A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DECEMBER 20, 2005
The
Lake County Board of
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation
and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that staff is going to pull Tab 31, the request
from Public Works for approval and authorization to draw against an $11,220.00
Letter of Credit posted for performance to complete roadway repairs within
Arrowtree Reserve Phase II subdivision (Arrowtree Reserve Phase II consists of
77 lots – Commission District 3); this item has been resolved and does not need
to be on the agenda. She has two items
that she is going to bring up under County Manager’s Reports, one is a memo
from Carol Strickland, AICP, Growth Management Director, relating to the
contract with Planning Works, LLC for their school concurrency assistance; the
second item is a page of legislative priorities.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that Greg Collier from Collier Financial Solutions is doing his
internship for
MINUTES
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 25, 2005, Regular
Meeting, as presented.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of December 5, 2005, Special
Joint Meeting with School Board and Municipalities, as presented.
CLERK
OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1
through 8, as follows:
Checks/Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of
list of checks or warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter
136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the
Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the
Clerk’s Office.
Contractor
Bonds
Request to approve the following
Contractor Bonds:
New
6440-06 Lewis Walker d.b.a. Lewis Walker Roofing
6441-06 Darrell Brantley d.b.a. Brantley’s Service &
Maintenance, Inc.
Rider
1336-06 Coven Construction, Inc.
Change name of principal from Coven Construction, Inc.
to Coven Construction, Inc.
6361-06 Larry Hardee d.b.a. Machine Control Repair, LLC
Amended effective November 8, 2005 –
Principal is changed to Donald Hardee d.b.a. Machine
Control Repair, LLC
Cancellation
246-05 Robert
D.
Lake
Request to
acknowledge receipt of the Lake County Water Authority Board of Trustees’
meeting scheduled for 2006.
Request to
acknowledge receipt of the 2006 Governing Board Meeting Schedule for the St.
Johns River Water Management District.
Department of Community Affairs/Pine
Request to acknowledge receipt of a notice from the
Department of Community Affairs that Ms. Stacie Vanderbilt recently registered
the Pine Island Community Development District established by Rule Chapter
4200-1, Florida Administrative Code with the Special District Information
Program and identified Ms. Jan A. Carpenter as the District’s registered agent.
Lake
Community Action Agency, Inc./Annual Report
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy
of the Lake Community Action Agency, Inc. (LCAA) 2004-2005 Annual Report.
Request to acknowledge receipt of a notice
from the St. Johns River Water Management District that they have received
applications described as follows:
Cherry Lake Tree Farm, Inc., application #2594, where the applicant
proposes to withdraw 2.15 million gallons per day of ground water and 1.44
million gallons per day of surface water to irrigate 792 acres of container
nursery and 57 acres of citrus. All
interested parties should contact the St. Johns River Water Management
District, as outlined in the notice.
Ordinances/City of Minneola
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following
annexation ordinances from the City of
Ordinance
2005-21 – Steven J. Richey, P.A., on behalf of the owner, Route 27 Properties,
LLC – Approximately 9.16 +/- Acres of Property Generally Located on the West
Side of U.S. Highway 27 and North of Highland Oaks Boulevard
Ordinance 2005-37 – George F. Lyon – approximately
5.066 +/- Acres of Property Generally Located on the West Side of U.S. Highway
27 and North of Highland Oaks Boulevard
Commr.
Hanson referred to Tab 5 and stated that she would like to introduce Martha
Thomas, Extension Agent I, noting that her specialty will be horses and working
with youth and adults.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried
unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda,
Tabs 3 through 30, pulling Tab 31, as noted; and including Addendum No. 1, as
follows:
Budget Transfer/Supervisor of Elections
Request from Budget for a budget
transfer – General Fund, Constitutional Offices/Supervisor of Elections.
Transfer $100,000.00 from Reserve for Contingency to Office Supplies
($90,777.00) and Machinery and Equipment ($9,223.00). The Supervisor of
Elections has requested a budget amendment to fund additional election hardware
and software necessary to upgrade the voting system. Funds available in Reserve
for Contingency.
Check Request/HCRA Program
Request from Budget for approval of
Check Request (Direct Pay) for payment of HCRA Program costs. The request
exceeds the
Community Enhancement Area Partnership Program/Yalaha
Community Center
Request from Community Services for
approval for the Community Enhancement Area Partnership Program fund one major
project, that being the renovation of the Yalaha Community Center, for a total
not to exceed $80,000.00 for Fiscal Year 2005-2006; and direct the Housing and
Community Development Division to purchase goods or materials, for a total not
to exceed $1,500.00 for each project to be completed by volunteers in Ferndale,
Forest Hills/Lake Mack and Okahumpka.
Conditional Offer of
Employment/Extension Agent
Request from Community Services for
approval of a Conditional Offer of Employment for Martha Thomas, Extension
Agent I, contingent upon the candidate's successful completion of the County's
pre-employment screening. Fiscal
impact: $15,020.00
Disease Manager/Nutritionist
Position
Request from Community Services for
approval of request for $4,710.00 in additional funding for the Disease Manager/Nutritionist
position, to assure that the salary meets the competitive requirements for this
position.
Satisfaction and Release of
Fine/Code Enforcement
Request from Growth Management for
approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned
by Willie and Michelle Slater, Code Enforcement Case Number 2002120176. Fiscal impact: $700.00
Satisfaction and Release of
Fine/Code Enforcement
Request from Growth Management for
approval and execution of a Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owned
by Craig Jensen, Code Enforcement Case Number 2002120176. Fiscal impact: $250.00
Special Master Settlement
Agreement/Shaw
Request from Growth Management for
approval of Special Master Settlement Agreement for Frederick W. and Laurie
Shaw vs.
Trust for Public Lands/Greenprint
Request from Growth Management for
approval to engage the services of the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) to develop
a "greenprint" of the County based on submitted scope and cost as a
sole source contract. Fiscal
impact: $32,000.00
Revised Policy for Fixed Asset Management
Request from Procurement Services
for approval of the revised Policy for Fixed Asset Management.
Contract/General Elevator Sales and Service, Inc./
Request from Procurement Services
for approval to award and execute the Contract with General Elevator Sales and
Service, Inc. for the upgrade of two traction passenger elevators servicing
five floors of the
Contract/County Buildings/Pressure Cleaning
Professionals, Inc.
Request from Procurement Services
for approval to award the contract for the prep and sealing of the exterior
walls of six county buildings to Pressure Cleaning Professionals, Inc. The
buildings are as follows: Sheriff's
Contract/Architectural
Design/Umatilla Health Clinic/Harvard Jolly, Inc.
Request from Procurement Services
for approval to award the contract for Architectural Design for the Umatilla
Health Clinic to Harvard Jolly, Inc. in accordance with RSQ Number 05-087 for
$37,260.00 plus $2,000.00 for (not to exceed) reimbursables for Phase I.
Second Amendment
Agreement/General Physics Corporation/Emergency Management
Request from Public Safety for
approval and execution of the Second Amendment to Agreement between
Resolution/Vacation Petition
Number 1070 – Henrich-Luke & Swaggerty, LLC
Request from Public Works for
approval and signature of Resolution 2005-210 to advertise Vacation Petition
Number 1070, by Henrich-Luke & Swaggerty, LLC, Representative Mark I. Luke,
to vacate a portion of two drainage and utility easements, in the Plat of Spring
Valley Phase VIII, located in Section 05, Township 23 South, Range 26 East, in
the Clermont area – Commission District 2.
Resolution/Vacation Petition Number 1072 – Quenell
Bonds
Request from Public Works for
approval and signature of Resolution 2005-211 to advertise Vacation Petition
Number 1072, by Quenell Bonds, Jim Stivender, Jr., Representative Patti Harker,
to vacate a portion of right of way known as 10th Avenue, in the
Plat of Umatilla Turpentine Company Subdivision and Merrell Vaughn Subdivision,
located in Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area –
Commission District 5.
Resolution/Advertise Vacation
Petition Number 1073 – William Brockett
Request from Public Works for
approval and signature of Resolution 2005-212 to advertise Vacation Petition
Number 1073, by William Brockett, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate an
easement, in the Plat of Twilight Cove, located in Section 14, Township 20
South, Range 26 East, in the Lake Jem area – Commission District 3.
Right-of-Way Deeds/Roadway and/or Stormwater Projects
Request from Public Works for
approval to accept public right of way deeds that have been secured in
conjunction with roadway and/or stormwater projects: one (Corrective) Statutory
Warranty Deed; five Statutory Warranty Deeds; one Non-Exclusive Easement Deed;
and one Temporary Non-Exclusive Construction Easement Deed, as follows:
(Corrective)
Statutory Warranty Deed
Floyd,
Jr. William P.,
Statutory Warranty Deed
ABC Liquors, inc.,
Fox Hill Builders, Inc.,
Home Depot USA, Inc., Rolling
Lake Point Senior Apts.,
John P. Adams & Ann D. Adams, Family Limited
Partnership,
Non-Exclusive Easement Deed
John P. Adams & Ann D. Adams, Family Limited
Partnership,
Temporary Non-Exclusive Construction Easement Deed
Fox Hill Builders, Inc.,
Letter of Credit for
Maintenance/Lake Louisa
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the
amount of $18,800.00 posted for Lake Louisa Highlands Phase III. Lake Louisa
Highlands Phase III consists of 29 lots – Commission District 2.
Letter of Credit for Performance/Lake Louisa Phase
I/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s Agreement/Resolution/Roads
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Performance in the
amount of $298,465.00 for Overlook at Lake Louisa Phase I; accept a Maintenance
Bond in the amount of $160,263.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for
Maintenance of Improvements between
Final Plat/Orange Tree Phase
6/Developer’s Agreement
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Orange Tree Phase 6 and
all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Orange Tree Phase 6 final
plat; accept a check in the amount of $69,651.73; and execute a Developer's
Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Greater
Homes, Inc. Orange Tree Phase 6 consists of 44 lots – Commission District 2.
Final Plat/Avalon Hills/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s
Agreement/Karst, Inc./Resolutions/Roads
Request from Public Works for approval and
authorization to accept the final plat for Avalon Hills and all areas dedicated
to the public as shown on the Avalon Hills plat; accept a Maintenance Bond in
the amount of $22,698.40; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of
Improvements between Lake County and Karst, Inc.; and execute Resolution
2005-214 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System:
Colt Lane (County Road Number 0769A). Avalon Hills consists of 16 lots –
Commission District 2.
Road
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to execute Change Order Number 2 to the CR-452 (
Letter of Credit/Highland
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the
amount of $28,830.00 posted for Highland Groves Phase I. Highland Groves Phase
I consists of 66 lots – Commission District 2.
Maintenance Bond/Glenbrook Phase
I
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of
$63,121.22 posted for Glenbrook Phase I. Glenbrook Phase I consists of 266 lots
– Commission District 2.
Maintenance Bond/Fox Meadows
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of
$15,200.00 posted for Fox Meadows. Fox Meadows consists of 15 lots – Commission
District 2.
Letter of Credit/Ranch Club
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the
amount of $15,598.00 posted for Ranch Club. Ranch Club consists of 113 lots –
Commission District 3.
Maintenance Bond/Greater
Request from Public Works for
approval and authorization to release a Maintenance Bond in the amount of
$22,141.00 posted for Greater Groves Commercial Park. Greater
Request from Public Works for
approval of payment to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for Permit
Number LAK-164 for the incidental taking of gopher tortoises for the South
Clermont Connector Project. Fiscal
impact: $68,913.00
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Economic Development and
Tourism/Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
A request from Economic Development
and Tourism for approval of an Agreement between Lake County and Leesburg Area
Chamber of Commerce, Inc. in which Lake County will assist in funding two bass
tournaments on the Harris Chain of Lakes from January 8, 2006 through January
29, 2006, in the amount of $35,000.00.
INTERLOCAL
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board to discuss the
Interlocal Agreement between
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement between
PRESENTATION:
ANNUAL EDUCATION IMPACT FEE REPORT BY TOMMY CROSBY,
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
Ms.
Anna Cowin, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, addressed the Board and
stated that, being this is the first report of her administration to the Board,
she wanted to take the opportunity to introduce their Finance Director, Tommy
Crosby, who has been with them a number of months. She explained that they are going to be spending
about $139 million over the next two years for school construction. She thought the report was very good and, in
addition to sharing it with the Board, and the School Board, she has shared it
with their Legislative Delegation. She
wanted to thank the Board for their support in helping them with impact fees.
Mr.
Tommy Crosby, Finance Director, Lake County Schools, stated that Ms. Cindy
Hall, County Manager, has provided the Impact Fee Report that went to the
Impact Fee Committee a couple of months ago.
As shown in the backup, they collected about $24 million in revenue;
their Fiscal Year is 7/1/2004 to 6/30/2005.
