HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 08 05 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
August 5, 1992
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M.
BOl\RQ~~~:_m _ _____________m_ __ ____ _u_____
David Hopkins, Chairman, Present
Martin Trencher, Present
John Ferring, Present
David McLeod, Present
Grace Ann Glavin, Vice-Chairman, Present
Hopkins advised the Board that Mr. Kern, the City Planner, had called him by
phone and advised him that he would not be present tonight because he would
be out of town. He also wanted the Board to proceed on with the
recommendation concerning the Sprague annexation on to the Cammdssion.
Hopkins said that sometime in the past there was a situation that came
before this Board that the minutes had discrepancies and at that time the
Board had resolved that they would in fact approve the minutes before they
were sul:roitted to the Cammdssion for action. This is why this meeting was
called this evening; due to the controversial nature of the annexation
request of Sprague Electric, I thought it best to get the Board members here
to review the minutes and proceed on. The other items on the agenda, the
approval of the minutes of April 1, 1992 and May 20, 1992, are somewhat
coincidental in that we were not able to approve those minutes due to the
absence of Board members, therefore, with a full Board here tonight we can
approve all the minutes.
McLeod stated that he would like to go on record so the Board understands
that he was never notified of the July 15, 1992 meeting, and that not being
one of our scheduled meetings of the first and third week of the month
therefore, he had no knowledge that that meeting was taking place and he was
in town and was available to attend the meeting.
bppt::Qy~l Qt_ Minl!t~~ QLA~il _lLl~~~;____________ _______ _______________ h _
Trencher moved to approve the minutes of April 1, 1992. Seconded by McLeod.
Vote: Glavin: abstain; McLeod: aye; Ferring: aye; Trencher: aye; Hopkins:
aye. Motion carried.
Approval ofM!Il~t~!? Qt M~y~Ql_J~~~; __ _____________________ ._.
McLeod moved to approve the minutes of May 20, 1992. Seconded by Glavin.
Discussion. McLeod stated that there were several things addressed in those
minutes regarding the settlement, how it came about and even same Board
menIDers asked if someone would please come before this Board and explain
those things. His question is has that happened, to his knowledge the Board
has not received any cooment back fran legal or anyone else.
Hopkins referred McLeod to a memo dated July 21, 1992 fran the City Planner,
and the question of ownership for that property was answered and that it is
owned by Hooker Properties, and further information in the memo states that
~
~
~
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 2
Hooker Properties wishes at this point in time. due to bankruptcy litigation
that action on that property be withheld pending the disposition of it.
Glavin stated that the memo of July 21, 1992 reefers to the discussion at
the July 1, 1992 meeting which was with regard to parcel 51 and the
ownership and Hooker. She said that she thinks the May 20th meeting of
which we are considering the rrdnutes discussed the whole mediation
settlement and it is a different issue.
McLeod said that at the May 20th meeting same Board members asked how that
mediation came about and how the settlements were arrived at, and again no
info~tion was passed onto this Board.
Hopkins said let the record reflect that present tonight is not any city
staff to advise us or answer any of these questions that we may have. He
said he understands that Kern was scheduled to be out of town. however
certinaly somebody should have been here to help resolve any of these
dilemmas that we may bring forth this evening and obviously there is no one
here to help.
Hopkins stated that one of our Comrrdssioners is present here tonight,
Comrrdssioner Langellotti could advise us. Comrrdssioner Langellotti said he
was going to ask that it seems that the Board does not get a copy of all the
mdnutes, is that true? Ferring stated that usually we do. McLeod stated
that no~lly the Board has, it seems that over the last month he has not
received notification of a meeting and the mdnutes that he has received have
not been complete mdnutes of for those meetings.
McLeod said he would like the record to reflect that he has three sets of
July 15, 1992, rrdnutes but he does not have April 1, 1992 and May 20, 1992
mdnutes. The July 15th rrdnutes that I do have does not have pages 6 and 8.
Discussion on the rrdnutes with rrdssing pages. Ferring stated that he
received another copy of the July 15th rrdnutes with a note attached saying
that the rrdnutes were being resubndtted because the previous rrdnutes sent
pages were rrdssing. Ferring then stated that he does have a copy of the
full set of rrdnutes July 15th.
McLeod stated that he received the same notice as Ferring did and when he
opened the rrdnutes what he received was two copies of July 15th mdnutes with
pages 6 and 8 still rrdssing.
