08-20-2007 - Regular
a,~
...
CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 20, 2007
7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Thomas called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Community Center.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Michael Thomas
Councilwoman Debra Rogers
Councilman Dennis Vincenzi
Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes
Councilwoman Judith Lichter
City Manager Jon Williams
City Clerk Susan Wadsworth
City Attorney Carolyn Ansay
Present
Excused
Excused
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to
the Flag.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of June 18, 2007 (these minutes
were tabled/continued during the July 30th meeting
at Councilwoman Rogers' request)
City Clerk Wadsworth
was referring to was
not transcribed yet.
all.
stated the meeting Councilwoman Rogers
the Town Hall meeting and those are
It doesn't refer to these minutes at
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the June 18, 2007
minutes, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DON
ATIONS
Page 1 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
A. Janet Shira of B & H Consultants presenting the
Evaluation and Appraisal Committee Report (EAR)
Final Recommended Issues List
Janet Shira, B & H Consultants, made a Powerpoint
Presentation and went over the Final Recommended Issues
List that was done by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Committee, which is also the Planning & Zoning Board.
Ms. Shira stated the next step is having the City Council
develop the actual list that will be used. They would like
to request a joint meeting with the Planning & Zoning
Board. Hopefully at that meeting, have the Council
actually vote on the major issues list. They need a list
of issues to work with from here on out. September 24th is
the date that they are requesting to meet. If they can
have a vote that night, that would be great. If not,
shortly thereafter so they can get into the next phase,
which is the scoping meeting. That is when you bring in
all the other governments that might have anything to have
concern about for the City's issues or that may be able to
assist them in accomplishing these issues. They are hoping
that meeting could take place at the end of October. By
the end of the year they could have DCA sign off on the
major issues so beginning in 2008 they can start drafting
the actual EAR document based on those major issues.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she would direct her questions
at the right time to the Planning & Zoning Board. She
feels the Economic Development Board could be one of the
boards that they pull in on the end if it ties in. She
thinks it is a miraculous work. She just has questions
about the center.
Ms. Shira stated there were many different visions. They
had to settle and vote on language and they have done that
to bring Council something at this point.
Councilwoman Rhodes confirmed they wanted to meet on
September 24th. She asked if they wanted to meet before the
Council meeting. City Manager Williams informed her the
last time they met at a joint meeting they scheduled it at
6:00 p.m. providing that's enough time to move through
items on the list. He will confer the time frame with
Darren and staff and bring back that proposal.
Page 2 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they would be able to vote on
it that night. City Manager Williams informed her in a
workshop setting they would not take action on any item.
It would have to be conducted in a special meeting itself.
Mayor Thomas asked them to go back to Item 2 -
Conservation, which he read. He was impressed with the
emphasis placed on this and was very pleased to see all of
that put in there. Ms. Shira stated the Planning & Zoning
Board acknowledged that the river was what made the City of
Edgewater so unique in some of the other areas as well. To
preserve them was really important to make this a special
place.
Mayor Thomas asked for public comment.
this time.
There was none at
4. CITIZEN COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke:
Jeanne DelNigro, 3130 Tamarind Drive, stated there is a lot
of concern, questions and confusion from the citizens of
the City of Edgewater concerning building height
restrictions. They need a clear and unified direction once
and for all. They want to preserve the charm and
uniqueness of our city and at the same time they want the
City to strive and thrive in the age of growth and
development. There have been reviews and recommendations
of building height restrictions of 35 feet for some time
now and the matter is back in front of them once again for
another vote. Since that is the case, the wording on the
ballot must be clear so the people understand the
importance of what they are voting for or against. We want
growth, we need growth and we don't want the City to suffer
economically. With full consideration for the residents,
the voter's decision will determine the future of the City
of Edgewater. No buildings over 35 feet, if it's a hotel,
motel or condo, all part of the residential structure.
Buildings can be over 35 feet if they are for police, fire
stations, hospitals, schools, other commercial and
public/semi-public buildings. We like the green space, the
water and the views of the river. We don't want to destroy
our quality of life but we don't want to create an
atmosphere that will frighten people away from building in
the City of Edgewater. The citizens need the full picture
so that when their voices are heard on Election Day, their
Page 3 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
vlews and their votes will be grounded in the facts
concerning the issues affecting their future and their
lives.
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD,
stated she noticed that ECARD's petition is not under
anything other than Other Business. Are they going to be
able to discuss this issue under Other Business at that
time? She respectfully requested she be allowed to discuss
it. Mayor Thomas stated that was fine with him. Ms.
Carlson stated or they can discuss it now. Mayor Thomas
stated he was sure there would be a lot of discussion. Ms.
Carlson asked him if he would like to wait until later.
Mayor Thomas informed her that would be fine.
Dominic Capria, 606 Topside Circle, requested Other
Business Item C be moved up to after Citizen Comments as
they have done in the past.
Mr. Capria stated since there are only three
Councilmembers, that is a very important discussion.
would rather see them postpone it until they have all
Councilmembers there.
He
five
Mayor Thomas did not agree to move this item up after
Citizen Comments. Mr. Capri a asked about the other
Councilmembers. Mayor Thomas informed him he was running
the meeting.
David Ross, 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated he was a leading
warrior in the battle about reclaimed water distribution
pressures and prices. Too rarely do staff people get
commended for a job well done. With Mr. Williams and Mr.
Wadsworth working on the project and after seeing the
situation they have at the southern end of Florida Shores,
he commended them both and thanked them very much.
Mr. Ross commented on the density amendment or petition.
He asked why that isn't yet before Council as an ordinance
rather than a discussion. He didn't understand why it
didn't come before Council in time for the 2007 referendum.
Mayor Thomas thought they were going to have some legal
opinions on that. Mr. Ross asked if it was a legal
problem. Mayor Thomas stated it had to be done in the
Sunshine.
Page 4 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Mr. Ross asked if it wasn't here as an ordinance tonight
because of legal problems with it. City Attorney Ansay
stated the reason why it isn't on the agenda tonight as a
resolution is it was at 8:07 a.m. that they finally
received from the Supervisor of Elections the certification
that were necessary to put the matter into a resolution and
on the agenda. There are some other issues they are going
to talk about extensively under this agenda item. Staff
put this on here in an attempt, even though they had no
idea when the agenda was being prepared whether the
signatures would even be met, they knew the deadline was
approaching and that it would need to be aired out and
discussed publicly.
Mr. Ross confirmed that it took the Supervisor of Elections
twenty days to inform the City they had the signatures.
City Attorney Ansay didn't know how long they had them.
Mike Visconti, 316 Pine Breeze Drive, stated
talk about the petition for west of 1-95 and
should wait until that discussion comes up.
asked him to wait until it comes up.
he wanted to
asked if he
Mayor Thomas
Dwight Austin, 2122 S. Riverside Drive, commented on the
two years that Belmont and Riverside Village has been under
construction. The buffer along Riverside Drive where it
exits to u.S. #1 and along the 2100 block adjacent to
residences, which belongs to all of their town, the river
and the attraction belongs to all of them. He is
frustrated. If you look through there now, it is dead
trees, 12' weeds and high grass and a stockade fence. He
can't get anything definitive from staff as to where they
are. They sent him to Code Enforcement but nothing seems
to conform to the plans he has been in communication with
the City for two years on. He presented correspondence to
City Clerk Wadsworth for the Council.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mr. Austin if he had talked to
Fire Chief Barlow. Mr. Austin stated he spoke to his
assistant this morning who said she would have Fire Chief
Barlow get back in touch with him but they felt like it had
not gotten to them and that it was a Planning staff
problem. He got passed back and forth.
Linda Small, 1629 Willow Oak Drive, reminded the Council
that one of their highest priorities this time of year is
dealing with the budget, the proposed millage rate and the
Page 5 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
property taxes for the citizens of this community. They
had a great Town Hall meeting, a good half-day workshop.
It is glaringly obvious that the budget and discussion of
it is absent from the agenda as it was on the August 13th
meeting and it is tonight. The State encourages them to
announce publicly and take every opportunity at public
meetings for inclusion of the citizens. They have not had
an update on how the pension changes are going and any
other plans to reduce the budget to get down to the State
mandated 4.89. She reminded them that is a high priority
for all of them. The reason they have tax reform in the
State is because thousands of citizens went to Tallahassee
to voice their frustration and sent thousands of e-mails to
Tallahassee. It is a matter of the citizens of this State
going to Tallahassee because they did not get relief on a
local level. They intend to have it this year through the
City's leadership. She hopes they won't be disappointed.
Ms. Small reminded the citizens that on August 27th at the
Brannon Center from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. Morgan Gilreath would
be providing an hour and a half workshop to help them
educate themselves on the January 2008 Tax Reform Voters
Referendum.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated on September 7th they are going
to have another budget workshop. She will be speaking
about the Pension Board in her report tonight. They had a
workshop scheduled for August 16th but nothing had changed.
There was no point having a workshop until they had the
final numbers in.
Bill Glasser, 1703 Needle Palm Drive, stated at the last
Council meeting under Officer Reports the City Manager was
giving them the results of the sale of ParkTowne. In that
he thought he said that that property going back on the tax
rolls would generate $22,000. City Manager Williams
informed him that is conservatively what Edgewater's
portion would be. Very conservative.
Mr. Glasser stated he owns two building lots in Florida
Shores and he paid last year $1,200 for those two lots.
This year it will be $1,100 or somewhere around in there.
It is about a half acre. If his math is correct, 80 acres
into $22,000. That comes out to about $275 per acre.
Somehow he can't see where they are having a lot of
commercial stuff that is giving him any tax relief.
Page 6 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Councilwoman Rhodes stated the land in ParkTowne doesn't
have anything on it. It's not improved at this point. It
is vacant lots. That $22,000 was just the income Edgewater
would see from it. Not the School Board, not the Hospital
District, not the County. When you add all those up it
would be significantly more.
John Cordeiro, 1515 pine Tree Drive, stated two weeks ago
he was sitting in his front yard and a ,car went by doing
about 70 miles per hour and less than ten seconds later
here comes a cruiser chasing him doing at least 80 miles
per hour. He thought that was very dangerous in Florida
Shores. He feels somebody should get with the Police. He
didn't know if it was worth chasing somebody like that.
There were a lot of kids out in the street. The lady
across the street was riding her bike and almost got hit
and she was mad. He thinks something should be done about
that.
Mr. Cordeiro asked Police Chief Taves if he knew about that
incident. He thought there would have to be a report and
he would read it. Mr. Cordeiro stated he noticed there are
a lot of police cars and fire department cars that are
being used by the people that are working for their own
personal use, in their driveways and other things and he
doesn't think this is right. He feels if someone is going
to do something for themselves they should use their own
vehicle, not a company vehicle.
Mr. Cordeiro commented on the financial crisis about the
homes in the country, all the foreclosures and everything.