He stated that a lot of that was due to the pre-pays after the impact
fee went up in December. The backup
shows a list of projects that they spent money on last year; approximately $13
million. For this Fiscal Year,
2005-2006, they brought forward $37 million in Fund Balance. They originally budgeted $28 million in their
plan but, since they have presented this to the Impact Fee Committee, they have
lowered that projection to about $25 million.
They have budgeted about $64 million in projects, which will be last
year’s carry over and the projects for this year.
Commr.
Stivender requested information as to the location of the planned expenditures,
Mr. Crosby explained that he really
could not give the location of the facilities, but they have been trying to
look at some creative finance structure so they can accelerate the
timetable. They went through the process
of hiring an architect and getting a construction manager on board, so that
they can begin the process at the end of this year.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the School Board really needs to be aware that the
Statewide Impact Fee Task Force who will be meeting again in January. The Task Force is looking at severely
restricting their ability to impose impact fees. The School Board’s Association is represented
well there but locally they need to let folks know that impact fees are a good
way for growth to pay for itself; the legislature is seriously looking at
restricting their ability to do that and they need help from the School Board
in getting this information out to the public.
Ms.
Cowin stated that they put this issue in their legislative packet, as a local
control issue, and it is one of their top priorities.
Mr.
Crosby stated that, as a member of the Statewide Finance Council for School
Finance Officers, they have taken a position paper on impact fees, as well as
for local control.
Commr.
Hanson stated that, beyond elected officials, it is also good to have citizens
contact their legislators.
Commr.
Hill stated that, when Mr. Crosby came to the Impact Fee Committee in September
and gave this report, she was under the impression that they named the
locations for those schools, and she wanted to know if this has changed.
Ms.
Cowin explained the location of the planned schools noting that “letters” are
being used to identify them just to give the School Board the sequence of what
is next on the agenda.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hill stated that this is a different revenue stream, and it runs with the land
and not necessarily with the system; that money would have to go back into that
fund to be redistributed somewhere else.
The
Board extended their appreciation for the updated report.
PRESENTATION:
UPDATE ON THE FUND RAISING EFFORTS BY THE FRIENDS OF
THE HORTICULTURAL
Ms.
Violet Irminger addressed the Board and stated that she is President of the
Friends of the
The
Board extended their thanks to Ms. Irminger for all of her hard work.
PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 CONSOLIDATED
ANNUAL PEFORMANCE EVALUATION AND REVIEW FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
Ms.
Liz Eginton, Community Development Block Grant Director, addressed the Board
and stated that the CDBG Division has finished the FY 2004-05 Consolidated
Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER), which has been presented to
the Board. The CAPER outlines how CDBG
funds were used during the last fiscal year and, as required by federal
regulations, it has been made available for public inspection for 15 days and
citizens are being given an additional chance to comment at today’s public
hearing. Staff is asking the Board to
approve the document so that it can be submitted to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Jacksonville Field Office. Between September 30, 2004 and November 30,
2005, they drew down $815,500.17 from the County’s line of credit, with the
federal government covering 18 activities.
Staff gave the Board a progress report on the activities that they
carried out during last fiscal year, as noted on Pages 3 and 4 in the CAPER; they
have spent 19.1% of this year’s CDBG’s funds for program administration; the
remaining funds have been reprogrammed to Phase V for paving in Lake Kathryn.
Ms.
Eginton stated that the CDBG Division is particularly proud of several
accomplishments. They participated once
again in hurricane response and recovery; they played an active leadership role
in preparation of successful homeless continuum of care funding applications
for Lake,
Commr.
Stivender thanked Ms. Eginton and Mr. Bill Gearing, Community Enhancement
Coordinator, for doing an excellent job along with their staff.
Commr.
Hanson 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. Hill and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Consolidated Annual
Performance & Evaluation Report for Community Development Block Grants and
directed that it be transmitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
PUBLIC HEARING:
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board to discuss the
maintenance map for
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hanson 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 approved to accept a Maintenance Map for
PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM
METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether this also applies to the lighting issue she and
other Board members have been talking about in the past.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that, in the past, they have done street lighting; it is again
named in the document so it would allow that, but they would do that later next
year during the formulation of their budget.
Commr.
Hanson 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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried
unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to authorize and execute the Notice of
Intent to Use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special
Assessments, Resolution 2005- 215.
PUBLIC HEARING: ROAD VACATION PETITION NUMBER 1056 –
HENRY C. & JANET M. SHUPE – PLAT OF SPRINGS BATH & YACHT CLUB - YALAHA
AREA – COMMISSION DISTRICT 3
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained Petition Number 1056, Henry
C. and Janet M. Shupe, a request to vacate a portion of right-of-way in the
Plat of Springs Bath & Yacht Club, in the Yalaha Area, Commission District
3, noting that there were some drainage issues, and most of the concerns have
been addressed. The area is directly in
front of the resident’s house; the County is vacating part of it; it allows
them to keep the drainage system in place and put swales to the end of the
right-of-way; and staff is recommending approval of the request. There was one letter in opposition.
Commr.
Stivender stated that there was a concern that someone was getting free land
because, when you vacate it, it goes back to the property owners. The Board has had a problem with this in the
past with other residents in other areas.
Mr.
Schneider explained that it is not necessarily free land; it is land that is no
longer needed for public use and typically, when you vacate the right-of-way,
the adjacent property owners get whatever was no longer needed for public use.
Commr.
Stivender pointed out that, in part of this area that is being vacated, the
County is going to be making the improvement for the drainage.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms.
Leslie Campione, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that she is here
representing the Shupes, the owners of the property adjacent to this
right-of-way. As indicated by Mr.
Schneider, this is a cul-de-sac that was never actually constructed as such and
basically the road just ends. She
explained that the situation, from a drainage standpoint, has actually been
improved and will continue to be improved, as a result of some additional
things scheduled by the County for this area, and the vacation is an attempt to
improve the drainage situation and bring some certainty as far his use of his
lot.
Commr.
Stivender explained that she has visited the site, and it is currently all
grass and hedges, so you would not know there is a cul-de-sac had it not been
shown on the plat.
Ms.
Campione pointed out that it is all essentially in the Shupes’ front yard.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried
unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1056 by Henry C.
& Janet M. Shupe, Representative Leslie Campione, P.E., to vacate a portion
of the right of way, in the Plat of Springs Bath & Yacht Club, located in
Section 17, Township 20 South, Range 25 East, in the Yalaha area – Commission
District 3, Resolution 2005-216.
PUBLIC HEARING: ROAD VACATION PETTION NUMBER 1066 –
MIKE DESLAURIERS – PLAT OF EAGLERIDGE – SOUTH CLERMONT AREA – COMMISSION
DISTRICT 2
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained Petition Number 1066, by
Mike Deslauriers, a request to vacate a portion of a landscape buffer/easement
in the Plat of Eagleridge, Phase III, in the Clermont area, Commission District
2, noting that originally the proposal was to vacate the entire 25 feet and
Growth Management objected to that, so they have reduced it to ten feet. He stated that Public Works and Growth
Management have recommended approval of the elimination of the ten feet, and
they will meet the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) as far as setbacks for
buffers. The purpose of this is to allow
them to build a pool.
Commr.
Pool pointed out that only one individual was making this request today but, at
one time, staff was talking about vacating the entire corridor. Commr. Stivender pointed out that they have
had this problem in other subdivisions, and Commr. Pool stated that it would
make more sense to vacate the entire ten foot corridor instead of doing it
individually.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hanson stated that they would be eliminating most of that conservation easement,
the 15 feet, but it was probably a condition of the development when it was first
approved; that is probably why the Growth Management Department was opposed to
it.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant was
present. There being no public comment,
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 approved Petition Number 1066 by Mike Deslauriers to
vacate a portion of a landscape buffer/easement, in the Plat of Eagleridge,
Phase III, located in Section 23, Township 24, Range 26, in the South Clermont
area – Commission District 2, Resolution 2005-217.
PUBLIC HEARING: ROAD VACATION PETITION NUMBER 1068 –
HOWARD MARSHALL – PLAT OF DORA PINES UNIT TWO – COMMISSION DISTRICT 4
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained Petition Number 1068, by
Howard Marshall, Plat of Dora Pines Unit Two, in the
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Ted Wicks addressed the Board and stated that he is with Wicks Consulting
Services; the applicant, Mr. Marshall, is also here today. They have already completed construction for
improvements to support the replatting of this project into a single family
conventional built subdivision. After
they got into the title report, they found some recreational pathways shown on
the old plat that had no supporting documentation as to who they were dedicated
to, or what was happening with them. In
discussion with legal staff, they recommended that they bring this back through
and vacate the underlying portion, and then replat over the top of it. Because of past problems with Dora Pines,
they have worked hard on this to bring something of a great asset to that part
of the area. He stated that this will be
a conventional subdivision; the roads will be built to County standards; they
have water and sewer; and it is a very good project.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she visited this site on a number of occasions with Code
Enforcement on other issues, and she wanted to know if the drainage was going
to be addressed because it has always been a problem.
Mr.
Wicks stated that this project stood on its own from a drainage standpoint;
they have permitted through the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD)
and through the County Public Works Department. They are providing dedicated retention areas
for stormwater management with some outfall into the Sunrise Boulevard area
where they have good positive outfall down to the creek and on out, and they
are meeting their onsite retention requirements for the project.
Mr.
Dale Haden addressed the Board and stated that his property abuts the property
in question. It was his understanding
that there is a ten foot recreational easement between his property and this
subdivision and it is going to be vacated; he also wanted to know about the
buffering.
Mr.
Wicks explained that the original plat had provisions for a ten foot
recreational pathway but, when you look at the dedication section, there was no
mention of it; its intent was to provide something for Dora Pines Unit 2; it
was not intended as a buffer. Mr. Wicks
stated that there will be a ten foot drainage and utility easement where that
ten foot recreational pathway exists today; but they do not plan any
improvements there at all.
Mr.
Haden stated that it was his understanding that there is supposed to be a six
foot fence on that easement.
Mr.
Marshall Howard addressed the Board and stated that, when he started this
project, the Homeowners Association asked him if he would put up a buffer or
some kind of fence. When he bought it,
he had it cleared it of grown up trees and vines. He explained that, if the Homeowners
Association agreed to vacate the alleyways or easements, he agreed to put up a
fence. They all agreed and everyone
signed an agreement. He also agreed to
put up the best type of fence, and he even took pictures to them so they could pick
out the design. They are waiting to get
all of the construction done, before they put up the fence, so it will not get
damaged. He explained the location of
the fence and noted that they also agreed, as stated in the document, that the
property owners of each individual lot will be responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of the fence; not the Homeowners Association.
Mr.
Chris Domerault stated that he is an adjacent homeowner, and he had a question
about a long row of trees that was taken down.
He stated that they had served as a natural buffer to the construction,
and he wanted to know if those trees are going to be replaced or if some sort
of foliage is going to replace those trees.
He felt it was a mistake to take them down.
Mr.
Wicks stated that, based on the County’s subdivision regulations, they will be
planting up to six trees per lot as part of their landscape planning
requirements. He suggested having his
client get with this gentleman to discuss replanting along that area. Because there were old utilities already in
the ground, they had to do a more substantial clearing there than they would
have normally done, so there may have been some trees lost due to that
activity. They will be glad to consult
with him and talk about his buffering requirements, and it will help them
determine where they need to place those trees.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing
portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the request is in District 4, and she has no opposition to
it, and it is certainly an improvement over what could have been there.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Petition Number 1068 by Howard Marshall,
Representative Wicks Consulting, to vacate a portion of the Plat of Dora Pines
Unit Two, located in Section 21, Township 19 South, Range 27 East, in the Mount
Dora area – Commission District 4, Resolution 2005-218.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS - REZONINGS
REZONING CASE PH#99-05-3 – DARRYL WROBEL/GREEN ACRES
FERNERY & CITRUS, INC., OWNER – STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – A TO
R-2 - TRACKING #116-05-Z
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed
the Board that staff has a couple of last minute requests for changes to the
agenda. In regards to Agenda No. 8,
PH#99-05-3, Darryl Wrobel/Green Acres Fernery & Citrus, Inc., Owner; Steven
J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #116-05-Z; staff has a letter requesting
an additional 30 days continuance, from December 20, 2005 to January 24, 2006,
in order for them to provide additional information to staff.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request
for a 30 day continuance only.
Commr.
Stivender explained that the Board did postpone it from last month, to give the
applicant time to get with the residents.
She has spoken to the residents and there were a couple of other issues
on the site that needed to be addressed, and they have not had that meeting; it
would be appropriate to postpone.
