Laserfiche WebLink
UBOOK �,�'J <br />Mr. Jenkins advised that he had looked at the proposed site <br />plan and the house is pretty close. His objection is not to <br />digging a lake but to the by-product of $6,000,000 worth of dirt. <br />Applicants have been turned down for commercial mining because <br />there is a house within 150 feet. He also expressed his concerns <br />about the truck traffic and noise. <br />Commissioner Bird reminded Mr. Jenkins that the haul route <br />will be addressed at the site plan review. <br />Attorney Bruce Barkett stated that he and his clients are in <br />favor of the amendment but he did want to get on the record the <br />fact that the wording in one amendment is tricky because it puts <br />the emphasis on the quantity of excess fill to be removed. The <br />second bullet on page it of proposed Ordinance No. 2 refers to <br />"complying with water management district or environmental <br />requirements..." In reality, the lake itself is the compliance <br />with the environmental agency requirements, not the quantity of the <br />fill. They are in receipt of a copy of the letter from St. Johns <br />River Water Management District and want to be certain that letter <br />is in compliance with this requirement. <br />Director Boling explained that the gist of Mr. Barkett's point <br />and of the ordinance is that St. Johns does not care where the fill <br />goes. They cannot keep all that fill onsite so they do have excess <br />fill. That is staff's interpretation of the way this is written, <br />to accommodate that type of situation. <br />Attorney Barkett stated that he agreed. He wanted to be <br />certain that someone at a future time does not check the Minutes <br />and confuse the issue that St. Johns has to tell the developer to <br />haul the excess fill offsite. That is not what this ordinance says <br />although it can be read like that. He wanted to be sure the <br />Minutes reflect that the emphasis should lie with the project <br />construction, the digging of the lake. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this <br />matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Bird suggested these proposals be sent forward to <br />the next hearing as presented. <br />Ordinance 1 - Section 1: Allowing Cemeteries <br />as a Special Exception Use in Residential Areas. <br />Commissioner Eggert questioned the 100 foot setback for <br />buildings such as mausoleums and columbariums and wanted to know <br />why 100 feet was chosen. <br />22 <br />FEBRUARY 13, 1996 <br />