The last count he read in Volusia County the foreclosures
went up 270%. Countrywide Financial in the whole country
had to go out and borrow $11.5 billion to stay afloat. The
prices of houses went up so much the only way people could
buy them was the bank gave them adjustable financial rates
so the people grabbed them. Now they are having to pay 14%
and can't afford the house and the interest. It is going
to be a mess. It is all caused by small cities letting all
this building come in and the high taxes. He feels every
development that comes around they should start thinking
about that. It's not over with yet. Seventy lending
institutions in the country have failed already on account
of this. He thinks some serious thinking ought to be going
on about letting all these developers come in and build
everything they want. There are hundreds of used houses on
the market.
Page 7 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
5. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilwoman Lichter stated this past Saturday 15 to 20
firemen as well as City Manager Williams and Police Chief
Taves came down to the Animal Shelter and put covers on all
the dog houses so the rain would run off and the sun
wouldn't hit the animals. They had a lot of children
running around also. The older kids were very helpful. It
really was a successful day. She personally thanked the
firemen, City Manager Williams and Police Chief Taves who
showed up to help and donate their free time.
Councilwoman Lichter stated there is going to be a Green
Development for Sustainable community workshop. This is
for developers to talk about all those facilities and the
things we need to live. Several organizations are
sponsoring this. It is $20.00, if you want to eat. It is
on September 14th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the
Daytona Beach Community College Daytona Beach Campus. She
feels this is a worthwhile thing to attend.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they have had a couple of
pension board meetings. The General Employees Pension
Board, the members, our lawyer and the representative of
our fund have all met and came up with a list of options to
cut the cost to the City but to help protect the employees
and their pension. They have not decided on anyone yet.
They will be meeting again on Wednesday and they will be
discussing those. The General Employees members asked her
to ask Council to meet with them. They would like to do a
workshop with Council. She would like Council consensus
and a date. They need to complete these issues by time for
the beginning of the budget year.
It was the consensus of Council to meet with the General
Employees Pension Board.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could set a date for that
now. City Manager Williams informed her two important
dates to consider are the actual final two public hearings
that are necessary to adopt next fiscal year's operating
budget, September 10th and September 24th. Keeping those two
dates in mind with regards to the workshop.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they have a meeting on
Wednesday. She asked if they could do it on Thursday.
Page 8 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
City Manager Williams asked her if she wanted to do it this
Thursday. He didn't know that Councilman vincenzi would
be back by them.
City Manager Williams stated they have a budget workshop on
September 7th and they could also include this. Mayor
Thomas felt it would be too lengthy and felt they needed to
do it before. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed. She suggested
they set it for next Tuesday, August 28th. City Manager
Williams informed her that date was open.
Councilwoman Rhodes announced they would have the workshop
on Tuesday, August 28th at 5:30 p.m. with the General
Employees Pension Board.
Mayor Thomas asked how many people in the room got their
proposed tax notices. He asked how many people's proposed
taxes went up. He asked how many people's proposed taxes
went down. He then asked the people whose taxes went down
how much they had gone down by.
Mayor Thomas stated the point is the thing that Morgan sent
out with the tax, he has read it three times and is trying
his best to understand it. He felt Ms. Small had a very
good point. If the super tax exemption vote goes through
then they need to know whether they need to take that or
stay on Save Our Homes. He would be very adamant about
going to those tax seminars to do that.
Mayor Thomas reported on the Mosquito Lagoon meeting he
attended last week. One of their main concerns was
Edgewater's runoff going in there. But that is going to be
addressed in their proposed Evaluation and Appraisal
Report.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
There were no items on the Consent Agenda to be discussed.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2007-0-05, Sid Peterson
requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to include 79.18t acres of
land located south of the Taylor Road and Glencoe
Road intersection as Low Density Residential with
Conservation Overlay (lg. scale compo plan
Page 9 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
amendment) (1st Reading 4/16/07, Item 7C) cont.
from 8/13/07
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-0-05 into the record.
Development Services Director Darren Lear made a staff
presentation.
Glenn Storch, Law Firm of Storch, Morris & Harris, on
behalf of Sid Peterson, commented on working very closely
with staff on this. This was originally looked at as a
medium density residential development. It has been
reduced to a low-density residential development. It is on
very high land. It is a key component and key piece of the
area east of 1-95. He feels they have done a good job on
this one.
Councilwoman Lichter asked what would be the determining
factors if it were single lots verses mixed use. Attorney
Storch stated it is single and mixed. It will still have
the same density, one unit to four units per acre. It is
possible that because of the condominium market right now
that there may be no market for multi-family. The bottom
line is it may be better off to do it as a single-family
residential neighborhood. If they do that it will meet the
Land Development Code and will have 75-foot lots.
Mayor Thomas stated this is a high sand ridge. If you were
going to build a development this is the place to do it.
He asked if there were any wetlands or controversial lands.
Attorney Storch stated legally the area directly adjacent
to the shoreline might be considered wetlands. There is a
big borrow pit and the reason it was there in the first
place is because it was a high sand ridge.
Mayor Thomas asked about the possibility of the road going
south to Cow Creek Road. He asked if there was any
possibility of that to eliminate the traffic on Glencoe
Road. Attorney Storch stated there is always a
possibility. They set aside additional setbacks so that
may happen at some point in the future.
Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and
closed the public hearing and entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2007-0-05, Sid
Peterson requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Page 10 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Future Land Use Map to include 79.18+ acres of land located
south of the Taylor Road and Glencoe Road intersection as
Low Density Residential with Conservation Overlay, second
by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
B. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2007-0-06, Sid Peterson
requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 79.181 acres of land located south
of the Taylor Road and Glencoe Road intersection
as RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development)
and approval of associated RPUD Agreement for
Villas at the Lakes (rezoning) (1st Reading
4/16/07, Item 7D) cont. from 8/13/07
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-0-06 into the record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Glenn Storch, Law Firm of Storch, Morris & Harris, on
behalf of Sid Peterson, stated one of the advantages of a
PUD is that all the things they have talked about before
and all the things they have stipulated to are contained in
that agreement and that agreement is binding on the land
owner and even if the land owner sells on anyone else that
comes in.
Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing.
The following citizen spoke:
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, stated she just saw
three lakes on there. Originally there is one pit. She
asked if that is correct. She confirmed there would be
three lakes. Mayor Thomas asked if there is two or one out
there. Ms. Carlson asked what the blue things were. Mayor
Thomas stated he was talking about now. Attorney Storch
informed him those are existing lakes. The one in the
green is the big borrow pit and they don't own that. Mayor
Thomas confirmed it was owned by the State.
Ms. Carlson informed Attorney Storch that they don't have
any green space. Attorney Storch informed her it is
required in the PUD agreement. Ms. Carlson stated it's not
Page 11 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
a lot of green space. They've just got pits. She
suggested they call it Village of the pits.
Due to there being no further comments, Mayor Thomas closed
the public hearing and entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2007-0-06, Sid
Peterson requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map
to include 79.18+ acres of land located south of the Taylor
Road and Glencoe Road intersection as RPUD (Residential
Planned Unit Development) and approval of associated RPUD
Agreement for Villas at the Lakes, second by Councilwoman
Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
C. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2007-0-07, Glenn Storch
requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map to include 20.28I acres of
land located south of Two Oaks Drive and north of
27th Street as Low Density Residential with
Conservation Overlay (lg. scale compo plan
amendment) (1st Reading 4/16/07, Item 7E) cont.
from 8/13/07
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-0-07 into the record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Glenn Storch, Law Firm of Storch, Morris & Harris, on
behalf of Orner & Paulette Stull, stated this isn't an
enclave of residential development. The Comp Plan
amendment is to provide for residential development
identical to the joining residential developments
surrounding this. The intent was to fill in this enclave
with appropriate residential single-family use.
Mayor Thomas asked for Council comment.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the future development is
adjacent to a present one. Attorney Storch informed her it
was adjacent to Majestic Oaks.
Councilwoman Lichter asked Attorney Storch if he addressed
the concerns that were addressed by the gentleman that came
in when he was here last. Attorney Storch stated they are
Page 12 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
making certain that they have similar payments for the
sign. They are working with Majestic Oaks. Councilwoman
Lichter asked if he was near the archaeological mound.
Attorney Storch stated he wasn't aware of any Indian mound.
Councilwoman Lichter stated somebody has been messing
around with it and they shouldn't be.
Councilwoman Lichter wanted to go and see the proximity to
see this but she was sure they would honor whatever is
involved with the Indian mound back there. Attorney Storch
stated absolutely.
Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams if that was the
property he rode around with him on. City Manager Williams
informed him no, the property they road around on was south
of Roberts Road and the one that abuts Air Park Road.
Mayor Thomas asked for Council comment. There were none at
this time.
Mayor Thomas asked for public comment.
The following citizens spoke:
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, stated she thought when
this came up for first reading she asked about in the
middle of that there is a low area. She asked if they are
going to address that.
Ms. Carlson asked about the tortoises. She has pictures of
the tortoises that were there. She wanted to know if they
were killed or moved. Mr. Lear stated there hasn't been
any activity on that property. Ms. Carlson stated so they
should still be there.
Attorney Storch stated the low area in the middle has been
dealt with because the design of the subdivision literally
focuses it around that area and they have been working with
staff on that very issue. As far as the tortoises, there
should be no activity whatsoever. Those tortoises may only
be removed with a permit and may not be destroyed. He
assured Ms. Carlson they would not be destroyed.
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, asked how the
people from that development are going to get to U.S. #1.
Are they going to go through Majestic Oaks? When the
people bought in Majestic Oaks did they ever think that all
Page 13 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
of this traffic was going to cut through and destroy the
value of Majestic Oaks? She feels they have more and more
developments coming in this town that now is going to be
the ruination of this town. It seems if you want a
development to get in here, you get Mr. Storch, nothing
against Mr. Storch but he seems to get everything he wants.
She feels there is a slight conflict of interest with Mr.
Storch and the Mayor voting on anything that comes before
him if Mr. Storch is presenting it.
Attorney Storch stated as much as he admires the Mayor he
doesn't know of any conflict whatsoever with the Mayor
other than when he was a prosecutor twenty years ago the
Mayor was an officer for Florida Wildlife. That is when he
used to prosecute cases that he had to deal with. Mayor
Thomas informed him it was about thirty years ago.
Attorney Storch stated as far as Majestic Oaks operation
and as far as access, yes they have worked out another
access. Mr. Lear informed him through 27th Street.
Attorney Storch stated he knew Mr. Stull had been working
very closely with Majestic Oaks on resolving those issues.
Mayor Thomas asked how the traffic was going to proceed.
Mr. Lear informed him they had two access points, through
Majestic Oaks and also 27th Street.