There
being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for a 30 day continuance, until January
24, 2006, Rezoning Case PH#99-05-3, Darryl Wrobel/Green Acres Fernery &
Citrus, Inc., Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #116-05-Z; a
request to rezoning from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential).
REZONING CASE PH#104-05-2 – MAGNOLIA PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, OWNER – JIMMY D. CRAWFORD, GRAY ROBINSON, P.A., APPLICANT –
PUD TO AMEND PUD ORDINANCE #2000-9 – TRACKING #124-05-PUD/AMD
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, informed
the Board that staff has received an e-mail this morning from Jimmy Crawford,
Attorney, asking for a 30 day continuance for Rezoning Case PH#104-05-2,
Magnolia Property Associates, LLC, Owner; Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson,
P.A., Applicant; Tracking #124-05-PUD/AMD.
Mr. Hartenstein read the following into the record: “The reason is we have not yet received the
elevation of the Pinnacle Financial building (Lot E) as requested by the HOA,
and we are still working on the language that we can agree in the PUD
ordinance, regarding uses, buffering, and the wall.”
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment on the request
for a 30 day continuance only. 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 approved the request for a 30 day continuance, until
January 24, 2006, Rezoning Case PH#104-05-2, Magnolia Property Associates, LLC,
Owner; Jimmy D. Crawford, Gray Robinson, P.A., Applicant; Tracking
#124-05-PUD/AMD; a request from PUD (Planning Unit Development) to Amend PUD
Ordinance #2000-9 to allow changes.
DISCLOSURES
Commr.
Stivender disclosed that she had conversations with parties on Agenda Items 1,
3, 5, 6, and 11; Commr. Hill disclosed
the same and included 8 and 9; Commr. Stivender also disclosed 8 and 9; Commr.
Hanson disclosed Agenda Item 3; Commr. Pool disclosed 1, 3, 5, 6, and 11 with
parties in favor and opposition; Commr. Cadwell disclosed Agenda Items 3 and 7.
REZONING CASE PH#102-05-2 –
Ms.
Jennifer Dubois, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#102-05-2, Vernon A. Schneider and Mark Oswalt, Owners; Steven
J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; Tracking #120-05-PUD; a request to rezone from R-1
(Rural Residential), R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), and R-6 (Urban
Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); for the creation of a 120 unit
single-family residential subdivision.
As indicated in the Summary of Analysis, this is a 54.74 acre parcel
located in the Clermont area east of the intersection of
Commr.
Stivender pointed out that Larry Metz, a School Board member, sits on the
Zoning Board, and he voted for the request because, under the existing zoning
categories, more units could be developed.
Commr.
Hill noted that the Board has a letter form the Lake County Water Authority,
but it does not indicate they are in opposition to the request.
Ms.
Dubois explained that she contacted Michael Perry, Executive Director of the
Lake County Water Authority, to find out if he had any additional issues with
this project, and he indicated that it was simply a matter of notifying staff
of the location of the parcel.
Commr.
Hanson wanted to know if this was going to be a cluster-type development.
Ms.
Dubois noted that the applicant has not yet submitted an actual conceptual plan
showing the layout of the lots. She
explained that the engineering firm, during the site plan review phase,
submitted a preliminary development plan, but it did not show the layout of the
lots; however, any wetlands in the project area will need to be set aside for
conservation purposes, and a minimum of 25% of the project area will have to be
retained as open space.
Commr.
Pool wanted to know if staff utilizes any information on a charter school, as
far as its capacity, because he is curious about the
As
shown in the Summary, Ms. Dubois stated that the only schools that were used in
the analysis were Lost Lake Elementary,
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he represents the
applicant. Mr. Richey explained that the
property is currently zoned R-1, R-4, and R-6 and, even though they could get
more density, they are rezoning the property to give them more flexibility in the
layout of the property, protecting the environment, and being more sensitive to
the lake. He did not want to
misrepresent and say that this is going to be a clustered development but
obviously the PUD allows them to move the property around and be more sensitive
to the environment; and it affords 25% open space which is more than they would
be required to do if they went with straight zoning. They will also work on central water and
sewer.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
As
stated, Commr. Pool pointed out it is a reduction in density and this will be a
better project with better opportunities for green space and more sensitivity
to the land.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approved Rezoning Case PH#102-05-2, Vernon A. Schneider and Mark Oswalt,
Owners; Steven J. Richey, P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from R-1 (Rural
Residential), R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), and R-6 (Urban Residential) to
PUD (Planned Unit Development); Tracking #120-05-PUD; and Ordinance 2005-105.
REZONING CASE CUP#05/10/3-3 – RHONDA V. VEGA, OWNER –
JIM HUFF OF CRAIG & ASSOCIATES FOR NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, APPLICANT – CUP
IN A – TRACKING #105-05-CUP
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case CUP#05/10/3-3, Rhonda V. Vega, Owner; Jim Huff of Craig &
Associates for Nextel Communications, Applicant; Tracking #105-05-CUP; a
request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agriculture (A) zoning
district. As noted in the Summary of Staff
Determination, the owner is requesting approval for the placement of a 200 foot
monopole communication tower on a 60 square foot lease parcel of an overall 32
acre tract. The owner is presently
utilizing the 32 acre parent tract zoned A and CUP 01/5/1-3 (Ordinance
#2001-81) for a single-family residence, and a 32 stall commercial boarding dog
kennel. The applicant wishes to lease
the parcel, as noted, to Nextel Communications for the construction and
operation of a tower and associated accessory uses, as described. Staff is recommending approval of the
request. Ms. Allen stated that, at the
December 7, 2005 meeting, the Zoning Board members recommended approval 4-1,
with the amendment that the tower utilize a dual light system at the top of the
tower with a red steady light at night rather than a flashing strobe
light. Staff has received no written
comments in opposition or support of this request.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. It was noted that the applicant, Mr. Huff,
was present. There being no public
comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Stivender stated that there were a couple of residents who contacted her, not
necessarily in relationship to the tower, but to the dog kennel, so the owner
of the property may want to talk to some of the neighbors about the dog kennel.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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 CUP#05/10/3-3, Rhonda V. Vega, Owner; Jim Huff of Craig
& Associates for Nextel Communications, Applicant; a request for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agriculture (A) zoning district for
placement of a 200 foot monopole communication tower on a 60’ x 60’ lease
parcel of an overall 32 acre tract; Tracking #105-05-CUP; and Ordinance
2005-106; with the amendment that the tower utilizes a dual light system at the
top of the tower with a red steady light at night rather than a flashing strobe
light.
REZONING CASE PH#100-05-3 – ROBERT BEUCHER, SONOMA
CONSTRUCTORS, LTD, OWNER – ROBERT BEUCHER, GENERAL PARTNER, SONOMA
CONSTRUCTORS, LTD – APPLICANT – A TO PUD – TRACKING #119-05-PUD/AMD
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#100-05-3, Robert Beucher, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Owner;
Robert Beucher, General Partner, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Applicant; Tracking
#119-05-PUD/AMD; a request to rezone A (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to add acreage to the existing Mission Inn PUD; and to amend
existing PUD Ordinance #2004-61. As
noted in the Summary of Analysis, Ms. Allen explained that an amendment to the
initial Las Colinas (Mission Inn) PUD Ordinance #44-93 was approved in August
2004 with Ordinance #2004-61, to recognize the addition of approximately 21
acres to the project site; to recognize multifamily residential town home
condominium units as an acceptable housing type; and to provide that the
overall residential project density, regardless of housing type, not exceed the
initial project density previously approved (1.04 dwelling units per
acre). An amendment to Ordinance
#2004-61 is proposed to recognize the addition of approximately 205 acres to
the project site (for a total of 803 acres); to recognize the land use with
regard to changes in density, setbacks, recreation facilities, commercial
space, building height and open space; and specifically the following:
·
The addition of
984 dwelling units (an increase from 622 units to 1,606 units)
·
An increase in
density from 1.04 dwelling units per acre to 2.00 dwelling units per acre. The Urban Area Residential Density Analysis
resulted in 71 points allowing 6.00 dwelling units per acre
·
Up to 260 acres
for golf course(s)
·
Up to 30 acres
for golf/tennis clubhouses, restaurants, pools, recreational sites and parking
·
Up to 20 acres
for any mixed commercial and residential uses
·
A maximum
building height of 65 feet.
Ms.
Allen explained that the School Board commented “this rezoning will have an
adverse impact on Lake County Public Schools.”
The proposal has the potential to add 342 new students to the school
system. The schools that will be
directly affected are Astatula Elementary that is currently 36% over capacity;
Tavares Middle that is currently 45% over capacity; and
Ms.
Allen stated that staff finds the request to be consistent with the Land
Development Regulations (LDRs) but is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
Policy 1-1.9 that states residential densities shall be compatible with
available public facilities and their capacity to serve development. In considering the comments from the School
Board that the noted schools are over capacity, there are not adequate public
facilities to serve this development, so staff is recommending denial of the
request. Ms. Allen stated that
there was a tie vote at the November 2, 2005 Zoning Board meeting; no recommendation
was brought forth to this Board. Staff
has received no written comments in opposition or support of the request. There are several representatives here today
from Mission Inn, and Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, is present.
Commr.
Cadwell clarified that the staff recommendation of denial was based on the
facilities directly relating to the schools.
Commr.
Hanson wanted to know, at some point, with the number of total houses that will
be there, if there would be an opportunity for a Development of Regional Impact
(DRI), when they add to an existing PUD; she thinks this is something they
should consider; and she noted that the over capacity shown for schools was
without the consideration of portables.
Commr.
Stivender pointed out, in the Zoning Board minutes, that Larry Metz, School
Board member, voted for the motion to recommend denial of the request based on
the discussion about schools.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Bruce Duncan, stated that he is an Attorney with Potter, Clement, Lowry &
Duncan,
Mr.
Bud Beucher stated that he is representing Mission Inn Golf & Tennis Resort
and will be speaking on behalf of their project. Mr. Beucher presented brief comments relating
to the topics outlined in Exhibit A-1 noting that this is a family owned and
operated business that has been here for 41 years; it is one of the top 20
employers in Lake County; it is nationally and locally renowned; and they have
a strong relationship with the Economic Development Council (EDC) and Tourist
Development Council (TDC). In terms of
economic impact, they have been a significant contributor to the health and
welfare of
·
41 Years of
Support to
·
Positive Economic
Impact to the County
·
Broad-Based
Private Sector Employer
·
Responsible
Master Planned Community
·
Environmentally
Sensitive
·
All Utilities Are
in Place
·
Deliver Services
that the County is Not Able to Provide (Sewer and Water)
·
$10,939,930
Dollars Impact Fees to Schools
·
$7,049,613
Dollars School Taxes Annually
·
The Type of
Mr.
Duncan explained that, under the worst case scenario, the total number of
students generated by the development would be 71 students; under the best case
scenario, 13 of those 71 students would attend Lake County Schools. The project would pay almost $11 million in
school impact fees by the time of build out; that includes the fees that they
paid today plus the fees that they would pay on these additional homes. If you consider the worst scenario, the 71
students would each come to school with $154,000 in impact fees; if there were
13 students, those schools would come with $841,000. Between the general school millage rate and
the capital outlay millage rate, the project would generate a little over $7
million in taxes every year that would go directly to the School Board; with
the worst case scenario with 71 students that is almost $100,000 a year for
each of those students; the best case scenario for them would be 13 children
that would produce over half a million dollars a year in impact fees. Mr. Duncan stated that the County impact fees
and annual County taxes are substantial; the total impact fees to the County
for this project would be $4,878,000 for library, parks, fire and road; annual
taxes would be a little over $8 million.
Mr.
Duncan asked Superintendent Anna Cowin to address the Board; Ms. Cowin noted
that she would like to wait until after public comment to make her remarks.
Mr.
Duncan explained that there are 803 total acres and 1,606 units, with two units
per acre and, as pointed out by staff, the future land use on this property
would allow up to four units per acre; the urban area density analysis would
allow up to six units per acre; so this is considerably less than what could be
developed there. Of the 803 acres, there
would be 260 acres of golf; 30 acres of golf and tennis clubhouse facilities;
20 acres of a mixed use commercial; and 321.2 acres would be set aside for open
space/conservation which is 40% of the overall project. They had one neighbor, Al Brokes, who was at
the Zoning Board meeting, and he owns property that is contiguous to this along
Number Two Road. He had some concerns regarding his ability to continue to
operate his agricultural endeavor; as pointed out by Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Egor Emery addressed the Board and stated that he is concerned about all of the
issues including those raised by staff; no one advocates for all of the other
services that are also strained by the insolent development in
Ms.
