|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
MAY 4, 1999 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, Thelma B. Irvin, Frank Gillooly, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Randy Hayes, and Veronica Patterson, City Clerk. A G E N D A
Item #1 - Call to Order Mayor Hood called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Item #2 - Invocation The invocation was given by Reverend Thomas Sublett, Grace Lutheran Church. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the minutes of the April 16, 1999, and April 20, 1999, regular City Commission meetings have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Audience Remarks Airport Issues Mr. Glenn Jaspers, 160 Ocean Terrace, stated that at a previous City Commission meeting he posed a question regarding the blimp operation at the Ormond Beach Airport when the Mayor added the observation that "one of the biggest problems we’ve had in the last four (4) to five (5) months, is U.S. Airships perceives, because of the constant questioning about this, that maybe our community doesn’t want them here because we keep bringing this up, and there are continuing criticisms of it by people who don’t take the time to look at the facts, and that Fred would be more than happy to sit with Mr. Jaspers and give him everything we have on that file and insure that he is given any and all facts that relate to that particular transaction." Mr. Jaspers noted that to construe as criticism a citizen’s right to pursue public information and clarification of same is diversionary. He stated criticism that is explored eventually leads to facts and progress in the forming of a popular consensus. Seabreeze High School Rental Fees Mr. Karen Conroy, 265 Amberwood Court, stated the rental fees for baseball fields by Seabreeze High School were negotiated by a past Commission, and the terms of that contract no longer serves everyone’s best interests. She noted the citizens are paying for the use of the fields three (3) times: first as a taxpayer, secondly through recreational and AAU fees, and thirdly as a student of Seabreeze High School. Ms. Conroy pointed out 95% of the baseball players using the fields are Ormond Beach residents. She requested an item be added to the next City Commission agenda for further discussion of this matter to consider a deferment of a payment now due on behalf of the baseball team in the amount of over $5,000. Ms. Conroy stated she is discussing this issue with the School Board, school representatives, parents and the community. Mayor Hood informed Ms. Conroy that the Commission has previously worked through this issue with the tennis court fees. He stated he and Mr. James Kirton worked on this issue, and Mr. Kirton’s position is that the School Board has negotiated the contract with the City. Mayor Hood added Mr. Miller has been directed to work with the Superintendent of Schools to resolve these issues. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, reported the Superintendent of Schools has agreed to respond to the City by the end of June to discuss the capital approach as well as increasing Seabreeze High School’s budget as a second alternative. Mayor Hood noted this is the same issue the City dealt with regarding the tennis courts, and to be equitable, it should be handled the same way. Ms. Conroy requested that the City renegotiate the contract. Commissioner Boyle stated while the same school is involved and fees are the issue, Ms. Conroy is asking for a deferral, which is different from the tennis court issue. He noted that considering the Superintendent of Schools has not met with staff to date, some of these issues may come up at the recreation workshop on May 18, 1999, the fee structure is a result of policy decisions from a previous City Commission, and the contract will be up for negotiation in the fall, he recommended this be placed on the next agenda for deferral of the payment. Mayor Hood noted if it is placed on the agenda and only one Commissioner is interested in reviewing the situation, it would be a waste of staff and Commission time. Commissioner Persis advised he is sensitive to this issue, but does not advocate change for this school year. He stated the Seabreeze parents have made their point, and it will be considered for the next school year. Commissioner Persis recommended taking this argument to the School Board, noting Seabreeze is unique in that it lacks the facilities the other schools have, and it should not be the responsibility of the parents to make up the difference. He advised he would be open to the idea of "adopting" Seabreeze and building a relationship with them in the future, but keeping the status quo for the present. Mayor Hood noted the entire Commission concedes the problems of the parents of Seabreeze students, but the City is not responsible. He stated Ormond Beach has a contract that was negotiated by the School Board. Mayor Hood advised the School Board is not treating Seabreeze parents equitably, since facilities are provided for the other schools, but not for Seabreeze. He explained this Commission’s responsibility is not to Seabreeze, but to Ormond Beach. Commissioner Gillooly agreed the School Board should