Attorney Storch stated regarding his representations, he
tries to represent cases that he thinks are appropriate and
he does not take cases that he doesn't think are
appropriate. In this particular case, he can't imagine
anything more appropriate for an area than putting exactly
what is on three sides of this property and making sure it
is compatible. They have come up with a compatible design
that preserves the environmental areas and he thought Mr.
Stull had done a very good job.
There was no further public comment.
Mayor Thomas stated several comments were brought up and
one of them was the people in Majestic Oaks. Did the
people in Majestic Oaks think that was never going t be
built on? Did they bury their head in the sand? A
developer has certain rights. You have to have reasons to
vote no against these things. When he goes and jumps
through all the hoops with the State and the City and staff
recommends this, then he has to go with staff.
Page 14 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Mayor Thomas entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion to approve Ord. 2007-0-
07, Glenn Storch requesting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 20.28t
acres of land located south of Two Oaks Drive and north of
27th Street as Low Density Residential with Conservation
Overlay, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting
recessed at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
D. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2007-0-08, Glenn Storch
requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning
Map to include 20.28t acres of land located south
of Two Oaks Drive and north of 27th Street as R-3
(Single-Family Residential) (1st Reading 4/16/07,
Item 7F) cont. from 8/13/07
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-0-08 into the record.
Development Services Director Lear made a staff
presentation.
Glenn Storch, Law Firm of Storch, Morris & Harris, on
behalf of Orner & Paulette Stull, stated this is consistent
with the Comp Plan and the staff and Planning & Zoning
Board recommendations. DCA has also reviewed this and
determined this is an appropriate land use for this area.
Mayor Thomas asked for Council comments. There were none
that this time.
Mayor Thomas asked for public comment.
The following citizen spoke:
Ted Cooper, 3028 Mango Tree Drive, stated the piece of land
behind where they are going to develop was that
undevelopable or are they land locking it in. Why didn't
they take it all? Attorney Storch stated that piece is
owned by the Ford's and they don't want to sell right now
and they don't have to. It will not be landlocked in.
Page 15 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Eventually something will happen to it but he didn't know
when that would be because currently they have no plans.
Mr. Cooper stated so it still is a developable area.
Attorney Storch informed him it was.
Mayor Thomas entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2007-0-08, Glenn
Storch requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map
to include 20.28+ acres of land located south of Two Oaks
Drive and north ;f 27th Street as R-3 (Single-Family
Residential), second by Councilwoman Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
E. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2007-0-13, amendment to the
Land Development Code (LDC) to include Article
XIX (Adult Entertainment)
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-0-13 into the record.
City Attorney Ansay stated they were going to have
testimony from Development Services Director Darren Lear
and Police Chief John Taves. She asked Mayor Thomas to
allow her to swear them in so they are under oath since
this is going to be a quasi-judicial public hearing on this
particular ordinance, she feels that would be appropriate.
City Attorney Ansay swore in Mr. Lear and Chief Taves by
saying "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are
going to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth." They both agreed.
City Attorney Ansay stated they were going to
Mr. Lear before they went on to Chief Taves.
any questions, they will go from there.
start with
If there are
Darren Lear, Development Services Director for the City of
Edgewater, stated he has been with the City for
approximately eight years. He has a Bachelors Degree in
Geography from the University of Kentucky and has been
certified by the American Institute of Certified planners
since January 2005.
Mr. Lear stated staff reviewed the studies on secondary
impacts of locating adult businesses in neighborhoods and
Page 16 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
the impacts on property values, neighborhood values, and
neighborhood conditions. The studies they focused on were
Austin, Texas; Los Angeles, California; St. Paul,
Minnesota; Indianapolis, Indiana; Islip, New York;
Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York; Garden Grove, California;
Casselberry; Seminole County and an independent agency
report. Basically the studies provide statistical analysis
of the impacts of adult businesses on various aspects of
community condition and property values based on available
data. The studies also referenced consultations with
groups of real estate professionals who had specific
knowledge of the real estate market and who provided
opinions on business sales and neighborhood conditions.
From those studies it can be concluded that there is a
correlation between adult businesses and impairment of
property values. While this does not necessarily indicate
a decline in property values for businesses and residences
located near those businesses, a number of studies state
the appreciation of properties in those locations tended to
be less than the control groups that were located some
distance from the adult businesses. These studies also
showed a general finding that concentrations of adult uses
yielded a greater impact than individual uses. The impact
was reduced with distance from the adult businesses and, in
many studies, typically there would not be an impact on
properties three blocks away. The poorest neighborhoods
tended to attract adult uses and once there, the
neighborhoods showed accelerated decline. Adult businesses
tend not to be neighborhood businesses, but regional
businesses, i.e. customers of adult businesses generally
are not from the immediate area. The three areas shown on
the map as exhibits to the present ordinance constitute
approximately 14% of the total commercial and industrially
zoned lands within the City.
Mr. Lear then went over the setbacks for establishing new
adult entertainment businesses included in the ordinance.
John Taves, Police Chief for the City of Edgewater, stated
he was the Police Chief for the City of Edgewater. He has
just over 15 years of law enforcement experience and he has
a degree in Criminal Justice Technology.
Police Chief Taves stated he has reviewed and examined
studies conducted by other cities and counties in Florida,
as well as other states, of the secondary impacts of
locating adult businesses in residential areas. The cities
Page 17 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
and Counties in particular are Austin, Texas; Los Angeles,
California; St. Paul, Minnesota; Indianapolis, Indiana;
Islip, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Casselberry,
Florida; and Seminole County, Florida. There was also an
independent agency report. These studies show the impact
of adult entertainment as they relate to community
condition, property values, neighborhood conditions, and
criminal activity. He paid special attention to the
criminal activity. These studies were completed by
comparing the crime rate in residential areas to adult
entertainment areas. The data that was assembled from
these studies were put into two groups, Major Crimes and
Sex Related Crimes. The major crimes included homicides,
robbery, aggravated assault, burglaries, larcenies and auto
thefts. The sex related crimes included rape, indecent
exposure, obscene conduct, child molestation, adult
molestation and prostitution. In all cities, the crime
rate increased in major crimes and sex crimes in both
residential areas and adult entertainment areas. Some of
these increases are: Indianapolis - major crimes in adult
entertainment areas were 23% higher than residential areas.
Sex crimes in adult entertainment areas were 77% higher
than residential areas. Los Angeles - major crimes in the
adult entertainment areas roughly doubled the rate of the
rest of the city. Sex crimes in the adult entertainment
area increased by more than 45%. Austin, Texas - the crime
rate was 2 to 5% higher in both groups in the adult
entertainment area compared to the rest of the city.
Orange County, Florida - Law enforcement officers actually
observed and brought charges against people for dozens of
lewd acts. Their study states that the adult entertainment
industry has created a significant drain on the law
enforcement resources of the county. These are just a few
of the cities that have conducted studies on adult
entertainment. These studies recorded actual arrests and
crimes reported. There wasn't one city that reported that
the crime rate stayed the same or declined.
City Attorney Ansay stated with that, any questions that
they may have.
Councilwoman Lichter stated first of all, this information
was not given to them before the first vote. She didn't
know if that was irrelevant because when she was not for
having any in the City she was told that would be against
every freedom of business information and seventeen other
things, that you have to have a place. She assumes this
Page 18 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
was just put together later so they would be aware and
maybe they can make some qualifying impositions on this
type of business. She has been thinking of that anyway.
Maybe permits could be more money because they do damage
once they exist. She didn't know if the property on Park
Avenue was out far enough and if that might impact other
businesses that are there. She would like to put their
area in the boonies some place. She doesn't know the
circumstances of the lawsuits in New Smyrna but this is
very scary to her because she thinks it is so negative an
impact on our community. This is not just for Edgewater
people. This is for outsiders coming in. She isn't sure
at what point something that has such a negative, if that
isn't a legal point, impact on a community and proven so
has to be accepted in the community would be her first
question. She then asked if there are some ways to have
them pay for the damage they do through special taxation or
some qualification that they can tax.
City Attorney Ansay explained the adult entertainment
industry is highly protected by the Supreme Court of the
United States. Unfortunately cities are very limited in
what they can do in regulating that industry under the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What is before
council tonight is the most regulation they can put on that
industry without a court of law finding that it is
unconstitutional. They can restrict them to very small
areas within the City, which is what this ordinance does.
As it exists right now, they could have come in before
passage of this ordinance, and applied with the exception
of a residential area. In any commercial/industrial are it
would have been almost impossible for staff to restrict
them because they have to be allowed under law some place
to go. The law says if they have no ordinance in place
they have to let them go anywhere. Essentially, that is
what happened in New Smyrna. What this ordinance does, is
says now if you want to come into town the only possible
places they can go are certain places but they have to meet
all the burdens under the ordinance as well as any burdens
that would apply to any other business.
City Attorney Ansay stated as far as permit fees, there
certainly is an escalated permit fee in the ordinance.
There have been communities that have tried to level what
courts have ultimately deemed to be unreasonable permit
fees. They get to be so high the court feels they have
used the permit fee as a way of precluding them and again
Page 19 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
they find that contrary to the First Amendment. There has
been this long line of cases throughout the country over
the last 30 years where cities have attempted to do things
that they think will keep these businesses out of town. To
the degree this regulation or this ordinance does anything
to regulate these industries they have done enough that at
least it has been tested to this day. If they were to get
a business to come in and apply tomorrow and challenge what
they've got it's the best that exists. A court of law
might find it too restrictive, they might not. She
commented on this being about 14% of the available
commercial/industrial space. Courts have held that that is
a reasonable amount. If they relegate these businesses to
1%, courts have struck it down and said they have so
limited it that it's unconstitutional, it is prohibiting
their ability to operate at all. This was the ounce of
prevention. The City of Edgewater essentially didn't have
any ordinance on its books that effectively regulated this
industry. It doesn't let them in. This prohibits them
more than they had before from coming in. As many cities
have learned, if you don't have an ordinance in place now
they are going to be fighting on the back end and that gets
really expensive. The reason they heard the testimony they
did from the Chief and that was all the studies at the last
meeting they moved into evidence, the disk she had that she
wanted to become a part of the official record and she
would go on record again tonight. All of those studies and
all that information that served as the background for the
Council passing the ordinance are what allows them to pass
it. The Supreme Court says unless they have some evidence
to support these restrictions they are putting in place, if
they don't have that evidence in the record they couldn't
do it. That evidence is allowing them to do what they
have done here with regard to imposing additional
regulations on these types of businesses. There is nobody
right now that she knows of that is even contemplating
coming here. That is the whole point. They want to do it
ahead of time.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated this is the most extensive
ordinance she has ever seen. She stated they talk about an
adult booth. She asked if they could get around this
ordinance by calling it a closet instead of a booth. City
Attorney Ansay informed her no. She wanted to know how
much semantics come into this. City Attorney Ansay
informed her ultimately it's not really what the applicant
Page 20 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
would define it as. It would be what it would meet in
terms of the criteria in the ordinance.