Glavin stated that more than just herself, she was joined by a couple of
Board members, with regard with asking Kern in that he was presenting to
this Board the various different settlement arrangements arrived at in the
mediation and the question discussed among us and asked of Kern was what
prompted Council, what factors prompted your Council to advise the
Comrrdssioners at the mediation to more or less change their position with
regard to their dealings with Florida Country clubs Inc. She said that set
of info~tion has not came back to this Board.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 3
Glavin said that she is not sure that this Board is in the position, as an
advisory Board to the city Comndssion, to require City Staff to provide us
with anything. she said that she thinks that it is stated in the last
paragraph, in a paraphrase of her words of the rrdnutes, that it behooves
City Staff to advise the City Comndssion as fully as possible how, what
technical matters would affect your decision. She stated that she does not
think that the failure of Kern or any other City Staff to came back to
answer this Boards question reflects upon whether this Board should pass the
rmnutes or not. The rrdnutes is just a history of what happened at the
meeting and what was said at the meeting, she thinks that this Board can
pass these rrrinutes without having all their questions answered. It is a
point that should go on record that McLeod's point that some of this
information to her knowledge has not been fully shared with this Board or
with the City Comndssion.
Hopkins said he feels the same way and for the record he would like to ask
of the City Planner to please get back with this Board at their next
scheduled meeting to perhaps shed some light on this subject as far as the
mediation goes and to answer some of our questions that we have asked.
Trencher stated that not withstanding the issue on the floor as
of the rrrinutes, I don I t know if after we go through that
Comrrdssioner Langellotti would like to fill us in on
discussions that we are asking.
the approval
vote whether
some of those
Hopkins stated we have a motion and a second to
20, 1992. Vote: Ferring: abstain; Trencher:
aye; Glavin: aye. Motion carried.
approve the rrdnutes of May
aye; Hopkins: aye; McLeod:
Comndssioner Langellotti stated that the City Attorney explained the reason
that we went into mediation at a Carmission meeting. The question was
raised by some residents.
Trencher said that lle thinks that question that was raised back in May was
that we went into a situation here where Mr. Mikes was looking to build a
resort hotel and came out of the negotiation with 70+ single farrrily lots.
Which really was an unexpected situation because no where in the discussions
were or his presentation to the Carmission initially, or even to the P & Z
Board about his wanting to have single farrrily lots. I think that I remarked
and it is on the record that it was two years earlier that he had made a
comment to someone in City Hall about him wanting to have single farrrily
homes there. Fran a personal point of view, fran my opinion, I think that
was always his position to begin with and the whole idea with the other
thing was just a way to work around the situation. The real question is and
I think most everyone else was probably was aware of that as well, he ended
up getting, at lease fran my opinion, what he wanted in the first place and
I was curious to know why the City finally accepted his position. Because
the position itself could have been litigated or argued that he was not
entitled to single family homes either.
Glavin said that thinking back on May 20th, the issue was not why did the
City go to mediation but why did the City accept the proposal as it was,
-
,....
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 4
because it was being brought back here. I think all that McLeod is bringing
up tonight is that sanething was asked of Ci ty Staff to cane back to us and
it didn't happen.
McLeod stated that is not unccmnon, it seems to be more so than the norm.
If we go back through the records there is several other instants that was
either City Staff or the City Attorney. Specifics have been asked or
requested fram this Board and basically that is where it dies is within the
rrrinutes. It is primarily a request, it is not that we are asking or
demanding anything we are just asking for the courtesy for us to take thA'
time to sit here and look at things to have sane indication once they have
gone beyond us, to have sane feed back as to why or how the outcome came
about. So in the future we may have a better feel for sane of the things we
are looking at.
Trencher stated that if Mikes wanted single farrrily homes to begin with, then
he could have came to the P & Z for consideration, going through that whole
other process was really a rediclous waste of time and money, the courts
time and everybody else's time. He ended up getting right back where he
started.
l\'ppg)y~L_()f_Minutes _.9LJ\lJY---.l~L.1992~______ __ __ __________ _u_ u_ __________ ___ __ _ _
Glavin asked for discussion on the July 15th rrdnutes before a motion 15
made. She stated that the meeting was a difficult meeting as there were
only three Board members present. Before the Board was Sprague Ind. Inc.