pay for the facilities, and Ormond Beach must be consistent, but the Commission decided not to renegotiate the contract for the tennis courts; therefore, they should not renegotiate the contract for the baseball fields. Commissioner Irvin recommended placing this issue on the agenda for the Leisure Services workshop and leaving the contract intact. Mayor Hood requested that Mr. Miller add this item to the Leisure Services workshop agenda and notify Ms. Conroy of the meeting. Mr. Miller advised the information will not be available from the School Board for this meeting. Commissioner Boyle asked if citizen input would be permitted; whereby, Mayor Hood replied that he does not perceive what type of input the citizens would have other than their objection to paying the fees. Ms. Conroy clarified she is questioning all the fees for all the sports for Seabreeze High School, not solely baseball. Airport Manager’s Presence at the Airport During Fires Mr. Steve Searle, 3949 Tano Drive, advised he was informed that at the last meeting a citizen stated Mr. Fred Baughman, Economic Development Administrator, was not at the airport during the fires last summer. He informed the Commission that Mr. Baughman was present each of the three (3) occasions that Mr. Searle went to the airport to check his aircraft. Item #6 - Consent Agenda Mayor Hood advised that the action proposed to be taken for each item on the Consent Agenda is so stated on the agenda. He asked if any member of the Commission had questions or wished to discuss any one or more of the items separately. Commissioner Boyle asked that Item Nos. #6(G) and 6(H) be discussed separately. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of the Consent Agenda, minus Item Nos. #6(G) and 6(H).
Item #6(G) - Airship Operations RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 75
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Resolution No. 99-75, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle noted Mr. Baughman reported in the workshop prior to this meeting that the site plan will be approved within 30 to 60 days. He recommended this item be tabled until the site plan has been approved and a physical copy of the signed lease is obtained. Commissioner Boyle stated while he was greatly encouraged by Mr. Baughman’s report on the progress being made, he would recommend receiving a timetable. He expressed concern regarding a precedent being set if this is approved without the approved site plan. Mr. Fred Baughman, Economic Development Director, stated this resolution has a contingency upon approval of the Certificate of Occupancy; therefore, in reality this is not being approved without the site plan. Commissioner Persis replied this contingency is a built-in safeguard. Commissioner Gillooly questioned that U.S. Airship cannot be denied an FBO status; whereby, Mr. Baughman explained if they meet all requirements of the City code, they cannot be denied an FBO status. Commissioner Boyle noted the issue is not denying them the FBO, only considering when, it is given.
Item #6(H) - Negotiated Sale of City of Ormond Beach Bonds RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 76
Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 99-76, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle expressed full confidence if the financial advise of staff, indicating he will vote for approving this Resolution, but he requested more information regarding the savings data and the bond timetable. He recommended in the future, on items such as these, to have staff give a presentation explaining the item more thoroughly. Commissioner Boyle expressed appreciation to Mr. Lane for his ingenuity and expertise in finding these options to save the City $1.6 million. He noted the Commission receives reports, but the public should have a clear understanding of the issues as well; therefore, this item would be better placed where it could be more thoroughly discussed rather than on the consent portion of the agenda. Commissioner Boyle moved to amend Resolution 99-76, for approval subject to information being provided at a future date and a request that staff be more sensitive to issues placed on the Consent Agenda. The amendment died for lack of a second. Commissioner Persis commended Mr. Lane for finding this opportunity to save these funds. Mr. Paul Lane, Finance Director, stated if the Commission ever has a question regarding an executive summary, he would be glad to provide any additional information needed. Commissioner Boyle explained his point is that the Commission can be informed with this method, but the public should be kept informed as well. Mr. Lane explained the present value of the saving is $1.6 million, but over a period of 12 years it would be $221,000 annually. He noted there will be another phase to this issue where the financing documents will be sent to the City Commission for approval, at which time a further explanation can be made.
Item #7(A) - Deferral of Required Parking for the Root Executive Park Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #7(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 63
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 99-63, as read by title only.