Anna Cowin, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, addressed the Board and
stated that it was pretty difficult to make a decision whether to come here today;
she has not spoken pro or con on developments; but she thinks it is important
to understand that they need to look to developments that are good;
developments that provide a benefit to the community more than just
rooftops. Ms. Cowin stated that, in
looking at this particular project, she recognizes not only through her observation,
but Jan Newman’s, the consultant for the School Board, that there are certain
developments that do benefit Lake County Schools. She explained that, if the prices of homes in
a development are over $350,000 and certainly $550,000 as being discussed
today, then they meet this requirement and there is a definite benefit to the
system, because of the addition of revenues that are coming in long term in
comparison to other developments. She
felt that they should try and promote the kind of development that they want
instead of stopping all development and this would be a good example. She has known this family for a very long
time and, as shown over the years, they have produced quality development. They should be supporting this kind of
development and people that provide this type of development, and the impact on
the schools will ultimately be positive; this is the kind of growth and development
they want and this is the reason she has taken this bold move to come here today
and support it. Ms. Cowin explained that
she announced at the School Board meeting that she was going to be supporting
developments that inure a benefit to their district and help
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr.
Duncan stated that he would like an opportunity to comment on some remarks made
by Mr. Emery. Regarding the open space, they
are at 40%, which is a substantial figure in light of what they have seen in
Commr.
Pool interjected that Dr. David Dinslow from the
Mr.
Duncan explained that they are in a unique situation and, like the Harbor Hills
project that the Board approved not too long ago, they have that historical
data that allows them to show that the student generation rate that comes out
of this development is considerably lower than the student generation rate
figures that the School Board uses. He
explained that there are different generation rates for mobile homes and
apartment complexes, but one single generation rate for all single family
subdivisions within the entire County.
He pointed out that $1.3 million in sales tax was generated by Mission
Inn last year; the County received directly $185,000; $340,000 in ad valorem
taxes were paid last year on top of the single family residents; and between
$160,000 and $200,000 was generated in Tourist Development Council money last
year from Mission Inn. He stated that clearly
this is a project, as pointed out by Ms. Cowin, that benefits
To
address Mr. Emery’s comments, Commr. Stivender stated that there is a
Mr.
Duncan stated that to bolster the argument on the roads, it is $3.38 million
worth of road impact fees that this project will pay into the County coffers.
Commr.
Hill stated that she thought it was quite courageous of the School
Superintendent, Ms. Cowin, to come and speak to the Board, and she noticed from
the minutes that Mr. Metz had almost the same philosophy, but he did vote against
it. She asked Ms. Cowin if there is a
philosophy within the School Board where they feel comfortable addressing
certain developments that they feel the County should be promoting.
Ms.
Cowin stated that she cannot speak to Mr. Metz because she has not had a
conversation with him, and Mission Inn has not had a conversation with him, and
she does not know if he was actually there when their consultant referred to
the different developments, but generally the majority of the Board have a
philosophy of opposing all development without exception; that is why she felt
is was important for her to announce that she would actually support development
and this is the first one and, although she is probably not going to be coming
very often, she feels strongly that they should encourage the development that
they want and they need that will benefit them.
She did speak to Board members individually about being here today; they
really made no comments one way or another and basically let the issue pass.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he thinks that everybody understands the economics of this
project but, on the build-out, they show ten to 15 years total, and he asked if
this was going to be in phases or was it going to be market driven.
Mr.
Duncan explained that there are actually different pods within the community;
one of the pods they are getting ready to open is the larger estate home pod,
which will actually increase the average cost of these houses. They are going to be phased in because there
will be different pods of each development, the townhouse pod, the estate home
pod; large estate homes that are going to be from $800,000 to $1.5 million; so
there will be phasing involved in the project.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know if the open space, the 40%, includes the golf course,
which Mr.
Commr.
Stivender pointed out that
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve Rezoning
Case PH#100-05-3, Robert Beucher, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Owner; Robert
Beucher, General Partner, Sonoma Constructors, LTD, Applicant; a request to
rezone A (Agriculture) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add acreage to
existing Mission Inn PUD and amend the existing PUD Ordinance #2004-61;
Tracking #119-05-PUD/AMD; Ordinance 2005-107.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she thinks that Mission Inn traditionally
has done the type of community that they can be proud of and has certainly set
an example for others in the County. It
does have the clustered development, which allows them to have the open space,
and 40% is still a large amount of open space, even with the golf courses, and
they are a revenue enhancer. When you
look at the impact fees that they will pay other than schools, it is close to
$5 million and that would be for parks, library, fire and roads. She did believe that, if it did come under a
DRI process, they would probably have a hard time finding how they could
improve the project.
Commr.
Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0
vote.
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At
10:35 a.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would take a 15 minute
recess.
REZONING CASE PH#73-05-2 – LAKE GROVE UTILITIES,
INCORPORATED, OWNER – KARL SANDERS, ESQUIRE, FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS – APPLICANT
– AMEND ORDINANCE #38-90 – TRACKING #81-05-CFD/AMD
Ms.
Stacy Allen, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#73-05-2, Lake Grove Utilities, Incorporated, Owner; Karl
Sanders, Esquire, for Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Tracking #81-05-CFD/AMD; a
request to amend Ordinance #38-90 to allow one 200 foot monopole communication
tower. As noted in the Summary of
Analysis, Ms. Allen explained that the site consists of 91.50 acres located in
the Four Corners area on the west side of US 27 and north of the CR 474
intersection. According to the variance
granted by the Board of Adjustment on October 13, 2005, the location of the
tower must be centered north and south, and east and west on the property; the
tower itself must maintain a minimum 600 foot setback from the north and south
property lines. Approval of the variance
allows the tower to be less than 400% of the tower height (800 feet) from
residential property. Since the variance
has been granted, the desired amendment is consistent with the requirements of
the Lake Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the request; the
Zoning Board recommended approval 5-1 at the December 7, 2005; staff has
received one letter of opposition.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Ms.
Rosel Pine of Edwards Cowin in
Commr.
Pool pointed out that, in the last light situation, they made sure that, during
the evening hours, it was not a white strobe light; that it was a slow blinking
red light.
Mr.
Charlie Pachini, Cingular Wireless Design Engineer, addressed the Board and
stated that, as far as the light, there are a number of different options they
can put up there, and they can accommodate any kind of lighting on it.
Commr.
Stivender explained that the wording the County used in the other tower cases
was “a dual lighting system at the top of the tower shall be utilized with a
red steady light at night rather than a flashing strobe” and Mr. Pachini noted
that this would not be a problem.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Pool made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to uphold the recommendation
of the Zoning Board and approve Rezoning Case PH#73-05-2, Lake Grove Utilities,
Incorporated, Owner; Karl Sanders, Esquire, for Cingular Wireless, Applicant; a
request to amend Ordinance #38-90 to allow one 200 foot monopole communication
tower; Tracking #81-05-CFD/AMD; Ordinance 2005-108.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hill stated that there was a fencing problem; one of the
letters in opposition to the fence noted disrepair to the residential side, and
she wanted to know if they would be repairing that part.
Ms.
Allen explained that the fence is owned by Lake Grove Utilities, and she did
forward that letter to Code Enforcement.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Pool stated that the motion would include the correct lighting per their
recommendation for dual lighting.
Commr.
Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0
vote.
REZONING CASE PH#101-05-3 – PETE BENEVIDES, OWNER –
STEVEN J. RICHEY, P.A., APPLICANT – AMENDMENT TO CP ORDINANCE #2003-62 –
TRACKING #125-05-CP/AMD
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#101-05-3, Pete Benevides, Owner; Steven J. Richey, P.A.,
Applicant; Tracking #125-05-CP/AMD; a request for an amendment to the existing
CP (Planned Commercial) Ordinance #2003-62.
As noted in the Summary of Analysis, the applicant is requesting an
amendment, as noted, to address the inability to meet the 25 foot wetland
buffer requirement, and to request that the expiration date established in the
ordinance be extended for an additional 24 months. The applicant is requesting a 21 foot average
wetland setback for all structures and impervious surface; they have submitted
a copy of the proposed mitigation plan that was submitted to the St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Army Corp of Engineers for
their review and approval; if approved, the applicant will be required to
submit the approval documents of this plan prior to any site plan approvals by
the County. Staff is recommending
approval of the request; the Zoning Board recommended approval 6-0 at the
December 7, 2005 meeting.
Commr.
Hanson opened the public meeting and called for public comment.
Mr.
Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that he represents the applicant. As indicated by staff, two years ago they
rezoned this piece of property with a CP zoning. They sold a piece of property and the person,
not being familiar with the rules and regulations, did some significant
clearing on the property; it is right across from the industrial park. They ended up taking the property back and
working with the agencies to re-establish and protect the wetlands that were
altered during that time of ownership.
They are reducing the square footage of the buildings as originally
approved; there was less usable land when they did the actual wetland lines;
they are asking for some flexibility and setback is part of this
reestablishment and replanting that they worked out with the agencies. It will be the same uses but a smaller
footprint, less coverage, and more replanting to make it right. As staff had mentioned, there was an
expiration date in the last CP, and they are asking that this be extended 24
months.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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#101-05-3, Pete Benevides, Owner; Steven J. Richey,
P.A., Applicant; a request for an amendment to the existing CP (Planned
Commercial) Ordinance #2003-62; Tracking #125-05-CP/AMD; Ordinance 2005-109, with
the condition of a 24 month extension.
REZONING CASE CUP#05/12/1-3 – ANDREW J. & JONI
HANSEN, OWNERS – ANDREW J. & JONI HANSEN, APPLICANTS – RENEW EXISTING
CUP#03/2/1-3 – TRACKING #123-05 CUP/AMD
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case CUP#05/12/1-3, Andrew J. and Joni Hansen, Owners; Andrew J. and
Joni Hansen, Applicants; Tracking #123-05 CUP/AMD; a request to renew the
existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP#03/2/103), which will expire on March 11,
2006. As indicated in the backup
material, this is a 47 acre parcel south of Howey located off of
Ms.
Leslie Campione, Attorney,
Ms.
Campione stated that she would like to go ahead and present testimony to the
Board and get some information on the record.
After looking at the file, she realized that the new subdivision, The
Ranch Club, actually has a common boat ramp for this lake, and there are 116
units that have access to this lake at any time. It could be very problematic
on a small lake, and it would be a very intensive use of the lake. She would suggest that they basically have
two intensive uses, a ski school that wants to operate Monday through Friday;
and 116 units that have full access to that lake; and thus far, they have not
had any real problems. She feels that
they can continue to operate and co-exist and, if additional conditions need to
be placed in the future, they can address them as the problems arise; not
speculate that they will definitely have problems. Ms. Campione called Mr.
Andrew (Andy) Hansen, the applicant, to present testimony.
Mr.
Andy Hansen testified that one of the issues in the very first hearings was
based on the number of students and the impact to that area. They reduced the number of students to a
total of 16; they are not requesting to increase that number; they have one
full time student that comes from Texas; they have 16 students for two weeks in
the spring time; they have 16 students for two months during the summer; the
rest of the time they have between zero and ten students; and they use three
different lakes when they have 16 students.
He testified that
Ms.
Campione addressed Commr. Cadwell’s question by clarifying that there would be
a provision in the CUP that states that the use of
At
this time, Ms. Campione showed a video (about four minutes) of the World
Wakeboard Center (WWC), which was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and
entered as Exhibit A-1 for the Applicant.
Ms.
Campione stated that she has three witnesses that Mr. Hansen has offered to
speak, and then they will conclude their presentation.
Mr.
Terry Dorner addressed the Board and stated that he is Vice President of World
Sports and Marketing, and they produce professional water skiing and
wakeboarding events around the world.
Mr. Dorner stated that he was a student at what was Allen’s Ski School
about 30 years ago, which operated on Lake Morgan, and they skied there and
trained there five days a week, Monday through Friday. He stated that this particular lake and this
particular venue is an institution and is legendary in the world of water
sports, and the lake, the facility, and the coaches have produced hundreds of
national and world champions. From a
personal perspective, it would be a shame if the program went away. He has known the Hansens for years and they
are a family that is characterized by hard work, honesty, and integrity; the
program is in good hands; and they will be reasonable as they have demonstrated
in the past.
Mr.
Dan Stewart,
Commr.
Hanson explained that this is the reason someone would have a CUP, because that
will eventually happen; that is why it is a CUP rather than a guaranteed use
forever.
Mr.
Stewart stated that, if they are looking at the amount of boat traffic, it is a
very similar situation to what they have on their lake, and they do not require
a referee.
Commr.
Cadwell pointed out that Mr. Stewart is not operating a commercial operation.
Mr.
Trey Weber addressed the Board and stated that, when he was young, he did not
have a lot of money, and the Hansens let him do chores for them in trade for
wakeboard lessons. They are great people,
and he asked the Board not to shut down their wakeboard camp.
Ms.