for annexation, which is the second time they came before the Board, they
first appeared July 1, 1992 and then again July 15, 1992. The July 1st
meeting the application was adjourned because this Board requested more
information on environmental impacts, utility hook-up and as to the vacant
par~els as I recall. The July 15th meeting Kern was present and Mr. Carter
fram Sprague Tech., there was no one present fram City Engineering or the
City Engineer, there were no technical people in behalf of the application
of Sprague Ind. present. There was posed in the literature that was
presented to us as part of the annexation application, same very technical
and very "weighty" envi ronmental issues wi th regard to the use of a cet-tain
contaminant by this ccmpany. Carter stated to the Board that the ccmpany js
continuing to use that certain contarrrinant, TCP' s at this time. There was
question as to whether Sprague Inc. was still using TCP. Glavin stated that
Carter has said that they would cease using TCP in four to six weeks.
Glavin said that she finds the rrrinutes as she can read them or the pagA'S
that she has read of the July 15th meeting to be deficient, in that I see
the many questions by the Board members present, mysel f included, of Kem
and of Carter as to the potential environmental impact, the pot~1tial
political impact and the future of the contarrrinants of this property as to
any potential dangers to the peoples of the City of Winter Springs. As to
the political iriadvisability perhaps, of annexing a parcel that is curr~1tly
having a p~oblem and is going to be commencing a clean-up but has not done
so yet. And as to reasons, technical reasons, for which the City should
annex a parcel which has created a problem, which has not started or
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 5
canpleted it's clean-up process. As I recall Kern advised that upon his
technical back-up and technical information supplied to him by the City
~lgineer, I believe or by other sources I don't know, that it would be in
the best interest of the City in terms of helping this parcel be more
environmentally sound to put it within the City so it could go on City
water. I believe that toward the end of the minutes it is reflected Hopkins
comments in that light, it would be advisable to annex the parcel into the
City because it would be helping the parcel do its clean-up by putting them
on City water. So they would not have to keep taking water fram this under
ground system which is contaminated, and I concurred. And after much
personal deliberation, I concurred and voted for the annexation. I do not
see that the minutes reflect any affirmative or clear statements tram Ker"n
to the effect that this is the City's position IDld this is the tecrmical
information he had received for which the City should annex the parcel.
Ahsent the minutes reflecting his statements I would not feel ccxnfortable as
a Board maTIber voting to approve these minutes because it would be more
seenring that we were voting to approve an annexation and reccmnend it to the
City Ccmnission absent sufficient technical back-up on this irrportant issue.
In accordance with the fact that undeliberately we have not received the
full pages until now, and same of us may still not have the full pages so
that we could review and digest exactly what the questions were. I would
make a motion that these proposed minutes be not approved until the Board
lI~e~s can review then nnre fully, or perhaps the recording secretary can
review her notes or her recording to see if there are further affirmative
and clear statements fran Kern as to these technical reasons.
Hopkins stated that we do have a motion on the floor to not approve the
minutes of July 15, 1992, looking for a second for discussion. Seconded by
Ferring for discussion.
Discussion. Trencher asked if Glavin was voting to cancel the annexation
approval or just the non approval of the minutes. He asked if the Boa~d's
approval of the minutes really mean anything to that action.
Glavin stated that my vote was largely based upon representations fram Kern
as to certain technical reason which would require or which would be in the
best interest of the City of Winter Springs to annex this parcel. Absent
the written minutes I would not feel canfortable, I think the minutes should
reflect his statements. Trencher stated then what we are basically saying
here is that the petition that came before the Board, the Board approved it,
it goes on to the Ccmn:ission, there is really no change in that sense as fat"
as the petitioner asking annexation. We are simply saying that the minutes
are incanplete or don't have sufficient information to approve, why would we
turn the minutes down?
McLeod said basically that is what Glavin is saying, the minutes are not
corr~lete as to what was said during the meeting and what they are lacking is
that the approval of the particular project was provided certain things
happened. Trencher asked if these certain things happen at the time of the
vote for annexation, is it just the fact that they don't appear in tl-~
minutes and the minutes need to be redone to include that information?
~
~
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 6
Glavin asked that when we make a recmmendation to t.he City Coomission does
the City Coornission review the minutes. The Board answered yes. Glavin
said so more or less a record is made at this body with regard to any kind
of technical statement or technical questions. I do not think that the
iSStle should go on to the City without a record in writing of that technical
discussion. I think that the City would have incomplete data in accordance
with how we based our decision.