Item #7(B) - Sanitary Sewer Standards Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #7(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 24
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-24, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(C) - Granting A Historic Preservation Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 25
Commissioner Persis commented that the property owner is doing an excellent job renovating the house. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-25, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(D) - Florida Urology Annexation Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #7(D). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 26
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-26, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(E) - Weinhofer Annexation - 790 Cordova Avenue Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(E). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 27
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-27, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(A) - Pesticide Spraying by Volusia County Mosquito Control Ms. Pat Mihalek, representing the Halifax River Audubon Society, asked the Commission to consider stopping the practice of spraying for mosquitoes, or to phase it out. She explained all the pesticides are nerve poisons which attack the nervous system of any animal that inhales them or comes within contact of them. Ms. Mihalek, stated fetuses, infants, elderly and the infirmed are at risk by the use of these pesticides. Ms. Mihalek explained three (3) poisons are being used. She stated malathion is toxic to fish, aquatic life, amphibians and bees. Ms. Mihalek, explained dibrom is a corrosive which causes eye and skin damage and is toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrate, and wildlife. She noted beytex, a restricted use pesticide, is toxic to birds, fish and aquatic invertebrate and may be fatal if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Ms. Mihalek advised these warnings are from the manufacturers of these products themselves, and while they are used in small quantities, there is no evidence on what quantities are toxic to humans. She stated only 1% of the chemical actually hits the treated target, and many areas that are treated have a higher incidence of mosquitoes after treatment than before treatment because they become immune to the product. Ms. Mihalek recommended using natural predators such as mosquito fish, back swimmers and Muscovy ducks. She also recommended homeowners help eliminate mosquito production by emptying anything that holds stagnant water. Ms. Mihalek added that none of these chemicals kills the primary cause of concern by residents, the "no see ‘ems." Ms. Dawn Share, 145 Heritage Circle, advised that in October 1996 while watching a football game at the Ormond Beach Recreation ball field on Nova Road, a mosquito spraying vehicle sprayed the pesticide malathion with the mist permeating the air at the ball field. She stated no one knows the price that will be paid for the long term exposure of this and other pesticides. Ms. Share reported it is widely known that children’s immune systems are undeveloped and more prone to injury by environmental pollutants. She asked if there is any price too large to pay for children’s health. Ms. Share asked the Commission to make Ormond Beach a leader in the County by being the first in making a commitment to educate the community regarding the overuse of pesticides and to begin phasing out the unnecessary practice of using chemicals as a first defense against mosquito control. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Jonas Stewart, Director, Mosquito Control District, to respond to the comment that the spraying only kills 1% of the flying mosquitoes and whether it is true that the target insects build up immunities to these chemicals over time. Mr. Stewart explained Mosquito Control measures pre-populations and post-populations in neighborhoods, and most times they achieve a reduction of 50% to 90% of the population. Mr. Stewart agreed there is a tolerance built up for insecticides, such as malathion which has been used for 40 years in Volusia County and is less effective in some of the salt marsh areas, but in the west and center of town it works very well. Commissioner Boyle asked if a better approach would be to use larvicides, which are more expensive but less toxic. He asked if it were true that the long-term effects of these chemicals is a very young science; whereby, Mr. Stewart responded that malathion has been used for 50 years with various uses. He stated larvicides are more expensive per unit ounce, but they are used. He explained only 10% of the total budget is used to kill the adult mosquitoes with the other 90% used for larvicides, source reduction, or prevention and education. Mr. Stewart explained last summer during the fires, the fire fighting equipment left ruts in the firebreaks in the west where mosquitoes have proliferated, and the adult mosquitoes had to be dealt with, but this is not normally the case. He stated the chemical breakdown is very quick. Mayor Hood asked why a recreation field would be sprayed while children are there rather than in the middle of the night to avoid