Campione stated that she had a few remarks in closing. She explained that there have been a few
issues that have emerged in the Zoning Board meeting based on the statements
that were made there, and there was a lot of talk about what the expectations
of The Ranch Club owners were when they purchased their property, as far as the
ski school. A review of the minutes
reflects clearly the discussion that took place. At the Zoning Board meeting, a perception was
given that there were problems occurring on this lake and, if anyone from The
Ranch Club offers testimony, she certainly would like to find out if they have
had incidents, because they are not aware of problems between the owners at The
Ranch Club and the ski school. Also
there was the idea that, by adding the extra building, they were actually
expanding and will have more users on the lake; that is not the intent; the
number of students will remain the same; and they will continue to use lakes
other than just
Ms.
Campione requested the opportunity to cross examine any of the witnesses, and
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Mr.
Bill Higgins stated that he is a lot owner at The Ranch Club and President of
the Homeowners Association and, on behalf of their Board and the 116 lot owners
and residents, he would like to say that they are opposed to the commercial use,
or any use on Lake Morgan. Mr. Higgins
noted that the video (Exhibit A-1) was very nice and well done, but they are
not opposed to the
Ms.
Joan Baskett, Eagle Run, Groveland, stated that she is a homeowner in The Ranch
Club community and Director of The Ranch Club Homeowners Association. Ms. Baskett explained that The Ranch Club
consists of 116 five acre home sites; all are individually owned; they have an
active Homeowners Association; currently there have been 12 homes built; five
are under construction; five have been permitted and approved by the
Architectural Review Committee to begin construction; by the end of 2007, they
project The Ranch Club properties to be 50% built and occupied; many property
owners do not wish to build homes immediately but they still come to the
community for recreational purposes; some come from other states on vacation
and use the community common areas; it is an equestrian community with paths
and winding roadways; there is a preserve area with wildlife and wide open
areas of pasturelands; there are waterways and lakes with the largest being
Lake Morgan with 13 home sites located directly on it; 22 home sites have use
of the lake. Ms. Baskett stated that
located on
Mr.
Kevin Zibolski,
Commr.
Stivender asked Mr. Zibolski if those sliders were on the lake when he bought
the property, and he stated that right now there are actually only two of them
sitting on the lake, but they are permitted for ten, and he thinks that they
did not place the others on the lake because it would have been more
controversial for the hearing. Mr.
Zibolski stated that he is trying to get a hearing in
Mr.
Don Sharp, a property owner in The Ranch Club, stated that he objects to this
wakeboard school being on
Mr.
Chris Larsen, property owner in The Ranch Club, stated that he is in the
process of permitting a new home, and he has deeded access to
Mr.
Rich Reper,
Ms.
Stacey Ferrari, Sunset Lake Circle, Winter Garden, stated that she wanted to
make it clear that, while she does not yet live in The Ranch Club, she did buy
a home site there directly on Lake Morgan to enjoy a water skiers
lifestyle. She bought the property
knowing about the existence of the WWC, and the terms of the CUP that allows it
to operate on
Mr.
Howard King stated that his family has owned property off and on near
Ms.
Ruth Stokes,
Ms.
Campione stated that, in closing, she would like to make some comments about
some of the things the witnesses have said today. As far as the sliders, the Hansens have those
permitted through DEP, and they have three children who have been world class
champions, so they would be using those sliders whether they were operating a
ski school or not. As far as getting
other permits for a slalom course on the lake, Ms. Ferrari or anyone can apply
for one; the State regulates that type of activity. Ms. Campione addressed comments made by Ms.
Ferrari noting that there is no need for anyone to be concerned about using the
lake when the WWC is operating and, as indicated in the CUP, the WWC does not
operate on the weekends. She also noted
that hearing that there has been some confrontations is totally contrary to
their position, as testified to by Mr. Hansen; there have been no complaints
registered with the Code Enforcement Board, and there have been no
investigations. With regard to some of the statements about fishermen, paddle
boats, canoes and kayaks, those 116 users at The Ranch Club are probably going
to have to work out some issues among themselves, as well. Ms. Campione stated that they are asking that
the different competing interests use these conditions that are reasonable to
balance the interests and, if additional conditions need to be placed in the
future, that is certainly within their jurisdiction to take care of that, but
right now it has been working and they are asking that they allow the Hansens
to continue to do what they have done in the past. They are asking that they allow them to
indefinitely have their property as their home base for the ski school; that
the use of the lake come back up for renewal as it has in the past; that it be
examined at that point as far as whether everyone is co-existing and working
together; and that they be permitted to build that additional unit so that they
can house the guys and girls in separate dorms.
They have not had any problems on the lake, as Mr. Hansen has testified,
but she felt that the issue of having one boat on the lake could be abused by those
folks that would like to have the Hansens not be able to use their ski
school. She stated that, if the Board decides
they want to address some of the issues, perhaps they can look at the hours of
operation but continue to allow them to operate at least one boat during the
hours of operation, as outlined in the CUP.
She noted that the ski school ceased in 1996, with it being solely
wakeboarding now.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr.
Hartenstein explained that the applicants have two structures on the property
right now, and they are asking for one more structure under agricultural
zoning. Mr. Hartenstein explained that,
if the ski school ceases to operate from that site, they would have to plat it
as a subdivision, which would entail a rezoning in order to have current lot
sizes for three lots. It was noted that
the surrounding zoning is R-1 and R-2.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the Board knew this day was going to come and that is the
reason this CUP is a lot different that some of the others, because it has that
three year period where they will look at it each time; other CUPs are
inspected yearly by staff to make sure they comply; but they knew this was
going to be different. In their comments,
they will continue to operate the business if the lake was not there, or if
there were different restrictions on the lake.
If the Board is going to consider renewing the CUP, he would hope that
they would at least look at the language where it says “duration” and have it
for a one year period. With the rate of
growth out there, even in one year, it may be a different situation. He explained that the Hansens own property;
they have the right to use the lake; and if the CUP goes away completely he
thinks they will be in worse shape, but then they can utilize the lake for
their own personal use. He clarified
that he is less concerned about the whole property, if they believe they can
operate the business out of there without the use of the lake but, in regards
to the use of the lake, he would not go more than a year.
Commr.
Pool explained that Ms. Ferrari can slalom or ski on that lake today without
any permission from the Board, as well as Mr. Hansen or anyone else with or
without the CUP but, without the CUP and restrictions and guidelines, they are
going to be considerably more impacted on weekends and weekdays during all
hours.
Mr.
Hartenstein stated that the only code violations have been in the form of
complaints about an access issue on
Discussion
occurred regarding the number of slides that are permitted by DEP, and Mr.
Minkoff explained that the fact that they have a DEP permit does not mean that
the CUP could not limit them.
Commr.
Hanson stated that, if the Board goes along with that, she would require that
those eight additional ones be removed under the permit and not be allowed.
Mr.
Hansen addressed the Board and stated that they have a permit for eight sliders
on the lake, and they have eight sliders on the lake. He explained that this process is very
expensive; they have allocated dollars for sliders to go into those locations;
the sliders are currently on the shoreline ready to be positioned in those
locations; there are four permanent ones right now on the water; there are four
on the shore ready to be placed.
Commr.
Cadwell explained that they need to understand that this goes into even more
argument with the opposition that, even when they shut down, the visual effect
is still there on a very small lake. As
he said, the Board knew this day was going to come and today may be the day in
regards to the use of the lake but, if not, he would hope that the Board would
at least look at the lake issue in a year as opposed to three years. He would encourage them to add the language
Commr. Hanson has offered in regards to the number of slides.
Commr.
Hanson noted that, after this discussion, she would still say limit it to the
four sliders that are existing on the lake.
Mr.
Minkoff explained that the Chairman is suggesting that, if Mr. Hansen puts more
than four on the lake, the CUP becomes null and void.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she wanted to make some personal observations and
comments, because she moved into an area with a small lake,
Commr.
Stivender made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Zoning Board and
approve Rezoning Case CUP#05/12/1-3, Andrew J. and Joni Hansen, Owners and
Applicants; a request to renew the existing CUP#03/2/1-3; Tracking #123-05
CUP/AMD; Ordinance 2005-110; to extend the CUP with the following requirements;
there will never be more than 16
students; she does not think there needs to be another building there because,
if it were to no longer be a school, you could only get the two residences and
she did not want to put them in a bind where they would have to tear one down
if they could not plat it; she would like to keep 2.b. on Page 2 but limit it
to one boat on the lake and, throughout the document, change everything that
says a ski school to a wakeboard facility; keep the same hours, the Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., that the use of the lake issue come back
for the Board to review every year but that the buildings and the wakeboard
school run with the land and not have to come back and be renewed every year;
and that the four slides that are in the water and are permitted and already
constructed be the only ones allowed on the lake.
Commr.
Pool seconded the motion for discussion and stated that obviously it is the
placement of the sliders that are the most important so, to allow four is one
thing, but he thinks it they need to be on the Hansens side of the lake; and
even though he understands that Mr. Hansen owns the acreage, he is trying to
help position them in a way that may be more advantageous to everybody, so that
they have a win-win situation.
Ms.
Campione attempted to tell the Board the cost of the sliders and the fact that
they have already been bought; but Commr. Hanson said that she realizes the
cost but only wanted someone to show her the location of the four sliders that
are already in the water.
Mr.
Hansen explained that they purposely held back on putting the two sliders on
the other side in front of their boat ramp just for aesthetic purposes, because
they are very expensive and it takes time to raise the money to construct
them. Mr. Hansen pointed out the
location of five sliders that are permanent right now, and the location of his
property.
Commr.
Hanson questioned the number of sliders that are actually in the water noting
that Mr. Hansen had indicated earlier that there were only four in the water.
Mr.
Hansen stated that he recounted the sliders.
He explained that they pull them off the lake and put them in different
spots; they are on anchors and can be moved around; they are very expensive;
but there are five currently on the water in location.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she is going to stay with the four, as noted in her
motion.
Commr.
Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commr.
Cadwell and Commr. Hanson voted “no”.
Mr.
Minkoff repeated the motion, for clarification, as follows:
the change from the current CUP would change it to allow 16
students; still only allow the two structures that they currently have; leave Page
2. B. keeping that, if there are other people on the lake, they cannot operate
a boat on the lake; same hours; that the CUP, as to the use on the lake, would
expire each year and would have to be reapplied for; that the use of the land
for housing the students would turn into a normal CUP with an annual inspection
and a three year review; and that there would only be four sliders that would
be used on the lake.
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At 12:50
p.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would recess until 1:30 p.m.
REZONING CASE PH#87-05-5 –
Mr.
Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley,
Applicant; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-3 (Medium Residential);
Tracking #104-05-Z. As indicated in the
Summary of Analysis, the applicant wishes to rezone the nine acre parcel, which
is presently vacant, for the creation of a single family residential subdivision;
central water and sewer will be supplied by the City of
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, explained that staff asked the
developer and consultant to go back and do some additional surveying, so they
have done that and have some additional information to bring forward. They do not have a final survey completed
today, but they do believe they have an accurate alignment of the SR 19
right-of-way and
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Dwayne Booth, Farner, Barley and Associates, stated that he is the Project
Engineer representing Chad Penley. Mr.
Booth explained that, at the October hearing, the main question was the
intersection at
Mr.
Booth referred to a map that showed the parcel right below Silver Beach Heights
(outlined in blue) and stated that the City of Umatilla is about 1,200 feet
south of them; about 1,260 to the east of them.
As shown, it looks like the R-3 is starting to create a corridor. They have been in discussions with the City about
water and wastewater services; if they get the R-3 zoning, it makes sense to
get the sewer there; if they do not get the R-3 zoning, the City said that
their definition of availability is not met and they would not require them to
connect to sewer. Mr. Booth submitted
the map to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-1 for
the Applicant.
Mr.
Booth showed the Board an Assessment Map of the area noting that they met with
Mr. Schneider and Patty Harker, Right-of-Way Manager and, as shown, the old
Glendale Subdivision was platted in 1887.
The roads that are shaded have been vacated except for the pieces that
actually cross Maxwell Avenue (three pieces), and the old plat calls them Old
Railroad Road; the map calls it Railroad Street; and the plat map and the old
original plat shows 140 feet of right-of-way.
The assessment map was submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked
and entered as Exhibit A-2 for the Applicant.
In their survey, as shown, the shaded areas are the portions of the old
plat that were left out of the vacation.
Mr. Booth explained in detail the area surrounding the stop bar at the
SR 19 intersection. He submitted the
survey to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit A-3 for
the Applicant. Mr. Booth stated that he
met with Mr. Schneider yesterday and again this morning to discuss the site
distance, as he explained and, in looking at the DOT green book standards, it
was 475 as a minimum at 60 miles per hour (mph); this is posted at 55 mph; the
desirable was 650 feet. They are still
in the process of verifying the right-of-way line. If that is the right-of-way line, they can
move the fence back about eight or nine feet; and move the fence on the other
side of the road two to three feet; and then they will have more than the 650
feet of the site distance to make that a safer intersection. Mr. Booth showed the Board the same
intersection overlaid on the aerial to support what they found noting that they
are lining up perfectly with all of the fences.