Councilwoman Rhodes commented on having an issue with a
marquis. City Attorney Ansay stated she couldn't guarantee
that wouldn't happen but it wouldn't fly ultimately.
Councilwoman Rhodes referred to Page 27 - Annual Fees.
Having an outdoor area designed to permit viewing by
customers seated in vehicles. They are describing a drive-
in. City Attorney Ansay explained that has been placed in
there because there have been other places in the State of
Florida where occupants have been able to lawfully permit
that type of drive in theater. If that is indeed the case,
they have the ability to charge that fee. Councilwoman
Rhodes questioned being able to show porn on a drive in
theater. City Attorney Ansay stated if they have an adult
entertainment establishment that meets all the criteria, if
somebody thought that was a business decision and that is
how they wanted to create that adult entertainment
business, they could potentially do that. Councilwoman
Rhodes was concerned with it being seen by the public. She
asked about prohibiting this altogether. City Attorney
Ansay informed her they couldn't do that.
Councilwoman Lichter stated a particular Supreme Court may
not agree. Another composition of a Supreme Court thinks
differently. When the founding fathers wrote what they
wrote they certainly didn't have this in mind.
Mayor Thomas stated in the old Code there were three pages
and now they have 41 pages of rules set aside on how to
regulate these. They have asked City Attorney Ansay's firm
to do this and they are the experts in this. They
patterned it after other cities, which have worked.
Unfortunately in America you have certain freedoms you can
do. We are setting our rules up which they have to play
by. It is a very extensive set of rules. They are trying
to protect the citizens by doing so.
Mayor Thomas asked for public comment.
The following citizen spoke:
Pat Card, 3019 willow Oak Drive, stated there were
of terms in there that he wasn't going to Google.
commended the City for taking this step. He feels
Page 21 of 52
a number
He
it is a
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
proactive approach. If the Council wasn't worried and the
citizens weren't worried that they were going to be facing
this problem at some point in the future they should have.
Florida over the years has been pretty open about a lot of
things, everything from gambling to prostitution and rum
running and everything else. You've got to be proactive in
regard to this. You have to listen to the legal firm in
regards to this because this is an absolute zoo. He went
through the ordinance in detail and wasn't impressed in
detail. What did impress him was he didn't know how they
get by most of this stuff. He strongly commended them for
requesting it to be done and now he hopes they will go
ahead and pass it.
Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a
motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion to approve Ord. No. 2007-
0-13, amendment to the Land Development Code (LDC) to
include Article XIX (Adult Entertainment), second by
Councilwoman Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
F. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2007-0-14, proposing an
Amendment to the Charter of the City of Edgewater
providing for exceptions to the prohibition
against new building heights in excess of 35 feet
City Attorney Ansay read Ord. 2007-0-14 into the record.
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation.
Mayor Thomas asked for Council comments.
Councilwoman Lichter feels it covers what it intends to do.
She does not think as was suggested last meeting they
should divide each of these things up. She feels it is a
matter of before the fact explaining it clearly to the
public. It is clear in what it says. There are going to
be certain exceptions and there not going to be residential
buildings such as condos, which was the greatest worry.
She feels it is clear enough. It will hurt us economically
if they vote no.
Page 22 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with Councilwoman Lichter. If
they don't vote for it, then the voters decide how they
want their community. She doesn't have a problem with it.
Mayor Thomas stated it was put on the ballot last time
about the exceptions. He thought the point of it was the
condominium on the river. There was another amendment to
that where it allowed commercial and industrial and it was
sort of confusing to him. People told him it was
confusing. He is going to vote yes. If it gets shot down
again, he isn't going to vote to put it on the ballot
again.
Mayor Thomas asked for citizen comments.
The following citizens spoke:
David Ross, 2803 Needle Palm Drive, requested that in
whatever way they can legally and morally do that they
promote this amendment to the citizens between now and
November. They need to be proactive if they want this to
pass. The leadership of this City needs to be proactive in
promoting it. He requested they dot hat.
He would hope that the News Journal would find it in their
heart to rectify the gross mistake they made the last go
around and at least be kind enough to recommend approval of
this.
Dave St. Mire, 1914 Juniper Drive, stated this should never
have come to pass. This should have been put into the City
ordinances where it could be brought up for review
periodically and changed could be made. These people that
succeeded in getting this done this way were smart as a fox
because they knew it takes an act of Congress to get it
back out of there. He has it on good authority that if the
five permanent members, if each one of them would vote this
way, they could get it put back on the ballot to remove
this off of there and come back and do this in the right
way possible. The people that promoted this used scare
tactics. He commented on the revenue a condominium brings
into the City. He couldn't understand why they wanted to
vote it down. Instead people just don't' want this City to
make money, they want to keep it like it was in the 1950's.
They can't do that. The City is growing. They need more
police officers and other things in this City such as a
City Hall. If they keep stymieing growth, residential or
Page 23 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
business, then they aren't going to get this City off the
ground. This City is at a turning point. He feels the
Council ought to cast a vote and put this back on the
ballot and get it removed from this manner and put it back
through in the City ordinance like it should be.
Pat Card, 3019 Willow Oak Drive, agreed completely with
what was just said. He urged them to keep in mind that
there was only a difference of 160 votes between whether
this passed and whether it did not. If 160 people had
changed their minds or 160 people had been confused or 160
people had been mislead, out of the 20,000 citizens they
have in this community, this would have been different. He
would also suggest that they put the whole thing back on
the ballot and eliminate the 35 feet. He didn't know what
the study said about this but if it were done today and 160
people had changed their mind, they wouldn't have to be
worried about this.
Mr. Card stated two years ago they passed a law regarding
constitutional amendments to the State Constitution that
require a 60% super majority to pass a constitutional
amendment. This was the pregnant pigs issue that people
got concerned about. He recalled for such an amendment our
Charter. This would help alleviate the situation where 160
people bring a change like this. It would have taken
2,000.
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, ECARD, stated they did
not represent that petition. They are going to put this on
the ballot until it is shoved down the citizens' throats.
Nobody was misrepresenting this as only condominiums. She
has been misquoted by the paper and by Council. From now
on, she doesn't make quotes. She does not make statements
to the press.
Dominic Capri a , 606 Topside Circle, stated he is getting
sick and tired of people saying that the citizens don't
understand and that they were coerced. He told them to
stop calling the people dummies. They are not and they
know what they are doing.
Robert Lott, 2112 S. Riverside Drive, Economic Development
Board Chairman, thanked the Council and City staff for
taking the initiative to send a clear message out to the
outside community that we are business friendly, that we
want business in our community, that we want to have
Page 24 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
business to offset some of the tax burden for our
residents.
Perd Heeb, 115 N. Riverside Drive, stated neither of these
issues should have ever been in the Charter. They belong
in the Land Development Code and they should do everything
they can to get it back into the Land Development Code. As
far as the voters, when you go back and look at the
election, less than 20% of the registered voters of this
City spoke in that election. They need to get the rest of
the voters out. If they get a supermajority or a majority
of the rest of the voters voting this way then they can
throw in the towel. Until then he feels it should be on
the ballot every election until they get it out of the
Charter.
Linda Small, 1629 willow Oak Drive, asked what the process
is for applying for and being granted an exception and who
would that decision remain with.
City Manager Williams stated currently as it exists in the
Charter today there is no method by which exceptions to the
35-foot height amendment could be granted. Ms. Small
stated she understands we currently don't have a plan but
if this passes what do they envision the plan to be. If
she votes for this she wants to know how the exceptions are
going to be granted. Who is going to make that decision?
How is the formal process going to work? City Manager
Williams informed her they would refer to the Land
Development Code and those issues would be addressed there.
Ms. Small asked if they would have to modify the Land
Development Code. She was informed no. Ms. Small stated
it is in the Land Development Code as to how they get
exceptions to the Land Development Code. She asked who
approves those and if staff approves those.
City Attorney Ansay explained if you read the text of the
actual language that is going to go into the Charter below,
it basically says the 35-foot height limitation doesn't
apply to those particular uses described. It's not a
variance or a you've got to ask for process. It's from
that point forward 35 feet as was required to go into the
Land Development Code as a result of the Charter Amendment
then gets changed back to presumably what the maximum
building heights were prior to the 35-foot height
limitation being put in place on those particular uses. If
you read the section below 35 feet no longer applies. Ms.
Page 25 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Small stated that isn't what the top says. The top says it
will allow exceptions. City Attorney Ansay explained it
says should the Charter be amended to allow exceptions,
which means it would no longer apply. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated these things are the exceptions to the 35-foot
height limit. Ms. Small stated this is the problem they
have when they go to the voting booth. She asked if they
could make that clearer. She would not have known that.
They are reversing the 35-foot height limit except for
condominiums. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her they are
reversing the 35-foot height limit for commercial, publici
semi-public or industrial buildings. Ms. Small asked if
that is a permanent change in the land use and that they
wouldn't have to request an exception. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated if they wanted to go higher than 35 feet at this
point in time they would have to request a variance because
in our Land Development Code we have a 35-foot height
limit. City Manager Williams stated they would not be
allowed to exceed 35 feet. Councilwoman Rhodes clarified
she was saying if this passes. If this passes, in our Land
Development Code as it stands right now, do they not have a
35-foot height limit on everything? Ms. Small asked if
they would have to amend that. City Manager Williams
stated everything is not factual.
Mr. Lear explained if this was approved, they would revert
back to what they have in the Land Development Code
currently. The PUD's back in September 2006 those were a
35-foot max. They do have, say along u.S. 1, the B-3
zoning district, they have a 45-foot maximum height limit.
They would still have to meet what is in the Land
Development Code currently but they would be allowed to
meet that. Right now they can't go to 45 feet, which is
allowed per the Land Development Code because the Charter
says you've got to be 35 feet.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated most everything right now in the
Land Development Code is 35 feet. Mr. Lear stated except
for commercial and industrial. Councilwoman Rhodes stated
but their PUD's are all 35 feet. Mr. Lear confirmed that
was right. But they have 1-1, 1-2 Industrial that have
higher than 35 feet. Councilwoman Rhodes thought they were
changed to. Mr. Lear informed her no.
Mike Visconti, 316 Pine Breeze Drive, confirmed that hotel
was marked off. He wanted to speak about the latest
Page 26 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
petitions they would be talking about later on regarding
the density west of 1-95.
Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Visconti to wait until the
discussion on that item.
Councilwoman Rhodes felt a better word instead of
exemptions may be exceptions.
John Cordeiro, 1515 Pine Tree Drive, stated the thing that
upsets him more than anything about this whole thing that
is going on right now is that a group of people went out
and got all these petitions signed by the voters, the
taxpayers of this City, the people that really own this
City and the people that own this City voted and the City
should have to do what they voted on. He commented on it
taking a lot of work to get all of those petitions signed.