Trencher asked Glavin if she believes there is more that was discussed at.
the meeting that should go down on paper. Glavin stated that she thinks
that there is something material that was discussed at the meeting which
should be on paper. Which to my knowledge I don't think is on paper, and,!
think it would be in the best interest of this Board and the City to at
least, the last portion of the meeting, where in reasons for which the City
should annex this parcel be transcribed verbatim.
Hopkins said if the minutes were transcribed verbatim,
understanding that there would be no further issue
denial because they would be verbatim.
then it would bE" my
as far as approval or
Ferring stated that he thinks at the last meeting, I personally took Kern
down the road as much as he possibly thought it was neCE"ssaryon the record.
to make sure that he was stating the Staff's position completely and
wholeheartedly and that even though there was no back-up staff behind Kem
at that night, the questions that we raised to him in regards to this and
also to Carter, who was present that evening satisfied him to the extent
that he made the motion to annex the property into the City. Having done
that. and having made the same reservation that Glavin had when he did fMke
the motion to annex the property in, I followed it through with a
conversation with the City Engineer regarding this whole process. r went
thr'ough it wi th the Ci ty Engineer in detai 1 as to what was discussed and
what was said and the City Engineer indicated that what. Kern was stating for
the record as far as all of the City Staff going into this process; that
they had no problem with it and that what Carter explained as far ~s the w~y
they were going to be cleansing the TCP's in the soil by the pll~ meth~l.
it seemed fairly clear in my mind and that is why I made the motion to armex
the property in. I looked at the minutes and they pretty much had stated
what we were saying. Getting Kern on record that there is no problems as
far as the City's Staff is concerned, and based on the fact that he is
attesting to the fact that everybody on the City Staff said yes this is
approved in their minds, that's what we did and I have no problem with these
minutes.
Hopkins asked Glavin if she had a specific area of concern that she would
like addressed. Glavin stated that she just received page 8 and she has not
had a lot of time to review it, I think that it seems that the second
paragraph where it says "Hopkins stated that based on the assUlTlption we are
helping to resolve an environmental hazard here, I agree with it." "Glavin
stated that she agrees with Hopkins if indeed that by providing City water
enhances their clean-up project, then she thinks it is a valid reason to
annex the property if that is correct; do we know that." Glavin said that
she thinks there may be something missed, in between.... .do we know that"
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5. 1992
Page 7
anu Qt" something paraphrased
paragraph that starts with
question with regard to the
commerce and employees and
staterrent there.
perhaps, and "Kern saiu that he sees... .", the
"Kern said that he sees.." he doesn't answer my
clean-up and the environmental; he gets into
what not. I do think there was an affirmative
Trencher said having not been at the meeting and having no say in the
approval in these minutes but I do have a question. Was it ever brought up
that we would preclude annexation until such time as the problen was
deaned-up and met Federal Government Regulations. The Board answered no.
Hopkins stated that the problem is that they are in need of our City's water
so that they can help resolve their problem, rather then pulling it out of
their well and ultimately the aquifer.
Trencher asked outside of their own consultants, making statements as to the
steps necessary to clean-up the problem, were there any objective
consultants, that is non-consultants hired by the cmpany itself to pass
judgement on what it would take to clean-up the problem. Hopkins said that
DER is involved and Sprague is cmplying with OER' s requirements to clean-up
this mess, so to speak.
Glavin said but they haven't started yet, and she thinks what Carter said
was it is voluntary cmpliance. They have offered to OER that they have a
~loblem and are going to start cleaning up. Hopkins said that it was his
understanding fram Carter that they have already started the clean-up
process, but in order to continue and to ultimately to finish it they needed
our water. Glavin stated that she knows that was Hopkins understanding, but
she does not recall having received that understanding fram the presentation
fram either Kern or Carter, that is her concern. Glavin said she does not
think the Board was ever presented with affirmative statement that the
reason for this annexation or what was needed with regard to the City water
is that this would belp with the clean project and it was important to their
clean-up project or important to the safety of their employees drinking the
water that they go on City water. Glavin stated that she thinks that was a
conclusion the Board was drawing and that is why it is important if we can
have a record of Kern's response to her question when she said "...do we
know that.", I think that is what I was trying to pin him down to.
McLeod asked if it the Board could listen to the tape fram the July 15th
meeting to see if saTl€t.hing is missed. The Board was in agreement.