This map was submitted to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and
entered as Exhibit A-4 for the Applicant.
They will have to do some section work in
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know, with that additional footage along there, if they think
that makes it a safer intersection.
Mr.
Schneider stated that it was safer and it is a proper method of measuring the
site distances, 20 feet back from the travel lane and measuring out minimum
turning movement site distances and, if that is the location of the
right-of-way, staff would request the developer to coordinate with the property
owners to have the fence moved back and, at that point, there would be the
proper site distance at that intersection.
Mr.
Booth stated that the applicant is requesting R-3 zoning, even though there had
been discussion about R-2 zoning.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, when he heard this case the first time, his comments and
his feelings have not changed in regards to the development pattern in that
area, and he still believes that R-2 would best suit this property.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a 4-1 vote,
the Board overturned the recommendation from the Zoning Board for R-3 zoning
and approved to rezone from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (Estate Residential); Rezoning
Case PH#87-05-5, Chad L. and Kristie L. Penley, Owners; Chad Penley, Applicant;
to rezone a nine acre parcel for a single family residential subdivision;
Tracking #104-05-Z; Ordinance 2005-111.
Commr.
Stivender voted “no”.
REZONING CASE PH#103-05-3 – COOPREE, INC., OWNER –
RICHARD LANGLEY, P.A., APPLICANT – A TO HM – TRACKING #122-05-HM
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Department of Growth Management, presented Rezoning
Case PH#103-05-3, Coopree, Inc., Owner; Richard Langley, P.A., Applicant; a
request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to HM (Heavy Industrial Uses). As indicated in the Summary of Analysis, the
applicant wishes to rezone approximately 80 acres in the North Groveland area;
the parcel is located adjacent to the
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment.
Mr.
Richard Langley stated that he is the applicant and he has the property under
contract; Coopree, Inc. is the owner.
Mr. Langley stated that he did agree to reduce it to LM (Light Manufacturing);
the other would require a Comprehensive Plan change and approval by the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, 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#103-05-3, Coopree, Inc., Owner; Richard Langley,
P.A., Applicant; a request to rezone from A (Agriculture) to LM (Light
Manufacturing); Tracking 3122-05-HM; Ordinance 2005-112; as recommended by the
Zoning Board and staff.
REZONING CASE MSP#05/10/1-3 –
Mr.
John Kruse, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, presented
Rezoning Case MSP#05/10/1-3, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC,
Owner/Applicant; a request for a MSP (Mining Site Plan) in A (Agriculture) for
a construction and demolition (C & D) debris landfill; Tracking
#109-05-MSP. Mr. Kruse stated that he
has some additional signed petitions, with 422 signatures, which were submitted
to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit C-1 for the County. As indicated in the Summary of Staff
Determination, this is a request for a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a
construction and demolition (C & D) landfill facility on a 44 acre parcel
located in the (A) agriculture zoning district.
The parcel is located in the rural future land use category and is
currently being operated as a clay mine under Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
#1004-3, which was granted by the Board in March of 1986. The applicant is proposing to fill the void
left by mining with C & D material.
Since the original approval of the mine was granted under a CUP, the
applicant is requesting a MSP to void the CUP and allow reclamation of the mine
with C & D material and the continuation of mining. There are currently five other mines that are
using C & D materials as part of their reclamation in
Commr.
Hanson opened the public hearing and called for public comment. She disclosed that she met with those
individuals for and against the application.
Mr.
Bruce Duncan, Potter, Clement, Lowry and
Mr.
Duncan stated that this is a request for a reclamation plan for an existing
sand mine, which has been there for approximately 30 years. It is about 80% completed meaning that most
of the sand and materials have been removed from the mine, but there is some
existing materials that will be removed as part of this reclamation plan. It is located on CR 455 between Howey and
Montverde. Mr. Duncan stated that they
have two options with this hole in the ground; one, reclaim it under the old
existing mining ordinance and old rules and regulations that would allow them
to leave the hole in the ground as it is and slope it to a two-to-one slope;
and two, fill it up with C & D debris or some other type of landfill. He explained that C & D debris is
considered by the State of
Mr.
Duncan stated that the Town of
Mr.
Jim Golden, HAS Golden Engineers, Orlando, addressed the Board stated that they
are the engineers of record for this project and have been working with staff
over the past nine or ten months on this application. Mr. Golden explained that they have worked over
25 years in the State of
Mr.
Duncan talked about the monitoring of the well and asked Mr. Golden who was
responsible for the monitoring and who pulls the test samples from the well.
Mr.
Golden explained that a third party certified consultant would have to pull
those samples from the wells; a third party State certified laboratory would
test those samples; the raw data is sent to the State; that report comes back
to County staff and DEP. He explained
the benefits from pulling certain waste; the voluntary condition to monitor the
waste; and the insurance policy that has to stay in place for a minimum of five
years noting that the County can request to extend that as long as they think
is reasonable to make sure that the site is fully stable.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, with the reduction of Saturday and Sunday, he wanted to
know if they think they can stay inside the time frame of the life of the mine.
Mr.
Duncan felt that they could meet the time frame; Saturday was to address some
of the good neighbor policies, as outlined in Exhibit A-6; closing it down
really does not impact the length of the pit itself but limits the ability for
local residents to come there on the weekend.
Commr.
Stivender wanted to know when they do maintenance of their vehicles, or
maintenance of the site, and whether they do this during the week or does the
Board need to address this issue.
Mr.
Duncan explained that maintenance of the site is done on a daily basis, but the
covering of the site will be done once a week, pursuant to the Zoning Board’s
requirements.
In
regards to Commr. Stivender’s question about covering the site daily, Mr.
Golden explained that it would take more effort to move the sand from the
borrow area to the working phase on a daily basis, and it may require the
landfill to shut down a little earlier to allow that covering every day, but he
could speak to the owner to see if he is amenable to that condition.
Mr.
Duncan called Mr. Ted Wicks to testify noting that he will focus primarily on
the suitability of this particular site for this use.
Mr.
Wicks addressed the Board and stated that he is with Wicks Consulting Services,
and they are the engineers of record on the project. They were asked to become a part of the
project team basically because of their historic experience with the
Mr.
Duncan called Rick Dreggors, their property appraiser who conducted an
extensive study on this particular use including the impacts it has on
surrounding property values. The Board
has the executive summary and chart that he will be referring to in his
testimony.
Mr.
Rick Dreggors, Real Estate Appraiser and President of Calhoun, Dreggors &
Associates, Inc., Orlando, addressed the Board and stated that he was asked a
few months ago to look at this property and conduct a study of property values
adjacent to other solid waste facilities in Central Florida. As part of that study, they had to identify
the location of the other facilities and limit their focus to C & D
facilities, and they included the County’s Class I facility in Astatula, at the
request of the applicant. After going to
the DEP offices, they identified the following facilities: 1) Golden Gem Road Landfills; 2) C.R. 33
Landfill; 3) Professional Dirt Services Landfill; and 4)
In
response to questions from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Dreggors reviewed Page 2 of Exhibit
A-4 noting that they looked at homes in the Royal Harbor Subdivision and
Lakeside at Tavares Subdivision and, because that area is pretty well
developed, there were not any land sales for them to look at; they just looked
at the sale of homes and appreciation rates, as noted. It was pointed out that the
Commr.
Stivender stated that there is a development that has been approved between the
two subdivisions that Mr. Dreggors studied next to the Astatula Landfill that
is in the City of
Mr.
Dreggors stated that they did not look at the property, but they can.
Mr.
Tony Luke, Luke Transportation Engineers and Consultants, addressed the Board
and explained that they routinely do traffic studies in
Commr.
Stivender wanted to know if the traffic study addressed accel/decel lanes, turn
lanes, stacking, or those types of items.
Mr.
Luke stated that they did look at those items, and they looked at the Highway
Capacity Manual Software Analysis at the intersections; they determined what
that analysis produces; and they found that, with the existing configurations,
all quality level service would be at a good level. It was
noted that staff had a question about the possibility of a deceleration lane to
the west, and staff is still reviewing that possibility realizing that they are
at the intersection of SR 19 and CR 455, and this project would add some amount
of traffic to that intersection. There
is a higher level of existing trucks through that intersection today but that
is the only location where there was a question about a deceleration lane or a
left turn storage lane.
Commr.
Stivender explained that she drives CR 561 a lot and there may be a need for a
left turn depending on how much traffic actually comes from CR 561, and she
wanted to know if that would be a problem.
Mr.
Luke explained that they could consider that, if their projections change and
there is a greater percentage coming from the east rather than from the west,
but the far better regional route is to the west. This project has been in operation since the
1970s, so it has been generating trucks for quite awhile; they did not do a
traffic count of the existing sand mining activities; they accounted for
continuance of 30 trucks in and out a day of just the sand mining activity;
they as well as staff felt that was on the conservative side. They added another 60 truck trips in and out
for just the C & D activities; the total of 90 represents a net. The need for a deceleration lane would be
minimal from this site, because it does not generate the number.
Commr.
Pool wanted to know what the distance is that people normally travel to carry
their debris to those pits, and Mr. Luke noted that this question was not
raised by staff and therefore, this information was not included in the data.
Commr.
Cadwell wanted to know what factors helped them come to the conclusion that the
scenic byway portion of CR 455 will not be used for truck traffic.
Mr.
Luke explained that that they looked at the anticipated origins of this
material and they did not find this to be a fast path to get this site; and
they did not see a predominance of this type of activity demand through that
route because there are quicker routes and greater areas of demand for the
other routes.
Commr.
Stivender stated that, as part of the scenic byway requirements, it cannot have
truck traffic on it. Signs have already
been placed at this location and, if this is approved, it would be up to that
company to make sure that this is not a truck route.
Mr.
Duncan explained that, if this C & D pit is denied, the mining operation
will continue; there will be a certain number of trucks that will continue to
go in and out of there daily; that number will probably increase with this
operation. As that sand disappears and
with the covering requirements that were imposed on them by the Zoning Board
and potentially by this Board, more of that sand is going to need to stay on
site because they are actually going to be utilizing it on site for the
purposes of providing the cover. If they
approve the C & D pit, a lot of those sand trucks will go away. They could possibly end up with a net
increase of zero because they are eliminating the sand trucks coming in and out
of the site and simply replacing them with the C & D fill trucks.
Mr.
Duncan called Mr. Jim Hall, resident Planner from Canon and Associates, to talk
about the compatibility and some of the issues that staff addressed in their
report.
Mr.
Jim Hall, Canon and Associates, Orlando, stated that, when you place this type
of use in a rural area, it is going to affect people far less than if you were
to put it in a more urbanized area, but the Comprehensive Plan is clear where a
landfill should go and the rural nature is a benefit especially with the
landscaping, buffering, and cover requirements.
He noted that there are agricultural uses around the site, and the
landfill is going to replace a borrow pit, which is a permitted use in the
agricultural district. Mr. Hall referred
to the aerial included in Exhibit A-6 for the Applicant noting that the yellow
dots are the homes in the surrounding area and, if you go a quarter of a mile
radius, that is about 125 acres, and there are about 25 homes in that 125 acre
area; the density is very low; the east-west road to the south will most likely
get no traffic. The lots and homes on CR
455 are fairly remote from the road.
They agree with staff that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and LDRs and, if you look at the Standards for Review, this project meets all
four steps and is an acceptable location for this use.
Mr.
Duncan stated that Mr. Hall has some personal experience with regard to the
West Orange Landfill that his clients operate.
There are development patterns occurring all around that landfill, and
he asked Mr. Hall to talk about how it has no effect on the development
patterns around that particular landfill.
Mr.
Hall stated that there are two landfills; one the clients operate; another that
Republic Services operates; and they are each about 80 acres. They are in the area where Horizons West is
located and where there are 5,000 to 6,000 unit projects. The whole 35,000 acres has been set up since
1995-96 with the DCA, so they do not have to do a Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) because the development restrictions in there are so dense. They put in a minimum density of five units
an acre, because they wanted enough people living there that it would balance
jobs, services, commercial, parks and schools, and for all of these to be there
at the same time, and these landfills sites are right in the middle of what
they call their town center, which is the crown of Horizons West. These landfills have residential uses, not
rural residential uses, but a minimum of five units an acre and up and they are
all around these landfills, because they are going to be filled back to grade;
they are going to become green; or offer other development opportunities in an
urban setting.
Mr.
Duncan stated that there are about 1,500 signatures of opposition, which is
impressive, but he wanted to point out that some of those signatures were
obtained through some misinformation. He
explained that people were given a flier in an attempt to mobilize the
opposition, and it showed a Class I landfill, with birds pecking at household
garbage. He stressed that this is not at
all what they are trying to propose today.