contact with people. Mr. Stewart explained that the Mosquito District traditionally does spray late at night or it will spray after or before an event. He stated if a driver encounters people, there is a switch that is turned to stop the spraying, but the engine would continue to run and it sounds as if the spraying is continuing. Mr. Stewart advised they often get calls after events requesting spraying. Commissioner Gillooly asked if there have been studies to determine how long the residual effect of the chemicals will last and if methoprene is utilized; whereby, Mr. Stewart replied methoprene is the main larvicide used. Mr. Stewart explained it takes three (3) ounces of methoprene per acre, and baytex is used in a fogging truck, and these are entirely different methods of application. Commissioner Gillooly suggested ceasing spraying as in New Smyrna Beach this season and then evaluating the situation. Mr. Stewart stated New Smyrna Beach did not stop spraying, but requested the previous year averages in the amount of spraying be maintained as well as trying different suggested techniques. Commissioner Persis asked if the District is aware of people suffering allergies and if those areas are avoided; whereby, Mr. Stewart explained a list of 17 people have asked to be placed on a call list to be notified when spraying for adult mosquitoes will occur so they can take proper precautions. Commissioner Persis asked if any monitoring is done of any excessive fish kill or kills of any kind. Mr. Stewart advised there have not been any reports of shrimp, crab, birds or any other organism that have been killed where spraying is responsible. Commissioner Persis asked if Ormond Beach has a potential for major mosquito problems; whereby, Mr. Stewart explained there are two (2) problems, the first is the salt marsh in the north and the pasture mosquitoes and woodland mosquitoes to the west. He stated the center area of the City has more of a container breeding problem. Commissioner Persis noted he has a great deal of respect for the operation in progress and has not had constituents expressing concern. He agreed spraying should not occur when people are present, but he recommended the City continue to monitor the practices that have been conducted in the past. Commissioner Boyle advised there have been no further reports of spraying of fields since October 1996 which is probably a result of Ms. Share’s action. He stated the Commission does have a responsibility to educate the public and recommended messages be placed in water bills regarding stagnant water and other mosquito breeding warnings. Commissioner Boyle noted if all spraying were to cease, it would take time for the natural predators to be able to control the mosquito population; therefore, a transition period is necessary. Commissioner Boyle moved to embark on an educational program and phase in as much eliminating of spraying as possible. Commissioner Gillooly stated he would like to consider amending the motion to stipulate a ratio of methoprene to dibrom or beytex; whereby, Mr. Stewart advised these are two (2) different kinds of spraying, but he could provide a comparison. Commissioner Gillooly advised he would defer his request at this time. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, reminded the Commission that the encephalitis threat is a serious situation which needs to be addressed. He questioned if there would be adequate time from a diagnosis of encephalitis to its spread for Mosquito Control to spray to minimize the risk; whereby, Mr. Stewart stated by the time a doctor has diagnosed human encephalitis and it is reported to the Mosquito Control District, weeks have passed. For this reason, Mr. Stewart explained the Sentinel Chicken Program measures the antibody level as the chickens are infected by encephalitis, which indicates when spraying is needed to be intensified to prevent infecting humans. Mayor Hood clarified the motion is to embark on an educational program and work toward a diminishment of the adult spraying in the future.
Mayor Hood explained he voted for this motion because the educational program is not difficult and he anticipates the use of good judgment that spraying would not be diminished beyond a level where it would impair the safety of the community. Mr. Stewart stated that if anyone would like to offer possible technique, or alternatives, he would be happy to consider them. Item #8(B) - Heaster/Moss Point Telecommunication Tower Mr. David Vukelja, attorney for the Moss Point residents, stated in August 1998 the homeowners of Moss Point objected to the tower being constructed to the north and a stop work order was issued by the City of Ormond Beach. He stated in response to that stop work order Mr. Jim Morris, representing Louis and Barbara Heaster, owner of the tower property, sent a letter indicating the City had no authority in revisiting the County’s issuance of a special exception, notwithstanding the total lack of notice to the Moss Point residents. Mr. Vukelja summarized the October City Commission meeting by Mayor Hood requesting he, Mr. Morris and the City Attorney meet to identify the disputed issues and ascertain any recourse to the Moss Point residents. He advised this meeting occurred, and the City issued its memorandum. Mr. Vukelja contended the City’s memorandum has two (2) shortcomings. He stated the City’s memorandum assumes the facts in Mr. Morris’ letter dated September 11, 1998, were true and correct. Mr. Vukelja contended there were inconsistencies in the Morris letter, such as the suggestion the north parcel was the first parcel acquired by the Heasters, while the deeds clearly demonstrate the south parcel was the first property acquired by the Heasters. Mr. Vukelja stated the Morris letter suggests FAA approval was obtained on the south parcel prior to the Moss Point Subdivision being created which is in error. He noted that another shortcoming in the City’s memorandum is the statement regarding the absence of any legal authority held by the City Commission as an annexing authority and not having power when it comes to reviewing zoning matters made by other authorities pre-annexation. Mr. Vukelja reported in 1989 a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" (Determination) was obtained, but the Heasters did not own the north lot on this date, and there is a 70 foot tower on the south lot to which no one objected. He note in this 1989 Determination and a 1996 Determination, the coordinates are not on either of the Heasters’ lots. Mr. Vukelja pointed out one of the conditions the County imposed was FAA approval, but the only approval submitted by the Heasters has been this "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" and a letter from the FAA stating additional coordinates provided by the Heasters were acceptable. He advised the south lot was purchased in 1987, which is in conflict to Mr. Morris’ letter, and the City assumed Mr. Morris’ erroneous information was correct. Mayor Hood asked if it is Mr. Vukelja’s position that the Heaster’s failed to comply with one of the conditions for the special exception, that being FAA approval, and he questioned why it is relevant which lot was purchased first. Mr. Vukelja explained that the special exception application was submitted for the north lot alone for a 300 foot guyed tower which could not have fit on the north lot alone; therefore, he contended it was done intentionally because the only lot owners for whom notice would have been required was the Heasters themselves, avoiding notification to the Moss Point residents. Mayor Hood asked if the Heasters do not have the right to put the tower on the north parcel if they so desire; to which Mr. Vukelja offered no disagreement. Mayor Hood asked if it were not true that when the application for the tower was submitted, the Heasters did own the north and south parcel and were within their rights to place it on either lot they chose. Mr. Vukelja clarified that they could not, in good faith, believe they would be able to construct this tower on the north parcel without intrusion on the south parcel. Mayor Hood questioned if it is Mr. Vukelja’s contention that the Heasters did not comply with the setback rules application to the north parcel; whereby, Mr. Vukelja stated they did not, but his argument is that from the outset they intentionally set out to avoid notification, knowing the construction was going to exceed the north parcel alone. Mayor Hood noted most people would try to avoid such problems and asked if there is a case indicating it is illegal or improper to avoid notice; whereby, Mr. Vukelja stated he could not. Mr. Vukelja noted on October 17, 1996, the special exception application was amended with the filing of a revised site plan to intrude into the southern parcel, and at that point in time, it was the applicant’s responsibility to notify the Moss Point residents, which was not done. He stated the Volusia County code requires certified letters be sent; newspaper notification or posting is not legally sufficient. Mayor Hood summarized Mr. Vukelja’s objections are that the FAA approval was not obtained as required by the special exception permit and proper legal notification was not given. Mayor Hood asked, assuming Mr. Vukelja’s arguments are correct, if after obtaining FAA approval and providing the notice, could the Heasters construct the tower. Mr. Vukelja contended they could not; however, Mr. Randy Hayes, City Attorney, stated it would be approved because as the property was zoned it is a use by right. Mr. Don O'Donniley, Planning Director, stated it would be a conditional use which would go to the Site Plan Review Committee, and if it met the specified conditions set out in the Land Development Code, it would be approved. Mayor Hood noted that if this were to go through the process and be approved under the current Land Development Code, a lot of time is being spent on something that will not change the outcome. Mr. O’Donniley replied a detailed analysis would be needed, but his preliminary impression is that it would comply, and the City would be required to approve it. Mr. Vukelja stated in January 1999 this property was zoned Suburban Residential, which allows "telecommunication towers 300 feet or less in height as part of a Planned Residential Development." He noted, however, this tower is not part of a Planned Residential Development. Mr. O’Donniley stated his position would be that nothing about that language would prohibit it being approved as a part of a planned residential submittal, and that the tower would not be able to be rejected unless there was a distinguished public interest reason to reject it. Mr. Hayes advised the approving mechanism would be the site plan review process as opposed to a conditional use permit process. Mr. O’Donniley noted the language implies it would have to be part of a Planned Residential Development, so the submittal would need to include some plans for residential and a tower; but the point is if that scenario were before the Commission, they would be on dangerous ground to reject a plan that met all the requirements of a Planned Residential Development without public interest reasons articulated. Mr. Vukelja concluded by stating that this has no concurrent jurisdiction, and since this property has been annexed into the City of Ormond Beach, it is the responsibility of the City Commission. He asked the Commission to exert its authority that allows it to rectify an invalid zoning ordinance, that being the granting of this special exception. Mr. Vukelja stated the Commission has the authority to refuse to issue the Certificate of Occupancy, to revoke the building permit, to remove the tower, or to go through the process again. Mr. Jim Morris, representing Louis and Barbara Heaster, owner of the tower property, stated the application was for the northern lot of the Heaster property for an 18 inch tower which could be supported on the northern lot. He contended the application filed related solely to the northern property, but the County staff required the tower be moved to the south. Mr. Morris stressed moving the tower was not a step taken by the Heasters, but a step taken by the administrative agency. He stated the first entity notified was the City of Ormond Beach, even though there was no requirement to do so; it was done merely as a courtesy to the City. Mr. Morris noted that when the property was annexed into Ormond Beach, all the conditional use requirements had been completed. He explained Florida annexation law requires that when a city annexes a piece of property, it shall in due course amend its Comprehensive Plan and then apply the appropriate zoning to the property based on the Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Morris stated there is a delay in time from annexation until regulations are adopted and made applicable, and in that instance, the city is to take the County zoning and apply it to the subject property, which is what happened in this case. He continued that Ormond Beach’s Site Plan Review Committee applied its own standards for review and approval of the site. Mr. Morris explained the result of the review was that the stem was moved off the northern parcel and far into the southern parcel and resulted in the Planning staff ordering the tower be constructed for co-location purposes, which requires greater strength, thereby, increasing the 18 inch width to 38 inches in width, and the guyed cables also had to increase. He noted the best course of preserving trees is avoidance, not mitigation; therefore, it was requested by the City to move the tower to avoid placement in an area where a substantial number of trees would have to be removed. Mr. Morris stated the process took two (2) years, with extensive review by the City of Ormond Beach, and it accomplished the objectives of protecting the City’s goals. He stated Clay Ervin represented Ormond Beach in the Volusia County Planning Board and Planning staff deliberations, but Mr. Ervin’s points were rejected and the approval was recommended. Mr. Morris explained notice was given as dictated by County code. He explained the code requires legal advertising in the newspaper which was done. Mr. Morris stated a neon orange, two (2) foot by three (3) foot placard was placed on the property at is the entrance to the one-way cul-de-sac. He stated FAA approval was given and explained the coordinates are not generated by surveyors, but by FAA contour maps to allow FAA to evaluate for navigational purposes where a tower is to be located and whether or not it will interfere with aeronautical aviation navigation. Mr. Morris stated a number of statements were made to show a pattern of conspiracy or efforts to mislead; but none of this, upon close investigation, is borne out by the facts. He asked the City Commission to let this drop, and if the homeowners wish to pursue it, he advised they can go through the courts. Commissioner Boyle noted that while he is sympathetic to complaints about the tower and would like codes requiring greater setbacks, he is convinced that if the entire process were started over with all notification completed, a Site Plan Review Committee would approve the tower within the code, and it would be built no more than 30 feet from where it is now located. He advised that as a practical matter, the City Commission has no choice but to leave the tower as it stands. Commissioner Boyle requested that the property owner, although under no obligation to do so, provide a vegetative buffer on the boundary of the property bordering Moss Point to eliminate some of the effects of the warning lights. Commissioner Gillooly asked Mr. Vukelja if it is his position that the coordinates were incorrect; therefore, County approval, based on those coordinates, was not given. Mr. Vukelja replied that his position is that the condition requiring FAA approval was never satisfied because the coordinates presented were not even on the applicant’s property. Commissioner Gillooly asked from where the coordinates were derived; whereby, Mr. Morris stated Mr. Heaster generated the coordinates from a navigational contour map which was, at the time, the standard methodology for generating the coordinates, which is why FAA approval was given. Mayor Hood asked if it wouldn’t be an easy resolution to this concern to simply get FAA approval with the correct coordinates; whereby, Mr. Morris agreed it would. Commissioner Gillooly questioned if the Heasters were to reapply, could they build the tower in the same place, and he noted the Planning Director had indicated the answer is probably that they can; therefore, the entire discussion is unnecessary. Mayor Hood replied that if someone wishes to make a motion that would revoke the Certificate of Occupancy or the permit, a vote will be called, but if there is no such motion, the tower shall stand as it is. Mr. Vukelja stated one of the reasons this was brought to the City is to make certain the Moss Point residents have satisfied any and all administrative remedies at this level, so that if it goes to Court, no one could say the property owners did not pursue all remedies. Mayor Hood noted if there is no motion, Mr. Vukelja can claim they have satisfied the administrative process. No motion was made to revoke the Certificate of Occupancy; therefore, the Mayor advised the tower will stay where it is. Item #9 - Audience Comments On Agenda Items AWOS (Automated Weather Observing System) Mr. Glenn Jaspers, 160 Ocean Terrace, submitted information regarding AWOS systems for the Commission’s perusal. Mayor Hood indicated this portion is for the public to comment on items previously discussed on the agenda, and since AWOS was not discussed on the agenda, this is not the appropriate time to discuss this matter. He stated this item should have been discussed during the Audience Remarks portion of the agenda. He stated the more appropriate method for Mr. Jaspers to bring this information to the Commission is to give it to Mr. Baughman or the City Clerk who will make copies and circulate it to the Commission. Mr. Jaspers agreed to bring this up at the Audience Remarks portion of the agenda at the next meeting. He clarified his position is that he is not opposed to the airport having an AWOS system. US Airship Leasing Mr. Jaspers noted there are many differences between the lease for US Airship Leasing and the other 18 leases on file. Mayor Hood noted FBO status at US Airship Leasing was discussed, but if Mr. Jaspers has concerns regarding the lease, he recommended placing them in the form of a memo to placed on the agenda. Mayor Hood suggested the City Attorney study any such memo and determine if Mr. Jaspers’ legal concerns have any basis on legal fact. Item #10- Reports, Suggestions, Requests Employee Appreciation Day Commissioner Boyle noted the devastation in Oklahoma and compared it to the crisis Ormond Beach experienced last summer with the fires. He noted people from all over the country who had the opportunity to work with Ormond Beach employees came away with the impression that they would never forget Volusia County or the people who worked for the City of Ormond Beach. Commissioner Boyle stated the performance noted by people outside the City was not just noted during the crisis—that performance occurs every day by their level of professionalism, their "can do" attitude, and the helpful attitude toward the citizens. He noted he receives many calls praising City employees. Commissioner Boyle apologized that he will be unable to attend the Employee Appreciation Day festivities because he will be out of town, but expressed his appreciation to the employees of the City. Heaster Tower Issue Commissioner Gillooly expressed appreciation to George Lewis, Assistant City Attorney, for the exhaustive briefing done on the Heaster Tower issue. Exercising of Dogs Commissioner Gillooly asked Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, if there is a place in Ormond Beach where dogs may be exercised since they are not permitted in the parks. Mr. Miller replied Mr. Alan Burton, Leisure Services Director, has studied this issue at the request of a resident and prepared a response. Commissioner Gillooly asked for a copy of the response to pass on to his constituent. Workshop Conflict Commissioner Persis advised he has to be at a 7:00 P.M. meeting on June 3, 1999, and asked the workshop be moved to June 1, 1999, before the City Commission meeting. Mr. Miller explained this is a critical workshop that may take over two (2) hours to properly discuss. Mayor Hood requested Mr. Miller arrange a date and time when all the Commission members are available. Cable TV Mayor Hood stated Time Warner’s system ignores working families in that to connect to cable, a homeowner needs to be available for three (3) hour segments to wait for a service person to come to the home or wait for a Saturday appointment which would take from one to one and one-half months. He stated this was unacceptable and recommended examining the contract, and revoking the contract if necessary. Item #11 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. |
|
|