He doesn't think it is right. It sounds to him like this
City is becoming a dictatorship city. He feels they are
dictating to the people.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated the people are dictating to
them.
Councilwoman Lichter stated Dot Carlson at that workshop
they had was not against the concept when it came to
business. She did not speak against it. What they are
saying is that particular vote on changing it was
confusing, not what the original one was but to exempt
businesses became confusing. The way it is now it is
prohibited because they didn't define that better or maybe
they didn't think of it in the beginning. It's in terms
basically of residential now. You aren't going to have
business if they say nothing can be higher than 35 feet.
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, stated what she said at
the workshop was that if the people in Edgewater voted yes
for the City's and yes for hers, she didn't have a problem
with it. Originally, theirs, which is the original one,
was the amendment to limit the 35-foot height, all
buildings, across the board, no matter where. She did
debate with Bob Lott.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she would still stand by the
concept that people generally thought that was in terms of
condos did not really realize it meant a hospital or a
Page 27 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
business that had already gone through the permitting in
the Industrial Park or all these exceptions.
Ms. Carlson stated she supposed that was why that question
was on the ridiculous survey that the citizens had to pay
for where ECARD was mentioned. That was a waste of money.
David Ross, 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated where it reads
on the second line, Charter be amended. Would it be better
if it read Charter be amended to exempt business,
commercial, etc instead of using the word exceptions.
Should they be exempted?
Mayor Thomas asked who drew up the terms, the wordage.
City Manager Williams informed him staff along with City
Attorney Ansay. Mayor Thomas asked when it had to be in
by. City Manager Williams informed him they need action
tonight. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could change
that. Mayor Thomas informed her they didn't have the
opportunity. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could
change it tonight and vote on it tonight and would it still
be legal. City Attorney Ansay stated if they wanted to
make some amendments to the language to clarify what is in
there now, tonight they may do that and pass it as long as
it doesn't affect anything of substance. She thought they
could clarify that by perhaps instead of saying be amended
to allow exceptions for perhaps just saying to allow
heights in excess of 35 feet for business, while retaining.
Councilwoman Rhodes suggested they take the word exceptions
out of there. City Attorney Ansay felt the bottom part was
okay but she did see the point that using the word
exceptions can be confusing because people think special
exceptions and that process. Perhaps they just say should
the Charter be amended to allow heights in excess of 35
feet for business, commercial and then continue on
everything as it exists now. She will have to do a little
bit of addition though to make sure that by changing that
it does add a few words. She thought they had a few to
give. City Manager Williams informed her they were at 61.
City Attorney Ansay stated by law it has to be 75 words or
less but even that won't put them over.
Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. #2007-0-14 with
the small change in language, taking out the word
exceptions, second by Councilwoman Lichter.
Page 28 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
Mayor Thomas asked for a show of hands of how many people
wanted to keep it as is. He then asked how many people
would vote for this.
Gigi Bennington, 121 Virginia Street, wanted to hear it one
more time. She agreed completely with the way it was read.
She wanted to write it down. Mayor Thomas stated they
eliminated the word exception. City Attorney Ansay stated
they eliminated the word exceptions and inserted heights in
excess of 35 feet. Ms. Bennington agreed with what has
been said. She feels if the Council really wants this to
go through they have to take a proactive approach and
educate the people.
G. Resolution 2007-R-11, modify and restate the
Recreation/Cultural Services Board By-Laws to
decrease the number of members and a quorum
City Manager Williams informed Mayor Thomas they were
pulling this item from the agenda.
H. Resolution 2007-R-12, modify and restate the
Citizen Code Enforcement By-Laws for election of
officers and meeting time
Fire Chief Tracey Barlow made a staff presentation.
There were no comments from the Council.
Mayor Thomas entertained a motion.
Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Res. 2007-R-12,
modify and restate the Citizen Code Enforcement By-Laws for
election of officers and meeting time, second by
Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS
A. Planning & Zoning Board Appointment - nomination
by Councilwoman Rogers to fill a vacant seat due
to the resignation of Charlene Zeese
Page 29 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
This item was tabled until the next meeting due to
Councilwoman Rogers being excused from this meeting.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Consideration of OMT Development Corporation's
offer for purchase of ParkTowne fill
City Manager Williams made a staff presentation regarding
the offer made by James Kelsey. He has offered $3.50 per
cubic yard for the entire pile for a cost of $63,000. Mr.
Kelsey is responsible for moving it. He asked the Council
to take into consideration that this fill was offered to
perspective buyers free as an incentive to purchase and
develop land at ParkTowne. He provided to Council quotes
establishing market value of the shell if the City were to
go out and purchase it from Blue Ridge Sand Company at a
rate of $6.50 per cubic yard and from D & W Paving at a
rate of $12.00 per cubic yard. The offer on the table is
$3.50 recognizing the City made some promises to offer that
as an incentive for purchasing the property.
Mayor Thomas stated he didn't make no promises.
Councilwoman Lichter informed him past Council's did.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated it wasn't Council that did it,
it was the City Manager that did it.
City Manager Williams stated Mr. Mersino appeared before
Council requesting Council's consideration to fulfill those
obligations. Action was taken at that time to not
recognize those obligations.
Councilwoman Lichter asked about it being a first come,
first serve type thing and somebody didn't get any and
somebody got it all. Mayor Thomas stated somebody took
advantage of the situation. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed.
City Manager Williams stated Mr. Kelsey was in the audience
and wanted an opportunity to speak to Council.
James Kelsey, ParkTowne, Pullman Road, stated when he
purchased the property he came to the City and asked what
was going on. They pointed out the pile and told him that
it was free to the developers, first come first serve and
it was to be used as an incentive to get developers to come
in and buy property in ParkTowne. When it came down to the
pile getting small and he hadn't gotten his clearing permit
Page 30 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
yet he went to the City to find out what was going on. The
City Manager was nice enough to say the next two people in
line were Mr. Kelsey and Mr. Mersino and he suggested they
split the pile down the middle and he brought it before the
Council to see if that would be available. Council voted
it down and said they were going to sell it and that they
weren't giving anything away. The cost of fill today is
mostly in the trucking. He is buying that fill in place
and he has to truck it off his own property. These quotes
they got he believed were delivered to the property. City
Manager Williams informed him it was if the City were to
haul using our own equipment.
Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Kelsey who told him he could have
the shell. Mr. Kelsey informed him it was almost two years
ago. He knew the City's Assistant City Manager was at the
meeting and heard it.
Mr. Kelsey stated he wasn't there begging. If they don't
want to sell it to him then don't sell it to him.
Mayor Thomas stated unfortunately they have gone through
some things that they could not foresee. The tax reform
from Tallahassee and budget restraints and all sorts of
things. He was sure if they could fulfill that obligation
and he believed it was probably given to him verbally he
would do that. Under these undue restraints, they can not
do it anymore. He feels it wouldn't be right to do it for
him and not do it for somebody else.
Mr. Kelsey stated not do what? Sell it to him. Mayor
Thomas stated sell it to him yes. Mr. Kelsey said or give
it to him. Councilwoman Rhodes stated you're not going to
sell it to him. Mayor Thomas stated he's not. He is
speaking for himself.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated price could be negotiated.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she was confused. She asked if
they promised this man fill and now they are saying they
have to sell it to him. Mr. Kelsey stated and he is saying
he will buy it and they are saying they don't want to sell
it to him.
City Manager Williams stated he's presented an offer to
purchase the fill. In talking to Mr. Kelsey and Mr.
Mersino there were some representations that were made by
Page 31 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
the City, prior to him sitting in the capacity as City
Manager, that offered this fill as an incentive. Nothing
reduced to writing and nothing in the contract for sale of
the property. That is why they brought this to council for
consideration several months ago. That is when they said
to Mr. Kelsey and Mr. Mersino they would divide up the
existing pile and let Council take action and then they
were done and the issue would become moot.
Councilwoman Lichter stated and now we are trying to sell
it to him. City Manager Williams stated he has come back
and said if they won't give it to him he would be happy to
buy it at $3.50 per cubic yard.
Councilwoman Lichter stated but they were going to give him
half of it. Mr. Kelsey stated but the Council voted it
down. He wasn't going to get it for free like he thought
but It's the closest fill to his property. Trucking is a
big expense. He commented on what it would cost to get it
delivered.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if they are talking about half
of it now and if the other businessman got the other half.
She asked if he didn't want it. Mr. Kelsey informed her he
gave up. He put a big for sale sign on his property. He
quit. Mr. Kelsey hasn't quit yet. This has not been a
pleasant situation.
Mayor Thomas asked Councilwoman Rhodes if she had anything
to say. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if she had her way, she
would give Mr. Kelsey the shell. Mr. Kelsey thanked her.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated in the spirit of incentives to
get the industrial park developed the same as you would
provide tax relief for new businesses that want to come in
and give them different incentives to locate in your City.
They did that. While it's not paying off quite yet, ten
years down the road everybody in the room is going to be
thrilled to death that they did it. Since there is such a
large discrepancy between the $3.50 and the next lowest
bid, which is $6.50, she asked Mr. Kelsey if he would
consider splitting the difference with the City and paying
like $5.00 per cubic yard. Mr. Kelsey stated he would have
to talk to his partner. He asked the City Manager what he
should bid if he was going to bid and he informed him they
had turned down $3.00 per yard so Mr. Kelsey came up with
$3.50. This is money he is going to spend prior to his
construction loan so it is money out of his pocket and he
Page 32 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
doesn't have a lot of money. To come up with $63,000 is a
lot of money for him to do it early in the process.
Councilwoman Rhodes agreed and stated he was told he could
have this. Mr. Kelsey stated he is willing to do it at
this point because it is stupid not to at least ask and be
mad at the City and walk away and tell them to keep their
fill. He might as well just try to cut a deal and pay the
$20,000 to move it to his property and get one step further
to development, otherwise he will wait.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the City would be moving it
to his property. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her he would
be moving it. Mr. Kelsey again commented on having to pay
$20,000 to get it to his property.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the City has means to move
it. City Manager Williams stated the City has the
capability of moving it. He feels we are limited in our
resources to the extent that by us obligating ourselves to
move that shell with our equipment we would probably suffer
in other areas of maintenance throughout the City.
Councilwoman Rhodes commented on what they have been
through with the shell and it driving them insane. Mr.
Kelsey stated the guy that got the last amount of shell
actually took shell away. He took it to other properties.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated as soon as the Mayor calls for a
motion she would vote to sell him the shell for $3.50 per
cubic yard.
Mayor Thomas asked if anyone was present from Public Works.
Due to Ms. Dewees leaving, Mayor Thomas asked Mike Tenney
to come forward.
Mike Tenney, Public Works, stated he didn't know anything
about what the gentleman was promised. They use shell. If
they have to buy it, it costs us $6.50 and they have to pay
somebody to haul it. He questioned why they would want to
sell it less than what we pay for it. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated because he was promised that it was free. She feels
when they tell somebody something they should live up to it
and they aren't. Mr. Tenney again commented on having to
pay $6.50 per yard for shell. Councilwoman Rhodes asked
why he is buying shell when they can go over there and get
it. City Manager Williams informed her currently he is
Page 33 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
not. Councilwoman Rhodes stated so the City can use this
shell. City Manager Williams confirmed the City has the
ability to use that shell. Once the shell is sold then as
the City's needs arise for the shell then the City would
have to pay the going rate at $6.50.
Councilwoman Lichter stated and they voted to sell it
instead of give it to the man in the past already. City
Manager Williams again commented on bringing back an offer.
Mr. Mersino and Mr. Kelsey were both in the audience and
said there were some representations, that he wasn't aware
of, that were made to these individual buyers. They asked
Council if they wanted to honor those verbal promises. The
decision was made at that point not do so and to pursue
selling. They received an offer at $3.00 per cubic yard.
They turned it down. Mr. Kelsey's offer came in and he
felt it was necessary to bring it back for Council's
consideration.
Councilwoman Lichter stated so he has made a legitimate
offer. He has decided it is a good deal financially if he
has made an offer. He hasn't said the City made a deal and
hasn't lived up to it. Apparently it is cheaper than if he
had to buy it. He has agreed on and come forth with $3.50.
City Manager Williams stated he clearly indicated that
there were representations made prior to him sitting in the
capacity of City Manager that this would be given to him
free of charge. Councilwoman Lichter asked City Manager
Williams if he had checked to see if that was so.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated Liz was here and admitted to it.
City Manager Williams stated it was their recommendation to
resolve the issue by dividing it down the middle and giving
Mr. Mersino and Mr. Kelsey each half.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked how much shell the City uses.
City Manager Williams stated there is approximately 18,000
to 20,000 cubic yards of shell that is remaining on that
site. We maybe took 5,000 cubic yards and we've got that
at our disposal. There was probably 20,000 cubic yards or
better put on one piece of property. Councilwoman Rhodes
stated she would like to get a hold of that guy. Mr.
Kelsey asked City Manager Williams if he personally
recommended to Council that they give him this fill. City
Manager Williams stated it was not him. Mr. Kelsey asked
who it was. City Manager Williams informed him it was
prior to him. Mr. Kelsey informed City Manager Williams
Page 34 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
that he as the manager offered to split. City Manager
Williams informed him that was what they brought back to
Council eight months ago. Mr. Kelsey stated he previously
asked him to give him the fill. City Manager Williams
confirmed that was correct.
Councilwoman Lichter believes
incentive offer to come here.
did that. Because you change
change your mind.
this man was made an
Liz sat here and said she
administrations, you don't
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion that they give as
promised to Mr. Williams the remaining 18,000 plus or minus
yards of fill. She corrected it and said that they give to
Mr. Kelsey.
Councilwoman Lichter then restated her motion to be that
they give to Mr. Kelsey as promised to him as an initiative
to place his business in our industrial park the 18,000
plus or minus yards of shell.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she wasn't going to second it.
She agreed with Councilwoman Lichter that they should live
up to what they say. She also has a responsibility to the
taxpayers. Since he offered the $3.50, she was going to
make a motion that they sell it to Mr. Kelsey for the $3.50
per cubic yard.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if the Mayor wishes to second
her motion can he pass the gavel to another member sitting
there. City Attorney Ansay informed her if he wished to
second, he could do that.
Mayor Thomas didn't wish to second Councilwoman Lichter's
motion. Her motion DIED due to the lack of a second.
Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion that they sell the shell
for $3.50 per cubic yard to Mr. Kelsey.
Councilwoman Lichter had a question on the motion. She
asked if she voted no what would happen because it would be
a two to one vote with three people. City Attorney Ansay
informed her it would pass.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she wasn't going to second it.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated when the rest of the Council is
Page 35 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
here this man is going to come back at $3.50 and he isn't
going to get the shell.
Mayor Thomas suggested they table the item until they have
a full Council and bring it back up for consideration at
that point in time.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she wasn't going to go against
what she believed was the right thing.
City Manager Williams informed Mayor Thomas he could also
pass the gavel and second the motion. Mayor Thomas stated
he didn't intend to second it.
The MOTION DIED due to the lack of a second.
Mayor Thomas asked if they needed a motion to postpone that
to the next meeting. City Manager Williams stated he would
think it would do it justice to bring it back when they
have a full Council. He recommended they table this item
for the next available agenda and bring it back for
discussion at that point in time.
Mayor Thomas asked if he heard a motion to that affect. He
asked if they needed a date certain. City Manager Williams
suggested September 10th.
Councilwoman Lichter moved that they table this subject
until the next City Council meeting.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated she wasn't going to second it.
She felt they needed to decide it now.
Mayor Thomas asked whom he should pass the gavel to. He
passed it to Councilwoman Rhodes and seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mayor Thomas what motion he was
seconding. Mayor Thomas informed her Councilwoman
Lichter's. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that died for lack
of a second. She informed Mayor Thomas he didn't need to
pass the gavel and suggested Councilwoman Lichter make her
motion again.
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion to give to Mr. Kelsey
the shell that was promised to him verbally as the
initiative to put his business in Edgewater's Industrial
Park, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
Page 36 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
The MOTION CARRIED 2 -1. Mayor Thomas voted NO.
City Manager Williams felt they needed some clarification
on this issue in terms of that motion. Recognizing what
was promised to Mr. Kelsey and what was owed to him that
does not represent the total remaining shell there.
Councilwoman Lichter asked if he needed the amount of
yards. City Manager Williams stated the previous
recommendation they came forward with was to split the
remaining pile up between Mr. Kelsey and Mr. Mersino. That
was the recommendation he made to Council approximately
eight months ago. They have just taken action to give Mr.
Kelsey what he was promised. Further clarification of that
would help in regards to does he go back and split that
down the middle and give the other portion to Mr. Mersino
and they address that situation or does Council intend with
that motion to give Mr. Kelsey the full 18,000 cubic yards.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated he was promised half of that
pile. He should half of that pile. If he wants the rest
of it he should pay for it.
Mr. Kelsey informed her that was all he needed. When he
was promised the fill he needed about 18,000 yards. When
it came to be his time there was only 18,00 yards. The
City Manager was nice enough to say they could split it
down the middle.
City Manager Williams suggested they amend the original
motion. He would love the opportunity to re-approach Mr.
Mersino to try to resolve that issue as well.
Mr. Kelsey stated when this happened to Mr. Mersino stopped
his project and put a for sale sign on it.
Councilwoman Lichter asked City Attorney Ansay where they
were at. City Attorney Ansay stated her understanding of
the motion was that they give the gentleman the fill as
promised. She thought the clarification presented by the
Manager was that what was promised was actually half of
18,000. 9,000. The motion already was to go ahead and
give 9,000 but she feels it would be important to go ahead
and follow up with a further motion that would clarify that
again since they are giving 9,000 cubic yards that they
Page 37 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
would authorize the sale of the remaining 9,000 cubic yards
for the price determined by Council.
Councilwoman Lichter stated she would like to make a
motion. City Clerk Wadsworth asked if she needed to amend
the other motion. Councilwoman Lichter stated she was
getting rid of the other one.
City Attorney Ansay stated her understanding of the
original motion was that the motion was to give the fill as
promised. She didn't say give 18,000 cubic yards. What
was promised was 9,000 cubic yards. She didn't think this
conflicted with the original motion.
Councilwoman Lichter stated it is clarified by stating that
it is 9,000 cubic yards that he is getting free and that if
he wishes to buy the other 9,000 yards he will pay $3.50
per cubic yard for it and haul it himself, second by
Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 2 -1 .
There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting
recessed at 9:40 and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
B. Agreement with SunGard H.T.E. Inc. for
Application Service Provider which will replace
the AS400 hardware with an Internet based system
allowing faster and more reliable access to data
Tim Sopko, IS Department, made a staff presentation.
City Manager Williams stated the current AS400 that we have
is in need of upgrading the operating system. They are
upgrading from Windows to Windows XP Professional. It is
now necessary for us to pay to upgrade the operating
system. In looking at transitioning to the ASP solution
verses paying the upgrade they are seeing an actual savings
of about $400 by doing so. The other thing this will allow
and it hasn't affected us this year is disaster recovery or
evaluation. They will see continuous operations.
Mr. Sopko explained all they would need to access their
programs would be access to the Internet. Lots of savings
other than what is obvious. He spoke about having to come
in at 5 a.m. on Sunday mornings to do upgrades. It will
save them doing that because they will take care of that
Page 38 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
for them. They have been talking about this for three or
four or five years and because the bandwidth has gotten so
inexpensive and so reliable, he feels comfortable doing
this. He would like to see this happen. It would save us
money any which way but loose.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated aside from saving money, she
likes that it is accessible anywhere. Mr. Sopko does too.
Mr. Sopko explained during the planning session they had a
few months ago for disaster recovery it was stated they
would need another AS400 for a backup. This resolves all
those issues. This takes care of the fact that they won't
need any. He feels H.T.E. is trustworthy and a good
company.
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion to approve the Agreement
between the City and H.T.E. for ASP services and authorize
the Mayor or the City Manager to execute the agreement
documents, second by Councilwoman Rhodes.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
C. Discussion relating to the petition circulated by
ECARD for an amendment to the Edgewater City
Charter regarding residential density West of 1-
95 (1 unit per 20 acres)
City Attorney Ansay made a staff presentation.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they had 1829. Ms. McFall
discounted 300. She confirmed that City Attorney Ansay was
saying there were 340 out of the 1529 that were invalid or
could be construed as invalid. City Attorney Ansay
confirmed that was correct. She clarified they have a
pretty good idea because they are only provided the
petitions and Ann McFall's office literally writes on them
ineligible and things like that. There's not a lot of
sophistication to how this is done. At least what was
presented to her. What she was given was 1800 sheets of
paper with stuff scratched on them and had to somewhat come
up with her conclusion as to whether these total were the
300 she deemed ineligible. She took the ones that were
marked ineligible and set them aside. They looked at all
the ones that appeared to be eligible. From the ones that
appeared to be eligible they counted 340. She doesn't want
to conclude that she might not have ticked off a few of
Page 39 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
those in that batch. The numbers were so great that I
certainly wouldn't have come close to meeting if even if
you took the best-case assumption.
Councilwoman Lichter stated when City Attorney Ansay says
there's parties that could use this information this is a
case, your talking about the developers that are on the
other side of 1-95 of whom, there were two developers, that
we had met previously for a year with when we were
contemplating their projects. We had workshops. We had
people come from the audience. Those developers would have
a very substantial reason if we were breaking the rules
about the election. City Attorney Ansay explained she is
referring to the fact that there are only a handful of
landowners west of 1-95. She thinks the people who are
affected are going to view this as somehow affecting their
property value and she would assume when they are trying to
do something that is contrary to what this measure directs,
the easiest course of action is the rules says I can't do
this I've got to attack the way in which the rule was put
into place. There are very strict procedures by which this
is done. The way they would subject the City to a lawsuit
would be that that the City put something on the ballot
that did not have the required number of valid signatures
because several hundred of those signatures were signed
prior to the election in 2006 and since the paper they
signed says put this on the ballot at the next general
election and that election came and went you can't assume
they wanted it on this year's election or next year or the
year after that. That isn't something she is wildly coming
up with. There are very few appellate cases in the context
of Charter Amendments. This happens to be one and it's
dead on with what we've got here. It could not be more
factually specific. In that opinion, they said we support
the notion that they are invalid. The language on the
petitions in Pinellas County was almost identical word for
word what they have here.
Mayor Thomas stated they started out with 1829. Ann McFall
violated 300. That left us with 1529. City Attorney Ansay
went through them and saw that 340 had signed the petition
prior to the last election. So now we are at 1189. He
asked the magic number they need to come up with. City
Attorney Ansay informed him 1450. Mayor Thomas asked how
long they have to do that. City Attorney Ansay informed
him it's difficult because the procedure is that this
Council has to pass a resolution forwarding on to Ann
Page 40 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
McFall the directions that this is to be placed on the
ballot. The deadline is September 7th for the resolution to
be passed by. There is no other Council meeting between
now and that point in time.
Mayor Thomas confirmed that if this does go on the ballot
and does pass, that it would not affect the Reflections
subdivision that they have already approved. City Attorney
Ansay informed him they would have very sound arguments
that they are vested and that they would not be subject to
this. There is one pretty important distinction. If
you've got approved PUD agreements in place certainly they
are vested. There does become a huge question when there
is some desire to change the PUD agreement or amend it in
any way that would in any way deal with density issues.
Those would be precluded. The rule isn't that they are
vested forever and they can change anything about that PUD
agreement even though this has been put in place. What
the law would say is yes they are vested but if they wanted
to take some multi-family units and turn them into more
residential units, that would affect density and she feels
that would arguably be prohibited. Otherwise Reflections
would be vested.
Councilwoman Lichter commented on the time frame and she
didn't know if they had the possibility of getting enough
signatures. Otherwise, she can't see going against the
legality of the thing but maybe they have enough time to
get the difference in signatures.
City Attorney Ansay commented on the timing being
difficult. She commented on representing a group back In
2004 that was trying to get a measure on the ballot to
amend the Charter and they got their signatures months
ahead of time because they knew these types of issues come
up. She advised them they couldn't wait until the last
minute and expect everything to work and expect to get it
on the ballot with one meeting's time. However they worked
and got things in line months beforehand but then Hurricane
Frances and Hurricane Jeanne both hit and the City
cancelled three regular Commission meetings and they wanted
her to sue the City because they thought the City should
have been forced to have those meetings. The answer was
no. Unfortunately for them it was just an unfortunate turn
of events and there was no way to make that happen so they
had to wait until the next cycle to get it on. She spoke
of having to deal with County time frames as well as action
Page 41 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
the City has to take and ECARD is out trying to get
signatures trying to make this happen.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated if they could get their
signatures and get it certified they could always call a
special meeting. City Attorney Ansay informed her they
could do that and have enough time between now and
September 7th if that was the will of the Council.
Mayor Thomas thought there would be a lot of public input
so he asked City Attorney Ansay if he could direct the
questions to her because she seemed to be the knowledgeable
one. City Attorney Ansay informed him she represents the
Council so whatever they would like her to do she would be
happy.
Mayor Thomas asked for citizen comments.
The following citizens spoke:
Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD, read
a letter into the record that was submitted on behalf of
ECARD Inc.
Mike Visconti, 316 Pine Breeze Drive, stated this petition
he believes is mistake number two. They are already trying
to rectify mistake number one. He really didn't know how
responsible this group is since they are so anti-
development. They are killing our fair City. There have
been articles in the newspaper relating to the financial
crisis of Edgewater is finding itself and yet they have
passed the 35 foot minimum height limit, continued to fight
every developer and every idea for revenue. Another
petition to stop yet another project and therefore
additional revenue for the City and its taxpayers. He has
stated previous articles the City of Edgewater throughout
this petition this group has turned down hundreds of
millions of dollars for our City. The new petition to tax
the growth west of 1-95. If anybody sees the Fox News,
there is a segment called the most ridiculous item of the
day. This is ridiculous. The Alliance wants to stop the
growth west of 1-95 and limit the size to twenty acres per.
This is really ridiculous. He was sure there are
compromises in the offering and planning and zoning has the
area designated for certain types of commercial development
as well as various residential zones such as multi-family
and single family. The communities are planned so you
Page 42 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
buffer commercial with heavier density multi-families to
lower density to smaller single family lots to larger
single family lots. Why should the normal standard be
modified by Charter when zoning changes are possible from
anywhere from 60 to 100 foot lots to ~ acres, ~ acres to 1
acre or to five acres and up to 20 acres for those who
might like to raise horses. Green space became the design
for larger projects for this density. Regarding the
specification development the developer has stated that 43%
of the land would be preserved. This project's location
would not be any burden to Edgewater alone. The traffic
will not come in to Edgewater because Edgewater doesn't
have anything to offer where they are going to build a city
within a city. He feels Edgewater would be going to that
city to do their shopping. He suggested they allow the
project go through the normal steps and become a reality
and not to change the Charter as a way to prevent possible
other projects from going forward.
Dave St. Mire, 1914 Juniper Drive, stated here we go again.
Mistake number two. This should not be taking place. This
should not be permitted. The City Attorney should find
some legal way to get around this. What it is is an insult
that 10% of this population of this City is telling the
rest of them that they aren't supposed to put their trust
in the Council to make these decision for them, not 10% of
the City. He couldn't understand why someone would want to
annex that amount of property into the City and then sit
there and only want one building per twenty acres. He has
been here for 43 years and he has watched the City grow.
He guaranteed that not one member of ECARD has been here
near the length of that time. How dare they tell those
that grew up in this City how to run this City and what the
officials should do in this City. They need to raise the
percentage rate to get something like this not possible.
One thing is that that can be voted on or changed very
easily. 10% of the City can put it on there and 10% of the
City can take back it off. He suggested they figure out a
way to do this. This is not what the City Charter was
meant for. This is what Planning & Zoning and the other
building things are done for. This is ridiculous to have
to waste time trying to fight something like this.
Dave Ross, 1703 Needle Palm Drive, wanted to put a
different spin on the situation. This is not about growth
or no growth. What this is about is trying to get control
of how we grow. He remembered the Planning & Zoning Board
Page 43 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
and not one time has a developer come to the Board and
asked how the City would like to develop that piece of
property. The man stood right here and said that is the
reason he was standing here. To invite the City to tell
him what they would like to see done with that property.
No. What happens in the State of Florida and what is
starting to happen here now because the big money is here.
The normal process is they spend millions of dollars to
come up with all these plans and then they shove it down
the City's throat. If the City thinks the Planning &
Zoning Board or the City Council will say no to his plans,
they are mistaken. The cities and municipalities in the
State of Florida that have had the highest growth rate have
increased the rate of taxation way beyond the others that
have grown slowly. They are talking about 100% increase in
this City's population in a very short time. He doesn't
think for a minute that if this ballot passes, this
amendment should pass, that it will be restricted to 1 to
20. There is recourse but the recourse will require the
developer to say Edgewater what would you folks like us to
do, which he hasn't heard them ask yet and he would like
for the City to be asked and have an opportunity to tell
them. He isn't anti growth but he is pro control of how we
grow and he feels we don't have any control.
Pat Card, 3019 willow Oak Drive, stated they needed to get
back to the basic question. They are dealing with people
with a lot of money. They have already committed out there
something over $130,000,000. They are talking about a
development out there that will probably generate somewhere
around $5 billion in revenue when it builds out. If they
think that they've got the finances available because every
one of the legal firms that the City will hire will tell
them they will fight this. They will fight those people
with those big deep pockets out there west of 1-95 if you
do this tonight. They will fight that until the City has
spent the last penny of its treasury. They will take it to
the wall for the City because quick money makes fast
friends with attorneys. That is the bottom line here.
Mr. Card stated on the other hand if the City does decide
that this doesn't go on the ballot tonight, ECARD has the
opportunity to go to their legal firm who drafted this and
ask them why they didn't do this and threaten to sue them.
Now, how deep are their pockets?
Page 44 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Dominic Capria, 606 Topside Circle, stated he is not
against growth. He looks at it that this City has gone in
debt, not because of petitions. The growth that we are
going to get as been said before, name a City that went up
in growth where their taxes went up. They can't name one
where there taxes went down because of schools, police,
fire, you name it. With that kind of growth we're not
getting any industry in and they aren't going to get any
industry in out by 1-95. He is for growth but for smart
growth.
Gigi Bennington, 121 Virginia Street, stated she has been
in the City since 1976. She has sat on Council. She has
seen the City when it was less than 3,000 people. This
issue has been an issue in Edgewater constantly. When she
was on the Council, they were accused of being in builder's
pockets. It's the same story allover again. She
encouraged the council to do what is in the best interest
of this City. They have to take control of this and make
decisions. She wants to see Edgewater like it was when she
moved here but she knows this isn't a possibility. She
also wants to see their taxes what they were when she moved
here. She also knows this is not a possibility. The only
way they are going to achieve this is through smart,
managed growth. This petition is not going to allow that.
If there is any doubt in their mind in the legal advisory
as to whether this will stand up in court, she asked them
to take a second and think about it before they put it on
the ballot and then have to go back and do it again and
again. She asked the Council to please think about it.
Linda Small, 1629 Willow Oak Drive, added that she thinks
what it comes down to really is rolling the dice legally.
Which is the path of least resistance and pain? The
decision they make tonight could be a mess that they hand
down for many City Councils to come. If people have
invested $130,000,000 west of 1-95, you know they aren't
walking away without a fight. She feels if they follow the
law and the precedent that is the path of least resistance
as far as she can see it. That is the best shot of winning
legally based on what they have said tonight. The
difference between fighting one lawsuit, maybe, or four
people or five developers with deep pockets, the obvious
one is go for the one. That is the path of least
resistance. She wished Council luck in making that
decision. She isn't anti-growth and if she owned that
property out there she would resent people telling her how
Page 45 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
she could develop it other than the standards that she has
to already comply with in the community. That has always
been the way it is. Other people like to control other
people's property. She informed Mr. Capria if he wanted to
see a community that has grown and reduced taxes, he just
has to go to New Smyrna Beach.
Chris Balmer, 148 William Street, agreed with Ms. Carlson.
The Council has a duty this evening. It is pretty clear to
him that there aren't enough signatures to put this on the
ballot. He doesn't think it matters what it says. It's
not legal. It's going to be challenged. We can't afford
to have it challenged. He feels the answer is pretty
simple.
Ted Cooper, 3028 Mango Tree Drive, agreed with his esteemed
colleague. If the ballots can be contested, they are
already in a lawsuit. Keep it simple. Follow the law. If
those signatures are invalid, it shouldn't be up there.
It's as simple as that.
Mayor Thomas informed Ms. Carlson she already had her three
minutes. Ms. Stoughton stated she would yield her three
minutes to Ms. Carlson. Mayor Thomas informed her too bad.
Bill Glasser, 1703 Needle Palm Drive, asked when this
property was in the County, what did the County zoning
allow on the property? Was it 291 residents or whatever?
In the City's Comprehensive Plan what is that property out
there shown as? It is shown as the City's aquifer recharge
area. Why would anybody want to pave over their recharge
area? This is just another spin. It really doesn't have
anything to do with whether this is legal, illegal or
whatever. He doesn't understand from a logic standpoint
why when you have a Comprehensive Plan that shows an area
as being a recharge area and you are hell bent to pave it
over, 45% of it is supposedly wetlands and the way you
mitigate wetlands is you go buy some property up in Crane
Swamp or some place up yonder where nobody is going to
build.
Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated it has
been told to her by Dot Carlson that the start date was in
May of 2006 for the petitions and as far as Ms. Carlson is
concerned it is legal. She has a few minutes left and if
Ms. Carlson would like to tell her what to say. This is
not Russia. They had a start date of May. She urged the
Page 46 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
City to carefully look into it. There are many more people
out there that signed their petitions and they held them
back. This is more than the required amount. The people
here have spoken. Not the idiots in the town that they
think have signed the petition. The people have spoken,
not the developers. The people, the taxpayers.
Jack Hayman, 3003 Travelers Palm Drive, County Councilman,
stated he is familiar with the petition and he is familiar
with the question before the house tonight. He stated the
argument here is moot because the election will be held in
2008, not 2007. Everyone that signed these petitions
agreed to have it held in the next general election. This
election in November 2007 will not be the general election.
The Council can save their argument and doesn't have to
worry about being sued. They have discussed this with not
only the Supervisor of Elections but their legal staff.
Their legal staff is as concerned as he is about the fact
that they have citizens who have exercised their right to
sign a petition to have something happen in their
government. He supports that. He feels that is a healthy
thing for our community to do. He doesn't agree with what
they are asking for but that isn't the point. The point is
the process and they have a right to do that. On that
petition it says for the next general election. He agreed
with counselors interpretation of those some 340
signatures. His simple math says Ms. Carlson and her
corporation need 261. Between now and the 2008 general
election he was sure she could get 261 more petitions. The
issue here is not what is going to happen this November.
This question is going to be decided in 2008. That is what
his legal staff says and he is representing those interests
and he also represents the citizens in Volusia County.
Mayor Thomas expressed his confusion with what Mr. Hayman
said about the general election wordage. He asked City
Attorney Ansay to explain that.
City Attorney Ansay explained beyond the issue she
presented to Council tonight there are a number of other
legal questions that she thinks question the validity of
the petitions that have been signed. Because the language
says put this on the ballot at the next general election,
forget the ones that were signed last year before the
election. The ones that were signed from November 2006
forward through today, because it says put it on the ballot
at the next general election, under State law General
Page 47 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
elections are defined as elections that occur in even
number years. We have city elections this year. We can
call them City General, we can cal them general but State
law already defines what general elections are and those
are in even numbered years. She feels it is the opinion of
the County Attorney that even if they had 10,000 signatures
now the fact that those petitions all say put it on the
ballot at the next General election that means 2008. That
is certainly another very valid point. As lawyers, they
look to the Statutes and the Case law and there are no
cases directly on point interpreting that opinion. There
is a clear case on point interpreting the issue she raised
earlier. She again commented on the opinion of the County
Attorney and this being another argument why this should
not be placed on the ballot now. There were a lot of
comments about the substance of this petition. How it
affects quite frankly one landowner. Florida law prohibits
the use of the referendum process to target one landowner.
When you see quotes in the paper by the organization that
has promoted this and hear comments that this is an attempt
to get one landowner. Florida law is very clear. You
cannot use the referendum process to get something on the
ballot that affects five or fewer parcels, five or fewer
landowners. If it is a global policy decision than they
want to allow the citizenry to change that policy in four
cities to put it into practice. If it is an attempt to get
one guy, the law says that is where we draw the line. Here
they've got that issue as well. She encouraged the Council
not to focus on who this is getting and who this isn't
getting. That isn't the issue. If that is the issue they
have got bigger problems. The issue is whether or not this
is lawfully to be placed on the ballot because they have
enough valid signatures saying to put it on this election.
Mayor Thomas stated the definition of general election is
going to be the election in 2008. City Attorney Ansay
informed him that's correct or 2006 had they gotten enough
signatures.
Mayor Thomas asked if there are any other landowners out
there west of I-95 besides Restorations at this point.
City Attorney Ansay informed him yes. There are a handful
of others. Some of them are already essentially affected
by. They are already granted a PUD so they are locked in
place. There are a few other parcels but it is a very
small handful. That is another issue down the road that
someone in a position to want to challenge this, they are
Page 48 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
going to have folks unhappy on either side of this. They
are making a very difficult decision.
Mayor Thomas asked if anybody has directed City Attorney
Ansay to find a way to get around this petition. City
Attorney Ansay informed him no. Mayor Thomas stated her
job, as City Attorney, is to advise the City of the legal
situations that could happen in the future that could
affect the City in lawsuits. City Attorney Ansay informed
him that was correct.
Councilwoman Lichter stated there is no motion written.
There is no motion to be made as far as she is concerned.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked if there should be a motion made
or a consensus.
Councilwoman Lichter made a motion to accept City Attorney
Ansay's legal opinion and act accordingly.
Councilwoman Rhodes stated they said they held signatures
back. They should be able to bring those forward and get
this and then the fact that it is a general verses a
municipal election is whole different bowl of wax.
City Attorney Ansay stated she spoke with the attorney for
ECARD today. Ironically they were talking about the
litigation they are in on the 35-foot height amendment.
Then they started talking about this subject. She laid
out for her today the substance of her comments that she
knew she was going to be making to Council tonight so she
knows of the general issue. She recommended to Council that
they leave tonight with a consensus that Council agrees
that to the degree that approximately 340 signatures
predate the November 2006 election that what she would do
is go back tomorrow and prepare a letter directing it to
Ms. Carlson, copying the attorney, explaining that
Council's consensus tonight was that to the degree there
are not enough signatures postdating the November election
of last year that it is not to be placed on the ballot in
accordance with the case. She will provide her with a copy
of the case from Pinellas County and she will go through
and have her office photocopy all of the signatures that
have that earlier date and they can put those altogether
and send them to them and then they can wait for a response
and see where they go from there.
Page 49 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
City Attorney Ansay asked that they make a motion that all
of that takes place. The motion being she is to go
tomorrow, prepare the information that she described and
send it to Mr. Carlson as well as her counsel, that there
is a question as to the signatures and that Council is not
willing to put this on the ballot while the legality of
those signatures is in play.
Councilwoman Rhodes so moved, second by Councilwoman
Lichter.
The MOTION CARRIED 3 - 0 .
Mayor Thomas thanked City Attorney Ansay for the clear and
explicit interpretation. She did excellent.
10. OFFICER REPORTS
A. City Clerk
City Clerk Wadsworth reminded everyone that qualifying
started on Monday, August 27th at 9:00 a.m. and ends
Thursday, September 6th at Noon for Council seats for
District 2 and 4.
B. City Attorney Ansay
City Attorney Ansay had nothing at this time.
C. City Manager
1) Tentative Agenda Items
City Manager Williams reminded everyone they had a budget
workshop scheduled for Friday, September 7th beginning at
9:30 a.m. They will be here as long as it takes to get
through the budget presented. Their next Regular Council
meeting is September loth
2) Shuffleboard Court Update
City Manager Williams provided an update on the status of
the Shuffleboard Court.
City Manager Williams commented on idea he had regarding
the use of the money that was just approved with the sale
of the ParkTowne property. Councilwoman Rhodes confirmed
Page 50 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
he meant the shell. City Manager Williams confirmed it was
the shell. The $31,500. He commented on ideas he has for
improvements to the Council chambers with regard to moving
the projector and screen, having flat screen monitors and
upgrade the P.A. system. He asked Council if they had a
desire to look at this. He would welcome citizen input
regarding the proposed upgrades.
Councilwoman Lichter stated it was too late for her to
think logically. She isn't going to tackle that one until
she knows if the hurricanes are going to pass and if they
need it in the General Fund.
City Manager Williams stated all he was looking for was to
see if there was an interest and if they want him to
prepare a budget and bring it back to Council.
An audience member mentioned the floor. City Manager
Williams confirmed flooring was coming. They do have
carpeting on the way. They would also like to use some of
those moneys to replace the existing chairs.
Councilwoman Rhodes told City Manager Williams to prepare a
budget but to also include a drawing. He again showed her
what he wanted to do.
Councilwoman Rhodes asked that they bring it back at the
next meeting.
11. CITIZEN COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke:
Linda Small, 1629 Willow Oak Drive, commented on the
Mayor's comments earlier about amount of money the City has
not saved because of the tax reform because not all the
taxing districts have complied with the State mandated
4.89% including this Council. They settled on 5.37 and
they are working towards 4.89. She feels if all the taxing
districts would really focus and devote themselves to
achieving that goal that they could get more benefit
financially to the citizens and they may need that $25,000
at the end of the day. She told City Manager Williams not
to spend it yet.
Page 51 0[52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007
Ms. Small stated the County has worked their millage rate
down to 3.6 and they are still working on it. She feels
Edgewater needs to follow their example.
Dave St. Mire, 1914 Juniper Drive, feels they should find a
way to up the percentage rate if they can to get something
to prohibit this stuff being put in the Charter. That's
not where it belongs. He knows what he was approached with
in the Winn Dixie parking lot and it was scare tactics of
seeing condos along the river. If they allow 10% of the
community to dictate to the rest of them, especially the
Council who they put there to make the decisions for them,
then that is bad. They need to get this up somehow that
this doesn't happen and that it gets back into the proper
form of which it's made. They need to come up with a
creative way to start getting more in here to bring some
money into the City.
12 . ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman
Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:50
p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Lisa Bloomer
Page 52 of 52
Council Regular Meeting
August 20, 2007