The Board listened to the portion of the tape that was in question.
Hopkins stated that we do have a motion on the floor and a second. Ferring
stated that the motion on the floor was to deny approval of the minutes.
Galvin said having reviewed the tape she thought that there was something
said that was not said and withdrew her motion ~1d Ferring withdrew histsecond.
-
,-...
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 8
Trencher said he was not present at the meeting and cannot vote on the
approval of the rrdnutes but would like to reserve after the vote to point of
discussion on the issues that we have talked about.
Ferring moved to approve the rrdnutes of July 15, 1992. Seconded by Glavin.
Vote: Glavin: aye; Hopkins: aye; Trencher: abstain; Ferring: aye; McLeod:
abstain. Motion carried.
Trencher said having listened to sarewhat pertemmt point of the tt'lpe IIf thp
meeting, if he is correct the only person speaking for the City in this
pat-ticular situation was Kern, there were no Attorneys present, there WE'tP
no environmental experts, there were no additional Staff members here to
attest to whether or not a lot of the questions that were asked were met in
tet~ of the criteria that we don't have any liability. Trencher said that
Kern basically spoke for the City and made those points, I only make this
caution when this issue canes up before the Ccmnission; we had this
situation when in terms of the purchase of the water company in Tuscawilla
for which many months of activity took place, City Staff came forward and
made statements but no body on the City Staff even knew about or claims to
know about those barrels that showed up after the purchase on the property
fot. which we then had sanewhat of a liabil ity to which we had to pay to havr>
than removed. I am concerned only iran the point that when this issue cernes
up before the Ccmnission that we have our own experts attest to the fact to
the point that the petitioner is making in terms of doing the clean-up and
the process in which they are doing it, is absolutely being done correctly.
The problan we have, when listening to the tape, in terms with Glavin saying
we don't necessarily have a legal issue here, is whether or not we are
liable or not for a problan that occurs in the future is not as important
that if a problan occurs in the future and it is in the City, we may have to
take sane part in that process. Although the whole process coulJ get
tangled up in court and take several years to sort out, in the mean time the
contarrdnation or the problan rrdght still remain. I personally woulJ likp to
SE'e that the City Ccmnission be in a position to say "we are welcane to give
you the water you need to help you clean-up the problan and annex you in the
City, provided you meet the time table that you tell us to do that clean-up;
if you don't meet that time table we'll agree right now that you will be de-
annexpd at that particular point because we don't want to inherit the
problan any way shape or form." - That is my own personal opinion.
Glavin said to Trencher that the point about legal liability is ul timate
liability is determined at sane time before a court. But lawyers charge by
the hour, not just the City's lawyers but everyone's lawyers, so I think is
goes without question that this property will be under scrutiny as the media
is scrutinizing many properties in the City of Orlando, whet.e the same
contarrdnants are under ground. I think it goes without question, that if
this ccmpany is not undertaking to do it's clean-up properly, and I believF:'
the testimony was they were not being directed by DER that they were doing
this on their own volition in accordance in what they believed were approved
standards. If they are not undertaking to clean it up properly and if
technically it is not in the best interest of the City to have this piF:'ce
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 9
of property in the City of Winter Springs; if it's not valid that they need
the City drinking water to enhance their clean-up process and to continue
using as they are doing now, their wells causes further contamination, I
think what the City needs to do to be prudent is to have the benefit of as
many engineering and technical reports as possible and not just rely on the
advocated engineering back-up which is attached to the application. I think
that is the best way to avoid the law suits it to try to do your "hanework"
up frent so that you can have your bases covered and say "we made the roost
prudent exandnation possible, we did not rush this through and we did not do
it without the benefit of engineering reports"; and I would think it would
be critical to have the City Engineer up here before the C~ssion and
state that through his examination and the Staff's exandnation and perhaps
through sane outside examination at the request of the City, that this is
prudent; or that he has made an adequate review of the attached engineering
back-ups and that he feels that they are adequate.
Trencher stated he would second that point only to go one step further, to
require the petitioner to pay whatever costs it takes for the City to be
assured that everything is "up and up" and going to be taken care of the way
it is, not for the city to incur the cost of hiring another engineer to do
another study to either affinn or deny the study made by the petitioner's
own engineer. That costs should be incurred by the petitioner if indeed
they want to annex into the City. I believe strongly that without
independent verification we have not done our due diligence as a City to
insure that them caning into the City is the right thing for Ci ty .
Ferring stated that he thinks the point that Trencher and Glavin raised are
very val id and he thinks that there is enough back-up personnel to be
present at that meeting and hopes that the City Manager reads this report or
listens to the tape that he understands that he just doesn't send the City
Planner in without the back-up Staff that did all the hanework on this. I
would request that we make very strong recannendation to him that that
happens in the future.
Glavin said that the Board did send the City Planner back to get roore
informatien once on this, and I think if we feel we did not have adequate
technical information this last time we have no one to blame but oursel ves.
But I think it behooves us to insist that next time there is an appl ication
of this nature and we need IOOre legal or engineering back-up that we insist
the appropriate persons cane forth and present their evidence accordingly.
Hopkins said that the only issue that canes to his mind is that this request
will be brought forward to the City Cannission on Monday evening, and being
that there is no City Staff here once again, to address this concern and to
voice our concern to the City C~ssion, other than C~ssioner
Langellotti who is here, we would certinaly like you to be aware of this and
bring our concerns forth to the rest of the City c~ssion.
Langellotti suggested that a mE!l'f'b!r of the Board be present to attend to
voice the Board's feelings on this. Hopkins stated that he cannot attend as
he will be out of town all of next week and asked Vice-Chairman Glavin if
~
~
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 10
she would be available. Glavin stated that she would be happy to attend.
Glavin stated to Langellotti is what we are talking about now is that we
made our vote and we voted based upon the examination that the Board member
present at that meeting, conducted with the person before us, we did the
best we could do with regard to the person who was sent to give us
information. We cannot amend our vote or we cannot came and say that we
voted to recannend that you approve that but we really hope that you don't
because we really have any information. I think in dicta, and following our
vote, that is IOOre or less what we are saying here to you, what we are
saying is in caution Camlissioner, I think it would behove each of the
Ccmnissioners on this issue as with that issue of the mediated settlement
with Florida Country Club issue, to take the t~ to make sure City Staff is
presenting you with all the information for which you need to make a vote as
the elected representatives of the people of Winter Springs.
Langellotti said he would bring that up under discussion.
McLeod stated that in listening to the tape he heard mention of the fact
that they are presently p\.l1lling out of a well. Now they are bringing up and
disposing of the water back through the restroans and sinks and so forth
which is going back to the septic tank. By doing this they feel that they
are IOOving the chemicals around to another level of the aquifer and I don't
know at this time if it was stated at what level are they pulling the water
fran and what are they dispersing it at? I think they should provide sane
tests indicating the levels of where this pollution is at presently.
McLeod said with reading the information supplied to Kern fran Sprague, it
gives indication that this has been going on since Decenber 1988 to the
present. And as last as March of 1992 they basically have said they haven't
seen any indications of significant migration; who is determining the
significance of the migration and is the migration at all migrating into the
direction of the City of Winter Springs? And eventually is it going to get
into the City of winter Springs water system? They are basically saying it
has not IOOved due to the height of the water levels because the ground water
levels are lower, what happens after the water level goes up, what direction
is it IOOving? I have sane concerns about liability to the City that it may
end up with same very heavy liabilities with a piece of property being in
the City limits that a corporation has came to us, they have contaminated
water on site that has been going on since 1988 and there is no major
IOOvement to do anything other than they have IOOVed the tank Jul y 15th.
McLeod gave the Board a description of what happens if a filling station has
a 1 eak in a gas tank. He stated that he wishes that he was notified of this
particular meeting because he would have had a lot of questions to ask our
Staff personnel and again the statements and ccmnents that he heard fran
Kern was basically to his knowledge. Well, his knowledge, first of all he
is not an attorney so therefore his knowledge basically means nothing fran a
legal liability. To his knowledge we have no legal liability, I think that
is sanething that needs to be addressed to our City Attorney; where our
liabilities becane and if this piece of property is at all annexed then I
Plarming and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 11
believe there has to be definitely a contract between this City drawn up by
our City Attorney that addresses these particular issues that keeps the City
holdhannless. And that is not only signed by the president and chaiI11'BIl of
that corporation but also nakes them personally liable. If they feel that
there is no problem with this particular piece of property then have them
also sign so once this corporation should dissolve, you can also go
personally go after those people.
Trencher said to Cammdssioner Langellotti, another point to consider is last
sunner kids were playing soccer as well as last winter on these fields that
adjoin this property; I don't know if they are part of the property or
belong to saneone else. When we are talking about gro\D1d contaminate here,
and issues 1 ike this, I noticed this sunner the fields haven't been roowed so
the kids aren't playing soccer there, but at sane point they were private
property and somebody allowed some soccer group to play there and those that
li ve in that area know what I 8I1l talking about. I think that is a prime
reason to nake sure that these "guys" clean up their act because whoever
owns that property may again in the future may wish to grant the use of that
property for league play. And we don't want to endanger the children of
Winter Springs by not having that neighbor who is part of the City have
cleaned-up his act so to speak.
Hopkins stated that he believes that property may be the 5 acres that were
mentioned that is adjacent to or included with that same property. Trencher
said for sure if it is included and even if it isn't, if we are talking
about the potential of a probl em happening in teIlMJ of gro\D1d water spi 11
flowing into that property, we certinaly don't want to put our kids in any
jeopardy at all.
Ferring said that McLeod raises sane very valid points in lieu of the fact
that he wasn't present. We were all very apprehensive when we Jrotioned to
annex the property in, I think these niinutes should be transmitted to the
City Engineer to respood to the City Cammdssion the night this issue canes
before them. I will probably be here and I will express the concern of this
Board here regarding the questions that have cane up tonight. I will make
it very clear to them that we went on, probably we shouldn't have, but we
did, nake a recarmendation to annex in but we want the City to consider all
the ramifications that go along with it, and whether or not Kern's
assurances to this Board were indeed correct. With the City Attorney being
there and City Engineer and the rest of the City staff let them attest to
what the questions are that are being raised at this particular meeting.
Glavin said to Langellotti what was real important was that Kern was making
a point that this piece of property is sitting there where it sits, whether
it be annexed or not and that he made a cannent sanewhere along the 1 ine
that at least if it were annexed into the City, the City would have rrore
control over what these people were doing then if it were just sitting
there. So my question was, does the Ci ty engineering department impose any
further standards or further review of environmental issues then that of the
federal govemnent, the EPA and om, and he said no, he said that City
Engineering does not nake any environmental review apart fram the state and
-
~
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
August 5, 1992
Page 12
federal government. I don't mow if the City Engineering Department is
lacking in that expertise, perhaps it should gain that expertise, but I
think that the suggestion of Trencher is really critical that if the City
Engineer is lacking in the expertise to make an environmental review as to
what they are telling us in their application here; that an independent
engineering firm who could make such review be hired at the expense of
Sprague Ind.
McLeod stated that saneone should check and have present for the
cannissioners the D:m the order which is OGC-85761, which was part of the
original regulations as what to do with the piece of property. I think
sanebody should probably be checking with Tallahassee to find out does the
DER have any other dOCll1leIltation and what have they presented to these
people and are the people in deed concurring at present time to any of the
orders'? We have the report fran the people that want to cane in here, we do
not have any report fran any federal regulation whatsoever, we are basically
taking this for being the gospel. I think that our own Staff should check
into this and find out about these dOClmeOtation and what has happened to
this point and what have they mandated to them? In other words they may
have mandated the fact that they get an City water and then they have 5 IOOre
years to clean it up provided they are on City water, however, if you don't
you have six roonths to clean it up is this now an avenue for they to stretch
this period of time of clean-up and I would say if it is an avenue of time
to stretch this clean-up then I would be very opposed to the annexation of
them caning into the City.
Glavin stated that she asked specifically of Carter and Kern if IOOre or less
the big hurry was in a marketing effort on these vacant parcels to represent
these parcels/vacant lots which are part of the annexation could be marketed
as being part of the City of Winter Springs; if that was the IOOtivation
behind this annexation prior to the caJl)letion of the clean-up and both
responded in the negative, but I would suggest that there is sane IOOtivation
behind this annexation at this point in time. Perhaps the City Cannission
should be aware of this. It looks like Kern avoided the question I had
about the annexation and started talking about adding 94 EIJIlloyees to the
City.
Trencher asked about the Tuscawilla rezoning issue. Glavin suggested that
when the mediation settlement canes back before this Board that might be a
good time to invite the Tuscawilla Haneowners Association in and review the
zoning.
McLeod suggested that the environmental report fran Sprague be supplied to
the Calmission for their meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 10 P.M.
Respectfully Submdtted,
Margo Hopkins, Deputy city Clerk