He submitted the flier to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and
entered as Exhibit A-7 for the Applicant.
He thinks it is safe to assume that this would put fear into a lot of
people and unjustified fear, because they are not trying to put a mountain of
garbage in this area; this is a construction and demolition (C & D) fill
area in an existing pit, and it is simply not at all what is being depicted on
the photograph. They will rest their
position and give the opposition an opportunity to address the Board but, with
the burden of proof, they would like the opportunity to rebut at the end of
their presentation.
Mr.
Bob Olson, Howey Council, stated that he wanted to correct an impression that
was given earlier. He stated that
Resolution 2005-21 was brought up in citizens comments after their Council meeting
by Howey citizens; not anybody else. The
only concerns they had was traffic on SR 19, because they have a lot of
construction and new homes on CR 48 in Tavares coming across SR 19 on the
bridge and running southward; there is also a lot of development taking place
on Number Two Road. He stated that there
is already too much traffic on SR 19 going to Howey. One of their citizens brought the concern of
gypsum wallboard being put in there and, as it decomposes, it creates hydrogen
sulfide and, even though they included that in the Resolution, they do not know
if that is correct or not; that was the only point he needed to make.
Commr.
Stivender disclosed that she did attend a meeting that they invited her to in
Howey, and they were very cordial as she listened to their concerns, as they
are today.
Mr.
Tim McCormick, Howey-in-the-Hills, addressed the Board in opposition to the request
and stated that no matter how they sugar coat it, these people want to put a
dump in their backyards and what they have planned for CR 455 far surpasses
what was shown by Mr. Duncan. He stated
that the Board has before them an issue of zoning, and they have to decide whether
the benefits outweigh the cost to the community, or if it is even beneficial to
the community. He represents a group of
neighbors who live and work in the area of the proposed dump, and they have
come together to make known their objections to this zoning change. He asked those present who were with this
group, the Concerned Citizens of Old Howey, to stand at this time; there were
approximately 60 people standing. He
stated that, rather than to present repetitious comments, they, as a group,
have decided to offer the Board a presentation not unlike their opponents that
will give them the facts that this facility is wrong for their community. Even during the Zoning Board meeting, the
applicant’s council stated that C & D waste currently was hauled to the
Mr.
John Mapp, Jr. addressed the Board in opposition to the request. He stated that he lives on CR 561 about
six-tenths of a mile southeast of the proposed dump site. Mr. Mapp explained that C & D leachate is
very nasty so they are very concerned about their water supply. He explained how surface water generally
flows noting that old geological survey maps show that there used to be a
closed depressional area confined within the boundaries of this property before
it became a borrow pit. At the Zoning
Board meeting on November 2, 2005, he had asked if there had been any core
samples taken to ascertain the properties of that closed depressional area to
verify that the confining area protecting the Floridan Aquifer was intact in
that area. Mr. Golden had replied that there had been one sample taken in
addition to the general samples taken throughout the property; Mr. Mapp felt
there needed to be several observations at the bottom of the old possible
sinkhole to verify that the aquifer is protected. He explained that Double Run Spring is about
2,500 feet north-northeast of the property, and there is the need to protect
the aquifer in this region that is much more environmentally and geologically
sensitive than being portrayed by the applicant. The other area of concern has to do with the
site recharge analysis and the hydrogeological investigation noting that the
applicant has sited some specific analysis based on site evaluation of soil
samples showing that the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is about 1.3 inches
per year, and that the horizontal flow rate of surface water is only about 1.2
feet per year, however, the applicant is sighting a regional average
evapotranspiration rate, as he explained, of 39 inches per year. A more
appropriate site specific analysis would be obtained by looking at a 1996 US
Geological Survey Study on a de-forested site off of Avalon Road in extreme
western Orange County, which is similar to the site they are considering today,
which results in a 3 to 3.5 inch recharge to the Floridan Aquifer, and a
horizontal flow rate of the surface water that must be eight to ten feet per
year minimum rather than the one or two feet per year contained within the
study. He stated that this is going to
threaten the surrounding properties a lot faster than the analysis now
portrays.
Ms.
Teresa Kraa stated that she and her fiancé are residents of Howey-in-the-Hills
and business owners in
Commr.
Stivender stated that this is what she was trying to get them to explain when
they had it split up; how do they make them go around and get on SR 50 and US
27 rather than taking the short cut. She
stated that this Board is unified and is still working on getting the Rails to
Trails, or bike paths, and widening shoulders when they can and getting the
necessary funding for all of this in order to bring these events into the
County. They have all, at one time or another, served on the Tourist Development
Council (TDC).
RECESS
& REASSEMBLY
At
3:50 p.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would take a 15 minute
recess.
REZONING CASE MSP#05/10/1-3 –
Ms.
Luann Newsome,
Mr.
Robert Newsome,
Ms.
Lisa Cimini, CR 455, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the
request. Ms. Cimini stated that she is a
property owner, and a concerned citizen of the Old Howey area. She explained that, on CR 455 going west
toward
Mr.
Bob Ripple addressed the Board in opposition to the request. Mr. Ripple stated that Howey-in-the-Hills is
a very unique geographical area and has a natural beauty that cannot be found
anywhere else in Florida; it took him three years to find his beautiful place in
Florida. He explained that there are two
of the highest spots in Florida on both sides of this proposed dump, the reason
this area has drawn so many people to the area from all over the country, to enjoy
the scenic byways, the rolling countryside, and the panoramic views. William J. Howey referred to the area as “the
Alps” of
Ms.
Patricia Ritson,
Dr.
R. J. Thomas, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the request. Dr. Thomas stated that he lives about a half
mile from the proposed site; he is a biophysicist; he studies childhood onset
cancers; he is a consultant at a center for disease control in
Ms.
Gail Becker,
Mr.
David Cimini, CR 455, Clermont, addressed the Board in opposition to the
request. Mr. Cimini stated that he is
the creator of the nine member committee here today, and he is very proud of
them for taking the time to speak. Mr. Cimini referred to the aerial included in
Exhibit A-6 for the Applicant, with the yellow dots that indicated the homes in
the surrounding area, and stated that he has a satellite photo with red arrows
that represent every home within a three-quarter mile radius of that dump; and there
are 240 homes around this dump. The map
was submitted to the Deputy Clerk and marked and entered as Exhibit O-18 for
the Opposition. Mr. Cimini explained
that he flies hot air balloons, and he has noticed more and more home sites
being built every day. He showed another
aerial of the Zellwood dump and stated that, in looking at this site, there are
no homes around it. He submitted this
map to the Deputy Clerk, and it was marked and entered as Exhibit O-19 for the
Opposition. He would like the applicants
to purchase another piece of land like this in a rural area where there would
be no one to disturb, because these 240 people really do not want to see this
dump in existence. He has been working
on this proposed dump for three years, and he is asking the Board to vote
against it.
Ms.
Brenda Muniz, Montverde Town Council, addressed the Board in opposition to the
request. Ms. Muniz wanted to put on
record that they are very concerned about the increased heavy truck traffic
this might bring to their area. Being
surrounded by a lot of construction, she cannot see how they would not be using
their town to go through to be able to access this dump. They have a school that is bisected by CR 455
and their biggest problem right now if trying to control the heavy trucks, to keep
them down to 20 mph, and to stop at the crosswalks for the children. It is a very dangerous situation, the road is
deteriorating from heavy truck traffic, and their town is very concerned about
it, and they do not want to see it increased.
Mr.
Ken Williams,
Mr.
David Yergey,
Goal 6B-1: Solid Waste.
Mr.
Yergey stated that, on Page 3 of Exhibit O-20, there were a number of
objectives that were set forth in these regulations, and he wanted to bring to
their attention Objective 6B-1-5: Environmental Monitoring of Private Solid
Waste Management Facilities; and Objective 6B-1-6: Solid Waste Management
Facility Planning, as follows:
Objective 6B-1-5:
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING OF PRIVATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES. The Department of
Environmental Services Shall Monitor Privately-Owned and operated Solid Waste
Management Facilities Including Landfills, Resource Recovery Facilities, and
Solid Waste Processing Facilities. This
Monitoring Is Needed To Ensure That Solid Waste Facilities In Lake county
Remain In Compliance With Applicable Air, Groundwater, and Surface Water
Pollution Standards Established By Federal, State, and Local Laws, Regulations,
and Guidelines.
Objective 6B-1-6:
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY PLANNING. The Department of Environmental Services
Shall Plan New Solid Waste Management Facilities and Additions, Expansions, and
Improvements To Existing Facilities To Meet The Present Needs and Support The
Anticipated Growth For A Minimum Of 25-years Available Capacity. To Assist In This Planning Process, A
Reasonable and Effective Level of Service Shall Be To Reduce The Solid Waste
Generation Rate and To Increase The Solid Waste Disposal Capacity.
Mr.
Yergey noted that Policy 6B-1-5.1 states “Upon adoption of its Comprehensive
Plan, the County shall establish regulations to require all privately-owned, as
well as publicly-owned, solid waste management facilities to be operated in a
manner that will protect the public health, welfare, and safety.” He knows that the Board is considering the
second amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but it has not been completed; he
believes that it would be premature to grant this application for a landfill
without first considering that policy standard and, without determining whether
they have complied with that particular provision, they cannot determine
whether the size of this landfill is too much, too little, or even needed at
all; they cannot make that determination without a plan in place to make that determination. He noted that Policy 6B-1-6.5 states “The
County may opt not to accept for disposal waste generated outside the
County.” He does not believe presently
there are any existing controls that would control the amount of waste that
would come into the County and, by allowing this landfill in the County without
establishing the other parameters in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan is
to encourage other counties to send their landfill products here. He understands it is a matter of economics,
but it is not in the best interest of the residents of
Mr.
Joseph O’Regan,
Mr.
Gary Sprower addressed the Board in opposition to the request. Mr. Sprower stated that he and his wife live
directly behind the proposed dump site; they are the adjoining property owners. If they had known about this before they
purchased their property, they would not have bought it. He comes to them as a
general contractor licensed by the State and a licensed real estate agent. In regards to what goes into dumpsters, he
has seen it first hand being a contractor, and there is no truck driver that
could tell you what was in a dumpster; the camera monitoring is only going to
detect what is on top of that dumpster; not what is buried underneath the
debris. He knows that they are not going
to stop growth, and it helps the tax base but, if they adopt a new
Comprehensive Plan, they should consider making the developer responsible for
the debris; make them take a portion of their land, dig a hole on their
property, contain the debris there; there would be no road traffic or safety
issues; it would be contained on their site; and it could count as part of
their green space and controlled management. He suggested they change the Comprehensive
Plan, stop letting materials go to other counties or cities, and simply make it
an in-house issue.
Mr.
Anthony Lavender,
Mr.
Glen Burns, Montverde, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant’s
traffic engineer stated that he felt that the traffic coming from the scenic
byway into the Montverde area would be “nominal” so they should not object to
what he is going to ask of the Board.
Mr. Burns stated that, if the Board approves the dump, which he does not
think is a good idea, he would ask that, as part of the CUP, they prohibit
their customers from using the scenic byway to get to their dump.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that this is a good idea, but he wanted to know how the County
could enforce that action. He agrees and
does not want that traffic on there at all.
Commr.
Stivender stated that this is what she was saying from the beginning, that they
do not need to travel that route, but she does not know how they would enforce that.
Mr.
Mike Inco, CR 565A, Clermont, addressed the Board and stated that he has been
here all day listening to the issues brought before the Board, and it all boils
down to two things, money and quality of life.
He has heard from the citizens of this County that they want quality of
life and, even though there are those who equate money with quality of life,
the citizens of this County have a moral responsibility, and the Board has a
moral obligation, to
Ms.
Miriam Resto, Astatula, addressed the Board in opposition to the request and
stated that she does not believe that she has to live on top of this site to be
affected by it, or to understand what other parents are going through or
feeling because of this site. She hopes
that this is not one of those situations where somebody has to die, or people
have to get terminally ill, in order for something to be done. They understand that the gentleman wants to
make a profit, but the profit should not have a negative effect on another
person’s life, because it is their future, and they would appreciate it if the
Board would take that into consideration.
It would be easier for them to go someplace where there is more acreage
noting that
Mr.
Duncan addressed the Board to rebut some of the concerns presented to the
Board. He stated that they have a
chemist here today that is going to address references made to a study that was
conducted by the University of Florida, Timothy G. Townsend, Principal
Investigator.
Mr.
Mitchell Katz, HAS Golden, stated that the study referred to by Mr. Duncan was
produced by the
Mr.
Duncan submitted the study by Timothy G. Townsend, Principal Investigator,
Mr.
Golden addressed the Board and explained that they did quite a few site
specific studies over two or three years on this site; all of the studies show stable
soils on the site. They did study the
depressional area (slide 30), which they found through historical records, but
they had met with the County early on and planned this investigation, and the
chart reflects the boring locations in the center of this depression and at the
edges of the depression. They found
stable soils all the way down to 200 feet, which is the way you investigate a
potential sinkhole; they found this not to be a sinkhole; it is very stable; and
County staff and DEP staff agreed with that determination and found no evidence
that it could reactivate itself. As far
as the recharge area, they did the standard study they do for these types of
facilities. County staff agreed that
they use regional data along with their site specific data. The data showed it is a low recharge area
and, even if they go to the three inches, as proposed, it is still a low
recharge area; there is no high recharge at this site; and they saw no mounding
during rainfall events. They monitored
this site four or five times throughout those two years during the wet season,
and they think their calculations stand; a panel of experts have reviewed that
with the State and County staff.
Mr.
Golden referred to the landfill site in Zellwood and explained that it was not
cited for odor problems or gas problems.
He explained how the issues of odors were addressed and noted that they
do not expect any problems at the site being proposed. The landfill in Zellwood had a problem with a
high water table; it was a Class III facility and accepted grass clippings and
things that create odor; it had a lot of differences from a C & D landfill. He noted that this problem has been resolved
at the Zellwood landfill. He referred to
Slide 25 that shows a passive gas flare for an odor control system noting that
they only go up about five or six feet, so they would not be visible above the
berms. Even if gas was generated at all,
it would only last for a year or two before it is dissipated but that is at
Class III facilities. They do not see
these as being needed at C & D sites but, even though it is over and above
what they are required to do, they are ready to put them in so there is no
question about controlling any potential odors.
In regard to the landfill capacity, the two landfills that were just
approved in Orange County, the expansions, they are only going to last two or
three years; they are short lived expansions and, at the request of the County,
they got a variance to plato it out; it did not go up 50 feet. He stated that the
Mr.
Golden explained that the site in question has a natural clay liner; they do
not see a need for a liner; the State did not see a need for the liner; and
County staff did not see a need for it.
If staff sees a need to increase the bond to cover any problems, they
would talk to staff about that if it is reasonable. The charts were submitted to the Deputy Clerk,
and they were marked and entered as Exhibit A-9 (CD-R and hard copy) for the
Applicant.
Mr.
Duncan addressed the need for a C & D facility and stated that staff, as
well as others, have been attending meetings for the last three weeks dealing
with two DRIs that are going into the area about eight miles directly up the
turnpike from this C & D landfill; 14,000 homes are being proposed in two
DRIs. The City of
Mr.
Duncan explained that, because the issue was raised about the bicyclists and
motorcyclists, they agreed to close on the weekends. In regards to truck traffic, they are an
essential part of the economy, as he explained.
He spoke to his clients about those trucks, and they will, in
cooperation with the County, provide letters to all of their customers telling
them not to use CR 455; they will provide signs leading in and out of the
facility that say do not use CR 455; they will be willing to pay for signs that
they can put up and down CR 455 that say no truck traffic; weight limit signs
are another possibility; anything that they can do to eliminate use of CR 455 they
will do, to the point where they will not let their customers use the facility
anymore if they are caught using CR 455 because they agree that it is a scenic
highway, and it needs to be protected. In
regard to heavy traffic, their experts said four to eight trucks per hour going
into this facility; the study shows about 124 trips per hour on that road; so
they are talking about a total of 90 trucks.
Mr. Duncan stated that he said zero net effect because, when you
eliminate the sand trucks and replace them with the C & D trucks, you have
a zero net effect; and there really is no comparison between this facility and
the
Commr.
Hanson wanted to know if sand or clay was being mined out of the site today.
Mr.
Duncan stated that both are being mined but they are about to run out of
useable clay; they have to leave the clay base; and, if this is permitted, the
sand will stay on the site for the purpose of covering. Mr. Duncan explained
that they have a CUP in place right now.
The MSP is the County’s mechanism for closing this facility; it is a
higher level of regulation and assurance for the County; and it is monitored at
least every year.
Mr.
Kruse explained that the request would fall under the mining regulations where
the mining inspector would go out periodically, maybe two or three times a year,
and he would look at the pit and the C & D landfill material coming in, and
document what they see during inspections.
They would also respond to complaints and, as far as he knows, there
have been no complaints through Code Enforcement on the facility at CR 33.
Mr.
Duncan explained that the change in use may generate some additional
transportation impact fees and, in addition, the County’s regulation will
require bi-annual water testing on all 13 monitoring wells on site; it has to
be pulled by an independent lab and submitted to the DEP and the County for
testing twice a year.
Ms.
Blanche Hardy, Director of Environmental Services, explained that the County is
going through the construction material containing arsenic, and staff will be
coming to the Board to advise them that they have sent comments and
considerable costs to DEP who will decide whether to pan it from C & D and
send it to Class I. She had heard there
is a strong possibility that they will not be able to take it, pursuant to
current regulations.
Commr.
Hanson called for further public comment.
There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr.
Hanson wanted to give a little bit of the background of the C & D landfills
and stated that she has been a strong proponent of them in abandoned clay pits
because the clay liner is much better than any plastic liner, because the
plastic will eventually crack; the clay will be much more protective. Ten to 15 years ago, she also saw it as a
means of extending the life of their landfill, which has a plastic liner and is
much more expensive to prepare than an abandoned clay pit. It seemed that it was a resource that they
had within the County that would extend the life of their landfill. They know that it is almost going to be
impossible to site a landfill anywhere in the County, and they know their
landfill in Tavares has a limited life, and they are looking at how they can
extend it so, when opportunities come about, they try to support them.
Commr.
Pool stated that both sides have presented a lot of information, and he has
said clearly up front there is a need for C & D pits; they need these
facilities somewhere; but by looking at the yellow dots, there are clearly some
C & D pits there that are still available.
He has asked himself, as a landowner, what he would expect as a
surrounding property owner and whether he would want it next to him, and clearly
there are people that live there and are concerned, so he cannot support it
today, because he would not want it next to him, and he is not going to put it
next to them.
Commr.
Hill stated that she has lived next to a landfill at
Commr.
Stivender explained that she chose to live next to the Astatula landfill. She lives in one of the subdivisions that is
within a quarter of a mile of it, and she can see it. When it was put there in the 1960s, she lived
even closer to it, and her relatives worked there and, at that time, it really
was a dump, but the regulations have changed over the years. She has lived there for five years, and she
has had no problems in her subdivision.
The person across from her bought their house three years ago and just
sold it for an $82,000 profit six months ago, so she does not think the
landfill is hurting her subdivision. She
chose to be there, but those here today are not asking for this facility to be
there, but there has to be way to fill them in and, with regulations today, it
limits what they can put in there.
Commr.
Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hill, to approve Rezoning
Case MSP#05/10/1-3, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, Owner/Applicant; the
request for a Mining Site Plan (MSP) for a Construction & Demolition (C
& D) landfill facility; Tracking #109-05-MSP; Ordinance 2005-113; with the
condition that the trucks do not go down the CR 455 scenic byway, and there
will be an accel and decel lane added to the road.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that, if this is approved, she would like to
require that it come back to this Board on a annual basis to review all of the
things the Board talked about, including odor and everything the citizens had a
concern about.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she would add that condition to her motion.
Commr.
Cadwell questioned whether the Board really wanted to have a public hearing
once a year, because they could end up with a half filled landfill and, even
though he understands what Commr. Hanson is trying to do to have extra control
over it, he could not see what this process would accomplish.
Mr.
Kruse explained that right now the applicant is required to do an annual mining
report, in terms of reclamation. The
County’s mining inspector reviews it, along with other staff, for
hydrogeological information. If there is
a problem, they coordinate that with DEP, and then it comes back to the Zoning
Board, if they are not meeting the requirements of their plan.
Commr.
Stivender stated that the Board does not need to review it then, and she would
remove that from her motion.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Mr.
Kruse pointed that, as noted in 3. A. Conditions of this permit, it states that
“the permit may be revoked after due public hearing before the Lake County
Zoning Board and the Board of County Commissioners” if there is problem, and
then it can be shut down.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she wants to make sure there is no odor, and she asked
Mr. Duncan if they can cover more than once a week.
Mr.
Duncan recommended twice a week.
Commr.
Stivender amended her motion to include language to cover twice a week; Commr.
Pool amended his second to the motion.
Commr.
Hanson called for a vote on the motion to approve the request, as amended, with
the condition that the trucks do not go down CR 455 scenic byway; an
acceleration and deceleration lane will be added to the road; and they will cover
twice a week; with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote.
Commr.
Cadwell and Commr. Pool voted “no”.
OTHER
BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS/CULTURAL
AFFAIRS COUNCIL
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint the following individuals to five
vacant positions on the Cultural Affairs Council: four-year terms – 9-30-2009 – Dorothy
Kuhlman, Kimberly Lemonakis, Gary McKechnie; completion of unexpired terms –
9-30-07 – Terrence Shank and Chip Schane.
REPORTS
–
AGREEMENTS/OFFICE
SPACE/SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Amendment of Lease Agreement for office
space located at 902 Avenida Central, The Villages, for the Sheriff's Office.
AGREEMENTS/RICHARD
H.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request involves a contract
with Richard Langley for the purchase of a portion of Lot 37, Lake County
Central Park Phase 2, and Lot 2 containing approximately 122 acres. There is litigation pending about the sale;
the County has prevailed in the trial court but they have now appealed. This extends the closing date to March 31,
but it also provides that Mr. Langley will pay an additional five percent (5%)
increase in the price. He noted that Mr.
Langley is willing to close it, if it were not for the litigation and, if they
are longer than March 31, they will address the purchase price again at that
time.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Second Amendment to Real Estate Purchase and
Sales Agreement between
AGREEMENTS/CITY
OF UMATILLA/ANIMAL CONTROL
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement with the City of
AGREEMENTS/PUBLIX
SUPER MARKETS, INC./CITRUS RIDGE LIBRARY
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Third Amendment to Lease Agreement
between Publix Super Markets, Inc. and Lake County for space at Summerbay
Shopping Center for Citrus Ridge Library.
CSX
RAILROAD
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Stivender wanted to know if this meets with the ongoing study and proposed plan
for the location of the trails.
Commr.
Hanson explained that it will eventually; this involves pieces but they are
within different loops.
It
was noted that they are now within the planned trail.
On
a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to initiate discussions with CSX Railroad for
possible purchase of abandoned railroad corridors.
REPORTS
–
AGREEMENTS/CONSULTANTS/PUBLIC
SCHOOL FACILITIES
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
Ms.
Carol Stricklin, Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to answer
questions relating to the request noting that Planning Works is the lead
consultant in
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the above noted request to the agenda.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Interlocal Agreement with Planning Works,
LLC in an amount not to exceed $75,000.
LEGISLATIVE
POSITION 2006 BY COMMITTEE
Ms.
Cindy Hall,
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the committees will start meeting in January, so he
suggested they do this at the first meeting in January.
Commr.
Hanson suggested that staff separate those that have State support versus those
that are particular to
Commr.
Cadwell and Commr. Hill noted that it had been expressed to them by legislators
that Commr. Hanson did a very good job in her presentation.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL – DISTRICT #1
IMPACT
FEES
Commr.
Hill wanted to address the issue of impact fees noting that this is coming from
the Impact Fee Committee as well as staff.
They are currently working on an RFP for a consultant to update the
transportation impact fee study, but they have the library, the parks, and the
fire impact fees that are also due to be updated late in 2006. She would like to see a consensus of this Board
to incorporate all of the updates and have them done at one time.
It
was the consensus of the Board to proceed in this direction.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Hill explained that the School Board has already contracted with Randy Young
for their updates.
Commr.
Stivender stated that the firm that the Board just hired to help them has also
done a lot of impact fee studies.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT #3
PROCLAMATION/DR.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the execution of Proclamation 2005-219
proclaiming January 16, 2006 as a day to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
LEGISLATION/LAKE
Commr.
Stivender reported that she met with Sandy Minkoff,
Commr.
Stivender presented the Board with a handout from the Work Program Public
Hearing that she attended last night of the State of Florida Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) District 5.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #4
WEKIVA
Commr.
Hanson noted that she was not able to attend the Wekiva meeting last week, but
Sandy Minkoff,
Mr.
Minkoff explained that the Department of Health has a committee that looks at
regulations, and Blanche Hardy, Director of Environmental Services, and Gregg
Welstead, Director of Growth Management, will be attending that meeting, so it
would be appropriate probably there.
Staff will work on some language, in terms of getting it into the
Department of Health Rule.
CLOSED
SESSION: UNION NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff,
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
___________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK