do need to look at those heights on the northern
end. During the hurricanes last year, they
played a significant role in taking the trees that was blown over, but it is
C&D, not environmental nor household garbage, but it is right in back of
somebody’s backyard.
Commr.
Cadwell disclosed that Mr. Gene Bebber, one of the neighbors called him on this
case a week or two ago and, over the years, he has talked to everybody out
there about this site. He pointed out
that the rezoning request that they are asking for today was required in the settlement
agreement, and he wanted to know if it does anything other than what it states
in that settlement agreement.
Mr.
Kruse explained the two options outlined in the special master ruling, as noted
above, and stated that it is his understanding that the applicants are
currently greater than the 133’ msl. The
City of Mount Dora owns the property to the west which is currently being used
for the wastewater treatment plant. He
noted that, if they go higher, it does extend the time to fill it.
Commr.
Hanson disclosed that she spoke to Mrs. Bebber during their break, and the only
other person she has talked to during this timeframe has been Mr. Jimmy
Crawford.
Mr.
Jimmy Crawford, Attorney with Gray Robinson, addressed the Board and stated
that he represents Mr. and Mrs. Grantham.
Mr. Crawford stated that he gave a rather extensive history at the
Zoning Board meeting, and he does not want to do that again, because the
minutes are in the backup, so he will hit the high points, because there are a
few things he needs to get in to the record.
Mr.
Crawford stated that the County issued a vesting letter in 1994 that vested
this C& D pit. The October 6, 1994
letter was signed by Peter F. Wahl,
Commr.
Hanson asked if they know what the height is on the northern boundary; Mr.
Crawford explained that they can just go by an estimate from the engineer; the
County had a survey showing about 140’ for the Code Enforcement hearing. As noted, the Code Enforcement Special Master
said to either take it back down to 133’ or get a CUP.
Mr.
Crawford stated that he has talked to the engineers and to Mr. Grantham, and they
would agree to not take any more waste after October 1, 2007 and have it closed
and completely reclaimed within six months of that date; this will take about
two years off of the existing permit. He
understands that, at this point in time, the northern side is finished and pretty
much reclaimed and they are working on the south side now. Mr. Crawford asked Mr. Ted Wicks to address
the Board.
Mr.
Ted Wicks stated that he is a registered professional engineer of the State of
Mr.
Crawford explained that the staff report basically says that they are
recommending denial because they are not complying with two County policies, a
200 foot setback from residentially zoned properties and putting a landfill
back to its approximate topographical height.
In
response to Mr. Crawford’s questions, Mr. Wicks stated that he was not aware of
these issues being addressed in the LDRs or Comprehensive Plan; generally they
deal with those issues through the conditions of the CUP on a specific site by
site basis. Mr. Wicks explained that
individual sites are evaluated on their own merits and physical settings. In his opinion, they are very consistent with
those policies and they can go back and look at previous CUPs and vesting and
settlement agreements that make this consistent with what they are
proposing. Mr. Wicks stated that he went
back through two or three of the projects that they are currently involved in
to see how they had been dealt with them.
Mr. Wicks showed the Board Ordinance No. 2001-98, CUP#01/3/2-4, Don
Codding, Codding Sand & Soil Inc., which was approved by
Page 5 – 4.
Setbacks: Setback areas shall
remain undisturbed except for approved access points, vegetation visual buffers
or fencing. The following minimum
setbacks shall be provided, unless specifically modified by the Board of County
Commissioners:
a. All operations shall maintain a setback measured
from the beginning point of excavation or filling, or grade change from natural
elevation of one hundred (100) feet from any public right-of-way or public or
private easement for drainage, wetlands, utility or road purposes; two hundred
(200) feet from churches, schools, parks, hospitals, residentially zoned
property and properly used for public purposes, and fifty (50) feet from all
other property lines. Where the pit to
be filled is within the setbacks shown above, it is permitted to fill those
areas back to natural grade in compliance with other provisions of this CUP.
Mr.
Wicks stated that, as he had testified during the Zoning Board hearing, the
C&D landfills are kind of unique in that they have been able to take old
barrow pits and reclaim them using the material. These materials have been proven to be fairly
innocuous in terms of environmental harm, and it gives them a good opportunity
to reclaim those barrow pits and put them back into some future better and
higher use. A lot of these older pits
were actually excavated almost up to the property line; they pre-dated the
mining ordinance; they pre-dated the CUPs and things that the County did while
he was with the County to try to bring these into compliance; so they had a lot
of them that were excavated to the property line with no setbacks. In the Codding CUP, there are no other
overriding requirements within it that precludes them from actually placing
C&D materials beyond the specified setbacks. He noted that several landfills were
pre-existing pits that had excavated right up to their property line, and the
Grantham pit was exactly the same case. Mr.
Wicks testified that the CUP with the setbacks that they have in it, and their
DEP permit, are consistent with
Mr.
Wicks explained that a lot of times, with the old pits, they do not have any
topographic information to tell them historically what was there, so they can
go to the USGS quadrangle maps and get a picture of what was there before the
pit was there. He showed the Board a
proposed fill plan for a C & D pit for Robert Grantham, which indicates
that, on the very western boundary, they have a contour that shows 140’ above
msl and, as you move up slope from there across the Mount Dora wastewater site,
the elevation there is 145’ and 150’. It
was obvious that the quad maps are five foot contour intervals so they could
deviate 2 ½ feet either way. As they
talk about what they have been allowed to do, basically by policy, as they do
these reclaimed barrow pit C & D landfills, they do not necessarily focus
so much on the site but focus more along the local topography, which is what
they did with the Grantham pit. If they
look east of them to Codding, their elevation is about 150’ msl; as they look
west across the
Mr.
Crawford asked Mr. Wicks if it was his testimony that they are consistent with
that policy of returning it to its approximate natural grade in the surrounding
topography, which Mr. Wicks indicated absolutely.
Mr.
Wicks testified that he is generally familiar with the CUP requirements for C
& D landfills in
Mr.
Wicks reviewed the proposed grading plan for final closure of the Grantham
landfill noting the location of the 145’ contour, which they felt was
consistent with local contours and what the site originally looked like. He testified that this is the one that is
approved in the DEP permit, and in the settlement that they reached at the DEP
Office with the neighbors. The final
proposed grading plan was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered
as Exhibit A-5 for the Applicant.
Mr.
Crawford stated that they were required as part of the DEP settlement agreement
to fill the north side on a priority basis, and to be finished by December,
2006.
Mr.
Wicks stated that they are actually ready to do closure on the north side, so
it is already close to the 140’; this means to accept no more material in that
zone in that particular part of the landfill; to put the clay cap on it; and do
the final closure with sod and start the long term care on it.
Mr.
Crawford explained that the 140’ includes the two feet of clay cap and the sod
as well; the waste itself will be a little less than 138’. Mr. Wicks pointed out that there is about two
to two and a half feet of final closure elevation that you lose when you close
out.
Mr.
Crawford stated that they do understand that their neighbors want them out of
there; it is a C & D facility next to a neighborhood; and those are
problems that only exist where they have those old original clay pits. They have not done any new digging there;
they are sloping away from them as quickly as possible; they are able to cut
more than two years off of their permit height; and they thought they had an
agreement with everybody more than two years ago, in April 2003. He stated that, if the County had a problem
with it, in their opinion, that was the time they should have said something about
it, but it was five months later that the first letter came from the County
saying that they thought they had a problem.
So they have complied and they are here asking for the CUP, and they are
willing to give up the additional time. If
they do not get their CUP, as far as options, the law would say that they have
to take it back to 133’; they want to finish it as quickly as possible pursuant
to permit; reclaim it; and meet all monitoring well requirements, which they
have done. If they do not get a CUP, the
most likely scenario is that Mr. Grantham will cap it, lock the gate, and let Code
Enforcement proceed from there.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know if there is anything in the CUP they are looking at
today that was not a part of that last settlement agreement when DEP, the
residents, and the Granthams all sat down together. He also wanted to know if they were strictly
down to the height issue. He stated
that, at the end of the day, they want the landfill closed and they want to do
it in a way that the residents agreed to.
Discussion
occurred regarding what has taken place up to this point in time, in terms of
the Settlement Agreement; the ruling by the Special Master; Mr. Bebber’s
testimony at the Zoning Board meeting; and the 1996 Settlement Agreement that
reflected nothing about the height.
Commr.
Hanson asked about the bond, and Mr. Wicks stated that the financial security
that is in place basically covers closure and long term care; it does not
address height in regard that the bond actually says you can go to 145’ or
133’; it is simply more of a rider to the permit that DEP issues. He explained that height was not an issue
except that it figures in the calculation of how much money it takes to close
it.
Commr.
Hanson stated that they have already begun closure on the northern boundary,
and Mr. Wicks stated that they are about 80% clear and are finishing the fine
grading and doing the stormwater, and they plan on closing it in phases. They can reduce their financial obligation on
the closure part of it as they close it and get that certified with both the
County and DEP; they can reduce their bonding for closure at that point; and
they will want to do that quickly.
Commr.
Hanson stated that, if they maintain the height as being consistent with the
elevations around it, she would think that would be desirable.
Mr.
Wicks stated that it is important to realize that, once they get through with
it, aesthetically it will not be that high rise that they see in some of the
Class 1 landfills and, in this case, they are cross sloping it from west to
east so that it is a usable piece of property when they are done with it. If they go toward the houses, it will be
almost back to the natural grade that was there prior to them excavating as
best as they can tell. Around the
backyards of Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, they are trying to grade back to match that
natural grade at that point and, once they plant the vegetation, they will not
see it. On the north side, it slopes
down the hill across those lots, so you are starting at an elevation of about
125’ to 126’.
Mr.
Crawford suggested the following language:
as of October 1, 2007, they will stop taking waste; within six months
after that date, they will be completely reclaimed.
Commr.
Pool wanted to know about the monitoring, and Mr. Wicks stated that there has
been no contamination; they do a quarterly analysis; and they are clean. The old general permits did not require any
type of groundwater monitoring and, since the rule has changed, they are in
full compliance for the ground monitoring, with the new code.
Mr.
Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Interim Growth Management Director,
addressed the Board and stated that he would like to clarify the issue with the
elevation. At the time the 1996
Settlement Agreement was signed they were required to go in for a DEP
permit. The closure plan associated with
that approved permit had the elevation at closure at being 133’ with a two foot
cap; anything above that permit that the County was a party to in that original
1996 agreement, is the expansion they are talking about. As clarification, on that northern boundary,
when he went out to the site from Mr. Yokel’s property, he did not realize it
was a C & D pit until he got near the top of the hill, so it is very
difficult to see it. At one point in
time, they were not providing adequate daily cover and there was wall board
back there and, with the rain, it had caused a lot of odors, which was one of
the complaints by the neighbors.
Mr.
Crawford clarified that the April, 2003 Settlement Agreement has the elevations
in it; the 1996 Agreement does not mention height. He stated that, in 1996, the DEP approved
these by general permits; there was no height requirement.
Commr.
Stivender pointed out that, on Page 10 of the proposed Ordinance, 4. c. under Reclamation
Standards, it states that the north slope of the facility will be completed by
June 30, 2010. Mr. Crawford pointed out that the June 30, 2010 date should
be June 30, 2006 which is consistent with their DEP permit, and all reclamation
will be completed by April 1, 2008. He
also noted that the reclamation on the first phase on the northern boundary
could be completed by June 1, 2006.
Mr.
Wicks stated that, based on what they have seen so far, they have enough waste
volume that they could certainly do that within that time period. He would suggest that, if they agree to that,
it would be closure with a cap and the sodding, so that they leave some room to
tie that into future phases of closure.
He stated that they need to define the north end.
In
their discussion, it was pointed out that this language is already in the CUP,
so they just need to change the date from December, 2006 to June 1, 2006 and they
would like to have a little bit of time to get DEP to certify that it is
actually closed and, if additional time could be granted, it would certainly be
useable.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the residents that he talked to over the years wanted the
facility closed and the quickest way to close it is with these changes.
Commr.
Stivender clarified the following changes with Mr. Kruse:
Page 8, 3. a. Operation Standards –
April 1, 2008
Page 10, 4. a. Reclamation Standards
– April 1, 2008
Page 10, 4. c. Reclamation Standards
– June 30, 2006
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion
of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Stivender pointed out another change on the first page of the Ordinance, as
follows: 1. the facility will accept no
debris of any type after October 1, 2007.
Commr.
Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Stivender, to uphold the
recommendation of the Zoning Board and approve CUP#05/7/1-4, Robert and Shirley
Grantham, Owners; Jimmy Crawford, Applicant; Tracking #65-05-CUP; Ordinance
2005-85; to permit a construction and demolition (C & D) debris landfill, with
the following changes: the reclamation would be phased in and the first phase
on the northern boundary would be completed by June 1, 2006; that there be no
additional debris brought into the landfill after October 1, 2007; and that the
reclamation on the entire pit be completed by April 1, 2008.
Under
discussion, Commr. Cadwell wanted to know if Mr. Crawford was confident that
his client could adhere to those dates, and Mr. Crawford noted that he could.
Commr.
Hill called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0
vote.
REZONING CASE SLPA#05/8/1-2 – WOLFGANG DUEREN/
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he would like to
continue indefinitely Rezoning Case SLPA#05/8/1-2, Wolfgang Dueren/Lake Susan
Lodge, Trust, Owners; Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson/Steven J. Richey, P.A.,
Applicants; Tracking #77-05-SLPA; a request from transitional to ridge, which
will take it off of the agenda. If they
need to come back and revisit that, then they will re-advertise and start that
over again.
Commr.
Cadwell disclosed that, during the break, Mr. Richey and Mr. Jeff Richardson,
Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services, were having a discussion
about this case, and he overheard the discussion; he was not actually talking
to them, and he did not understand what they were talking about.
Mr.
Richey stated that the contentious nature of this situation had more to do with
the Comprehensive Plan from transition to ridge and rather than deal with that
today, he would like to deal with the Planned Unit Development (PUD), and to
indefinitely continue that and see if they can resolve it without any kind of
Comprehensive Plan amendment. He
explained that, if they do a PUD and there is some issue with the State, and
they want a Comprehensive Plan amendment, then they would deal with that at
that time by re-advertising and starting over.
Under
discussion, it was clarified that, by postponing they would go through the
re-advertising process again and not have to pay the application fee again; if
the Board preferred for them to withdraw the case, they could address the fees.
Commr.
Hill called for public comment. It was
noted that it no one wished to address the Board regarding the request for withdrawal.
No
action was taken by the Board.
REZONING CASE PH#72-05-2 – WOLFGANG DUEREN/
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case ph#72-05-2, Wolfgang Dueren/Lake Susan Lodge Trust, Owners; Jimmy
D. Crawford, Gray Robinson/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicants; Tracking
#87-05-PUD; a request to rezone from R-3 & R-1+CUP to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) for the development of 21 age restricted town homes with the
elimination of the current nonconforming uses, except for the existing
restaurant on 6.6 acres. As noted in the
Summary of Analysis, the applicants are requesting this change under the
direction of a Special Master’s recommendation (File No. SM-11-01). The Lake Susan Lodge is a facility that
borders the
Mr.
Kruse explained that the Special Master’s recommendation is only a recommendation
and is not binding on the County’s part.
The proposal was summarized as 16 enumerated items; all parties
unanimously endorsed at least 13 of the 16 items; items k, l, and m, which
essentially proposes to construct 21 age restricted, adult only town home units
on the lodge property and Dueren properties, are controversial. The County and the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) are not against some units being constructed; it is the density
that needs to be resolved. None of the
16 items address a Comprehensive Plan amendment; and staff is opposed to the
proposed number of town homes to be constructed and the dwelling type. He further explained that the Special
Master’s recommendation has merit especially in outlining the highest and best
use of the subject parcel; however, the development of the property under the
current future land use designation of Transitional, with the subject parcel
meeting timeliness, appears to be the best use.
This determination is based upon the density of the surrounding
single-family residences, the Comprehensive Plan, and the LDRs. If the parcel was developed at a ratio of one
dwelling unit per acre and clustered on the upland portion of the parcel, the
density and intensity would be comparable to the existing single-family
residences in the immediate area. If the
future land use is changed to Ridge, the density and intensity would be greater
than that of the surrounding area; therefore, staff is unable to support the
request based upon its incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs.
Commr.
Hill opened up the hearing to the applicant or the applicant’s representative.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that he is representing the applicant. At the Zoning Board meeting, they reduced the
total number of units that they had requested to 15 town houses, which are
adult only and, hopefully, to develop it better than what is there now and that
was agreed to by everyone. Mr. Richey
consulted with Darin Gray, with the City of
Mr.
Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, Gray Robinson, addressed the Board and stated that he
is only here because he represented Lake Susan Lodge through this Special
Master process, and he wanted to give a brief history of that. In 2001, Tom Eison and Bob Davis were owners
and operators of the facility together with Wolfgang Dueren. They had complaints about the property as it
became more run down, so they developed a plan for 32 town home units; they
brought in to County staff; staff liked the idea but, because it is
(a) Remove all
(15 existing, 18 permitted) motel units.
(b) Removal of
permitted package/convenience store.
(c) Eliminate
nonconforming wetland setbacks.
(d) Eliminate
direct stormwater runoff into Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”)
(e) Treat all stormwater on the lodge property and the
Dueren property to Outstanding Florida Water standards.
(f) Connect all
development on the lodge property and the Dueren property to central sewer.
(g) No removal
of protected trees.
(h) Upgrade to
code requirements all nonconforming parking and landscaping
(i) Close nonconforming driveway entrance.
(j) Close the permitted boat ramp
(k) Construct
18 townhome units on the lodge property.
(This number has been reduced to
12)
(l) Construct 3 townhome units on the Dueren
property.
(m) All townhome units will be age-restricted, adult
only.
(n) Entirely
landscaped in Florida-friendly, drought resistant landscaping, no turf grass.
(o) No
underground irrigation system.
(p) Eliminate
all paved areas within fifty feet of
Mr.
Crawford explained that the Special Master Recommendation was approved by the
County and, even though Mr. Kruse has indicated that it is not binding on the
County, it was approved by a 5-0 vote by this Board; and DCA has approved
it. He reviewed a letter from Valier J.
Hubbard, AICP, Director, Division of Community Planning, DCA, which modified
the Special Master’s Recommendation, as follows, and the document was submitted
to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant:
“Accordingly, the Department modifies the
recommendation to clarify that any proposed development must be consistent with
the future land use element requirements in the Lake county Comprehensive Plan
for the 100-year flood plain and open space.
If these requirements are met, the Department believes that the
recommended density may be appropriate.”
Mr.
Crawford stated that they had objections to the land use plan amendment both
from staff and others, and they have a letter of objection from Peggy Cox who
says that Ridge is not an appropriate land use there. He explained that Ridge land use requires 40%
open space; Transition requires 60%. He
did not think that they could meet the 60% open space requirement, so he
thought they had to go to Ridge. Mr.
Greg Beliveau is going to testify that, since they reduced the number of units,
they can meet the 60%, so he does not believe that the land use amendment is
required and the Board can approve it as a PUD.
He stated that it will go to DCA, if it is approved here, for their
decision.
Mr.
Richey explained, if the Board approves it today, and there is an issue with regard
to land use, then that issue will be dealt with independently; the
Comprehensive Plan is a separate issue, which is why he withdrew it.
Mr.
Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group (LPG), Mount Dora, addressed the Board and
stated that they had been asked to do an analysis on the Lake Susan Lodge, and
to look at several components; one is to fit three four-unit buildings and one
three-unit building, a total of 15 units, to see if they can comply with the
transition land use requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as to do an
analysis to verify timeliness on this location.
They performed both tasks and coordinated with Griffey Engineering to
look at traffic impacts, which resulted in a lower impact because these are age
restricted units. Mr. Beliveau noted
that they developed several exhibits, as shown, of the surrounding areas that
are developed and a timeliness analysis, which were presented to the Deputy
Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibits A-3 through A-6 for the Applicant. The area is heavily developed and the
densities average around 2 ¾ to 3 units per acre; everything to the west and
north is developed subdivisions; the surrounding land uses appeared to show
urban expansion and transition; the timeliness analysis shows that they exceed
the requirement of 40% developable; there is 179.5 acres of wetlands within the
one mile radius; Lake Susan Lodge is five acres; open water bodies are over
1,000 acres within that mile acreage; they have over 546 acres being developed
in that area; and they meet timeliness. He
explained that, with 15 units, they can meet 64% open space on the site; they
have no 100-year flood impacts; they have no wetland impacts; and it exceeds
the transition requirement of 60%. There
were some requirements from some of the abutting property owners that the entry
feature be equivalent to what are across the street at Osprey Pointe, and the
wall has been included as a requirement.
They have no problem complying with the requirements that were in both
the transition, as well as those raised by staff; and the density equates to a
little over 2.3.
Mr.
Crawford noted that Osprey Pointe HOA is here and wants to speak as well.
Mr.
Richey noted that, in this site plan, it has them retrofitting and taking out
impervious service that was put there since the 1940s and bringing that into
compliance.
Mr.
Beliveau submitted the proposed site plan to the Deputy Clerk, which was marked
and entered as Exhibit A-7 for the Applicant.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to make sure that right now the wastewater is to the restaurant,
not to those other units, but that it will be provided to any additions. Mr. Richey clarified that everything shown on
the site plan will be on central water and sewer; they bought capacity for the
32 units that were originally proposed but they are down to 15 units today.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to make sure that the applicant can engineer the stormwater with
the restaurant in this location and Mr. Crawford noted that this is required as
a condition of the PUD; if they cannot, they will have to reduce the number of
units.
Commr.
Hanson pointed out that the applicant did a good job of clustering.
Commr.
Hill opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Bernie Woody stated that he is on the Board of Directors for the Osprey Pointe
Homeowner Association (HOA). He stated
that the Association has been involved with the architectural design and
environmental aspects of the modification and upgrading of Lake Susan Lodge,
and they wholly support their activities.
They coordinated very well with them on their intentions for the
entranceway; they are very sensitive to the water runoff; and they feel that
the density is more than compatible with their residents across the street. Mr. Woody submitted a letter from the Osprey
Pointe Community Board of Directors dated September 26, 2005, which was marked
and entered as Exhibit A-8 for the Applicant.
Ms.
Peggy Cox,
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Ms.
Cox stated that she thinks this is a fine develop, however, she tends to agree
with the staff recommendation that, under transitional and meeting timeliness,
the density should be what is allowed in single family homes. Once you put that density there, as a
variance, you are creating a variance to your PUD ordinance and to several
other things. She does not know that
four or five single family homes in that area would be a detrimental
development and you could certainly achieve the 60% open space and meet all of
the other environmental requirements. In
looking at the conceptual drawing, the boatsheds were staying and that is a
problem. She wanted to know if they were
going to be restricted only to the people who own the condo town homes or be
rented out as part of the commercial restaurant business. She explained that it would be difficult to
have a boat rental/marina without having fuel facilities. It would be different if it was for the owners
of the condominiums which are to be built because they would have to provide
parking for people who rent the boatsheds and deal with those environmental
issues. Ms. Cox stated that those are
her objections to the rezoning, and she is glad to see that they are staying
within the open space requirements of transitional and are correcting the
environmental hazards.
Ms.
Nancy H. Fullerton stated that she is speaking for
Mr.
Eric Schwalbach stated that he lives on the canal and five houses down from the
property. He teaches middle school and
he is here today to show the Board pictures that he took this morning of what
is currently on the property. He stated
that he disagrees because, after talking to people, he has found out that it
has continuously gotten worse and, if he thought it was getting better, then he
would not be here today. Mr. Schwalbach
stated that he would like to see them get rid of the gas tank as much as he
likes being able to get gas for his boat.
He submitted the 14 pictures to the Deputy Clerk, which were marked and
entered as Exhibit A-9 for the Applicant.
Mr.
Crawford explained that currently there are 23 slips that exist there, and they
are rented out to everyone in the neighborhood.
They are going to reserve 15 of those, if they get 15 units for the
owners, and only eight will be rented out instead of the entire 23. They are willing to give up the gas that
exists there now, even though they felt like it offered a community service and
it is in an enviro-safe tank but, if the County feels like it is an
environmental detriment, they would remove the gas facilities they have there.
In
regards to the discussion about them using their timeliness density and
building four or five units, Mr. Crawford explained that the restaurant/lodge
itself is actually built almost entirely in the 100 year flood in the wetlands,
and they would never be able to build it today.
The density is calculated on the uplands, so they could actually build
the four or five units that they would get using timeliness, not touch the
restaurant property at all, not make the environmental improvements, and the
project would stay just like it is today.
Commr.
Hill wanted to know if there are any specific regulations to address the fuel
consumption and fuel tanks if they do keep the tanks on site, and Mr. Kruse
noted that there is an Administrative Code that addresses above ground fuel
tanks and two County inspectors would look at that.
Commr.
Pool pointed out that there are currently three locations that sell gas, Cyprus
Cove, Lake Susan Lodge, and
Mr.
Richey reviewed the proposed Ordinance noting the following changes:
Page 2, Land Uses, A. 1. Residential - a. – a total of
15 age-restricted residential town homes
Page 2, Land Uses, A. 2. Commercial – a. – The use of
the site for commercial use shall be limited to the existing restaurant and
boat storage facility. No expansion of
the existing restaurant shall be allowed.
Mr.
Richey addressed the language that states there will be no expansion to the
restaurant but noted that he was assuming they could upgrade that restaurant to
make it nicer but not make it bigger.
They will be upgrading the quality of the place with the town houses,
and the restaurant would automatically benefit from an upgrading of it. They are proposing to do this without
expanding the footprint of it.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that the problem with this facility is that part of it is
inside and part of it is outside so, if you use footprints, you could enclose
the outside area, for example, which would make it a very large
restaurant. He is not suggesting one way
or the other but that the Board should put in the ordinance exactly what they
mean so, at site plan approval, staff will not read it a different way.
Discussion
occurred regarding language that would be appropriate to clarify that there
will be no expansion of the facility. Mr. Richey proposed an expansion of the
existing restaurant to allow additional seats.
He referred to the proposed Ordinance noting the following change
Page 2, A. 2. Commercial – a. – The boat ramp,
convenience store, package store and gas shall be removed.
Page 3. C. Open Space – Sixty (60) percent shall be
provided as open space because they are not changing the land use.
Mr.
Crawford stated that Susan’s Landing Homeowners Association is the immediately
abutting subdivision to their southwest, and they have a letter of support that
he would like to submit into the record.
The letter was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as
Exhibit A-10 for the Applicant.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, with 15 residents living there, and eight rental spaces,
to take that gas system out, they may open it up to worse problems and, even
though they can approve for them to do that, he does not know if it is going to
make it any better.
Commr.
Pool stated that he appreciates the fact that they are willing to take it up
but he wondered how they could aesthetically and environmentally and safely
provide that service; it is exposed and it is not something that people want to
see.
Mr.
Richey explained that they will be taking the ramp out and fixing all of that
stormwater and, therefore, alleviating the concern with that gas facility.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that it seems that they just make it harder and harder for folks
that do not live on the water to actually enjoy the water.
Discussion
occurred regarding making the area safe and aesthetically pleasing because the
residents do not want to look at the gas system. It was noted that, if they leave it there,
then it will have to be landscaped nicely and the applicant asked that this be
left up to them at site plan approval.
Commr.
Hill noted that the public hearing had been closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Rezoning Case PH#72-05-2, Wolfgang Dueren/Lake Susan Lodge Trust,
Owners; Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson/Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicants;
Tracking #87-05-PUD; Ordinance 2005-86; a request for rezoning from R-3 and
R-1+CUP to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the development of town homes
with the elimination of the current nonconforming uses, except for the existing
restaurant, as follows: for
15 town homes all adult only (A. Land Uses: 1.a.) dealing with all of the
issues brought forward including the stormwater; the boat launch being closed;
the 60% open space, the restaurant not being allowed to expand its existing
square footage or footprint; but leaving the gas option open and allow
the owners to try and make the system aesthetically pleasing and not a detriment
to the area.
Mr.
Kruse asked for clarification on the restaurant, and it was clarified that the
capacity of the restaurant is currently there, inside and outside dining, and
they are not going to expand the existing restaurant beyond its current footprint
and no additional seating.
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At
12:20 p.m., Commr. Hill announced that the Board will recess for ten minutes.
REZONING CASE LPA#05/8/1-2 – TOM HARB/LAKE COUNTY
GATEWAY, LLC/PLAZA COLLINA/RON MANLEY, VP CANIN ASSOCIATES – TRACKING #10-05-LPA
Mr.
Alfredo Massa, Senior Planner, presented Rezoning case LPA#05/8/1-2, Ron
Manley, Agent; Tom Harb, Lake County Gateway, LLC, Owner; a request for a
Future Land Use Amendment from Urban Expansion (four dwelling units per acre)
with an Employment Center and Community Commercial Overlay to Urban Expansion
(4/1) with Regional Commercial (132 acres) and Public Resource Lands (10 acres
conservation) Overlays. The property is
located on the north side of SR 50 East and West of the Florida Turnpike Interchange. The total acreage is approximately 142 acres;
the existing zoning is planned industrial and planned commercial; it falls in
the Clermont Joint Planning Area (JPA).
The future land use amendment application under review is to change the
future land use focus from light industrial/manufacturing to a program of
commercial development that includes 1,200,000 square feet of “big box” retail,
restaurants, shopping, personal services, offices, and business uses. The Development of Regional Impact (DRI)
application which was filled by the owner/developer with the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
(ECFRPC) also includes up to 200 residential units. Mr. Massa reviewed the existing land uses in the
surrounding area, as noted in the backup.
As further noted, the Clermont JPA Future Land Use Map designation for
the site under review is Commercial/Services which is in keeping with the
applicant’s request to change the County’s land use designations to Regional
Commercial from the current future land use of
Mr.
Massa noted the Review of Applicable Policies, Lake County Comprehensive Plan, and
where the applicant was inconsistent and consistent with the Future Land Use
Policies, and pointed out that, in terms of Education, the Lake County School
Board sent correspondence dated August 8, 2005 that indicated it has the
potential to add 200 new single family dwelling units that will contribute 82
new students to the school system, and it will adversely impact schools that
are already over or nearly over capacity; in terms of Police Services, the Sheriff’s
Office sent a letter dated August 22, 2005 noting that current assets and
funding for their office would probably be inadequate to patrol and serve the
full capacity of the Plaza Collina property. In the Staff Conclusion (Page 12 of 12), it
was pointed out by Mr. Massa that staff cannot recommend approval of this
request for a future land use amendment based primarily on the aforementioned
policies of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan currently in effect. The applicant is urged to continue to work
with County staff through the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan rewrite. He noted that, when he wrote the report,
staff had not received official comments from the City of Clermont, or the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) but, since then, staff has
received a written recommendation from the City of Clermont saying that they
did not officially oppose the development; however, the ECFRPC continued their
meeting to a later date. The Local
Planning Agency (LPA) voted to approve it by a 4-3 vote.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the Board did have several land plan amendments previously
that they postponed until the Comprehensive Plan was completely amended. She wanted to know if staff’s recommendation
would be any different as they move forward with the Comprehensive Plan
revisions, and it was clarified that this would be a density issue at this
point in time.
Ms.
Cecelia Bonifay stated that she is here today on behalf of the owners and developers
of the property. She noted that Mr. Ron
Manley with Canin Associates is here, and there are members of their consulting
team here today who have been working on the project through its
inception. Ms. Bonifay noted that, for
their edification, she thinks that everyone was provided a transcript from the
Land Planning Agency (LPA) meeting held on September 15, 2005. (The Board Office provided a copy to the
Clerk for the backup). She explained
that the underlying land use is the urban expansion; over that they have a
community commercial overlay; they also have an employment center overlay; and
it also has PD and CP zoning underneath.
In working with County staff, they found it consistent to use existing
Comprehensive Plan designations, since they can do a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in conjunction with a DRI and not use one of the County’s twice a
year cycles; they are following the provisions that are in the current
Comprehensive Plan, which must stay in effect until such time the Board has
adopted a new Comprehensive Plan. Also,
in working with the City of
Commr.
Hill stated that she knows that this is a request to transmit to the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) but routinely, under their DRI rules, they like to
have residential included in the DRI.
She wanted to know if, at some point, they will be excluding the
residential or does it have to be transmitted with the residential in there.
Ms.
Bonifay explained that they think they should include it, because everything
else including transportation was done based on this mix of uses; however, when
this comes back either through the development order conditions or through the
PUD, they can either put the residential in a later phase, or condition it to
say that it cannot go forward unless capacity is available in the school
system, but it was really put in there at the urging of County staff as well as
the regional planning folks in the surrounding communities to be a truer mix
use development.
Commr.
Pool stated that he wants to make sure it is clear that the Board is not
supporting the 200 units; they are transmitting it but with the option and
opportunity to deny or postpone or condition it.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that this comprehensive plan change does not affect
residential units at all; this is strictly allowing the density or the
intensity of the commercial use on the property. What they are doing today would not increase
or decrease residential possibilities on the property.
Ms.
Bonifay clarified that they are really just changing the community commercial
overlay and the employment center overlay to a regional commercial center
overlay to allow for the additional commercial square footage that they want on
the site.
Commr.
Stivender noted that one of the members of the LPA had expressed to her a
concern about the scenic byway where it comes in at Old 50 and CR 455, and
those are still items that will be addressed when it comes back to the Board.
Ms.
Bonifay explained that it will all come back to the Board at one final hearing
for them to consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment, DRI development order,
and then the PUD, and that is where they will get into all of the specifics,
and they will be having other meetings to work out those conditions. She pointed out that, in the transcript, even
the three people that voted against it (LPA members), both Ms. Nadine Foley and
Mr. Michael Carey who was the original mover of the motion supported the
project; they just did not feel it was appropriate to get into all the details,
so that is why they voted against it.
There was only one person who wanted to get into the details, and the
rest of the group wanted to move forward.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, once this process is over, then they will have the DRI
process and the zoning. In between now
and then, there are other developments that this group, Canin Associates, has done and he asked that
someone give him that information so that he can visit them on his own.
Commr.
Hill called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Pool stated that he appreciated the City of Clermont taking a position and
making the issues clear. The ECFRPC will
be reviewing this and it will all come back to the Board for them to make some
good decisions. He does know that
everybody in the
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to transmit LPA#05/8/1-2, Tracking #10-05-LPA,
Ron Manley/Tom Harb, Lake County Gateway, LLC, Agent/Owner; Ron Manley, VP,
Canin Associates; Future Land Use Map Amendment from Urban Expansion (4/1) with
Employment Center and Community Commercial Overlay to Urban Expansion (4/1)
with Regional Commercial (132 acres) and Public Resource Lands (10 acres
conservation) Overlays.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
BEREAVEMENT
NOTICE
Commr. Hill informed the Board that they had received word today
that “Mr. Bill” Horan passed away last night, and he is going to be very missed
by this County. He was a very dear
friend and their thoughts and prayers are to his family. She stated that they have lowered the flags to
half mast in respect for all his service in this County and the community
alike.
REPORTS –
CONSERV II DISCUSSION
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
REPORTS
–
BOARD
CALENDAR
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
By
consensus, the Board directed Ms. Cindy Hall,
In
regards to a floater day during the holidays, it was pointed out by Ms. Hall
that this would be an option of the staff members.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT #5
IMPACT
FEE TASK FORCE/LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
Commr.
Cadwell reported that the Florida Impact Fee Task Force met in
Commr.
Cadwell informed the Board that next week is the Legislative Conference, in
Nassau County, and they will be starting their legislative process, and the
work product from the committee that Mr. Minkoff and Commr. Hanson was on will
be brought forward at that meeting in front of the policy groups.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT #2
ROAD
PROBLEM/RAGAN’S RUN
Commr.
Pool asked that staff look at the road problem that has been relayed to him by
Mr. Dennis Ruby who lives on Ragan’s Run.
He has expressed concern about speeding issues in that neighborhood off
of
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1
CONGRATULATIONS/LOCAL FOOD BANKS
Commr.
Hill wanted to extend her congratulations to Commr. Stivender for being a
grandmother again and also to thank staff for all of their outpouring help in
restocking the local food banks; they did a wonderful job.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT #4
WEKIVA
COMMITTEE/SEPTIC TANK ISSUE
Commr.
Hanson noted there was a meeting last week of the federal appointed Wekiva
Committee, one of which she was unable to attend because their budget hearing
was going on that evening, but it was attended by Ms. Blanche Hardy, Director
of Environmental Services. Then there
was a meeting last Thursday of the Wekiva Commission, the State committee,
where it was noted that the concern was still septic tanks. There was not a motion made to delay but she
thinks that is what is going to happen; there was a significant concern for not
having a site specific study on the true impact of nitrates to the Wekiva
Springs, and the river. She has
mentioned to Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, and Ms. Hardy that they may want
to look at doing a study for Lake County, which could be expensive, to
determine how those nitrates flow, and if they do flow. There seems to be other alternatives, if
there is a problem, but they do not know if there is a problem in Lake County,
because they have such low density in the area but, if there is a problem, then
the agencies need to look at other alternatives besides just this tank that
could cost $15,000 when you look at replacing the old septic tank drain field
and putting in a new one plus the operations of the tank and the high
maintenance required of the tanks that they recommended. She
thinks they will be looking at other alternatives; sometimes just replacing
drain fields can help resolve the issue.
She asked for this to come back to the Board to evaluate it and
determine what their intent would be to accomplish this and what the need is
because, if there is not a problem or a need, then requiring their citizens to
pay that kind of money could be futile.
Also, if there is a problem in areas of higher density, then perhaps the
answer is a sewer system as opposed to replacing septic tanks that are very
close together with the different alternative septic tanks. She thinks that they will determine that the areas
around Eustis and
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he does not want the Board to do anything that is going to
be perceived that they are trying to hold this up because they have always been
a leader in this discussion and, if the science shows the need is there, then
he wanted to know if there has been any discussion about some type of financial
aid to those affected by this change.
Commr.
Hanson indicated that there was no agreement from the agencies realizing that
most of the folks on the Wekiva Commission are agencies; there are three
Commissioners, two from
Commr.
Pool pointed out that, when you do a central sewer plant, they have a
monitoring system, and there are existing wells out there, and he wondered if
they ever check their own water for nitrates without digging new holes.
Commr.
Hanson stated that they have to look at how the flow occurs from there to the
river, or to the springs. To go forward
without that information from a study, they are looking at a significant amount
of money to individuals in the County.
Mr.
Minkoff noted that the State Health Department has meetings in November and
December where they are hoping to redo the rules; the next Wekiva meeting was
set in December, so they should come back together about the same time, but it
was pointed out during the discussion that there was no way a study could be
done between now and December. Mr.
Minkoff explained that there are about 80,000 impacted septic tanks in the
study area; 50,000 of them are in
ADDENDUM
NO. 1
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
APPOINTMENTS - MPO/TAC COMMITTEE
BEREAVEMENTS
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request to appoint Fred Schneider as the
Alternate member on the MPO/TAC Committee.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she talked to “Mr. Bill” Horan’s daughter yesterday
before he passed and noted that he was one of a kind.
DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS/EDUCATION ELEMENT
Mr.
Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, reminded the
Board that October 10, 2005 is the first meeting where the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) will be giving them an outline of what is expected for
the Education Element, at
TRANSPORTATION
INITIATIVES
Commr.
Pool noted that October 6, 2005, at 10 a.m., is the announcement for the
Transportation Initiatives for District Five at the
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT #4
WEKIVA
COMMITTEE/SEPTIC TANK ISSUE (CONTINUED)
Commr.
Hanson referred back to the previous discussion on septic tanks and noted that
the recommendations say “where appropriate” for the requirements for those
septic tanks, so the question is how to determine “where appropriate”.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
__________________________
JENNIFER HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK