Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Miscellaneous_06/04/1990_Finance & Administration Committee v� a VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469 -0273 • (407) 575 -6200 FAX: (407) 575 -6203 N y C F I N A N C E & A D M I N I S T R A T I O N C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G M O N D A Y, J U N E 4 1 9 9 0 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Finance & Administration Committee of the Village Council held a Committee Meeting on Monday, June 4, 1990, in the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 P.M. by Chairman Earl L. Collings. Finance & Administration Committee Co- Chairman Mayor Joseph N. Capretta was out of town. Staff members present were: Village Councilmember, William E. Burckart; Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager; Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative Assistant to Village Manager; Steve Kennedy, Deputy Building Official; Bill Kascavelis, Finance Director. Also in attendance was John C. Randolph, Village Attorney. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as submitted. V. COMMITTEE REVIEW OF RESPONSE /ACTION STRATEGY TO PROPOSED SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATER PERMIT. Village Manager Bradford reported that in response to the Village's ten -year water plan, the Village applied to the South Florida Water management District (SFWMD) for additional allocation for a permit which would allow the Village to utilize up to 6.10mgd average annual basis. Staff received the original response the latter part of April. Being unhappy with the response from SFWMD, Staff requested additional time, which was granted. Different aspects of the permit have been reviewed by SFWMD with Village engineers. The new Staff Report going to the SFWMD Board in June has been changed upward in the area the Staff was concerned about, but lowered in the western peninsula area. Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes June 4, 1990 Page 2 --------------------- - - - - -- The new Staff Report provides 1.55mgd average daily allocation, an increase over the previous 1.27. The western peninsula has been suggested as being 1.03mgd, previously 1.3. The Floridan aquifer, which requires R/O treatment, stayed the same at 2.52mgd average, with maximum daily allocation not to exceed 3.66mgd. The question is, can the Village live with that? Tom Hall, Manager of the Tequesta Water Department, felt it was possible to live with this, assuming the numbers are correct. There appears to be some discrepancies in that area. To meet these requirements, however, the Village would have to implement some immediate measures to effect greater conservation (i.e., adjusting irrigation rates across the board, commercially as well as .residentially). Mr. Hall stated it was possible to withdraw water from the western peninsula possibly in a year, and high speed R/O would be 15 -24 months minimum. The Village is now within the withdrawal rates on the eastern peninsula, with the exception of maximum days. With what is purchased, and what the Permit allows the Village to pump out of existing wells, gives only 2.75 (1.6 from Village wells). If there was a 3mg day, the need could not be met. Chairman Collings asked Mr. Hall how he anticipates increased withdrawals during the summer months with decreased population? Mr. Hall suggested step rates and surcharges across the board, to guarantee the Village would stay within the permitted guidelines. He pointed out there had been no significant reduction in commercial irrigation. Mr. Hall had some questions about SFWMD numbers, since they did not appear to match: New Staff Report, page 6, eastern peninsula average annual allocation, 461.73mg (1.55mgd) - that equates to 565.75 for 365 days - not 461.73. Under "Limiting Conditions" on page 10, the figures there do not agree with those on page 6. Chairman Collings asked what the timetable of action was? Richard Staudinger answered that the Village has until June 13, 1990 to dispute the Report or accept it. He stated further that SFWMD informed him that Rood and Rinker each have general permits, with no meters, and the SFWMD has no data on the pumpage of those two companies. SFWMD informed Village engineers that anyone pumping less than 100,OOOgd requires no meter, but did confess that they knew Rood Landscaping was exceeding their general permit allocation. Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes June 4, 1990 Page 3 Village Manager Bradford suggested that if appeal takes place, perhaps it should be done on the following bases: o If the peninsula is truly in a critical state, it.seems arbitrary and unfair to make a public utility be the sole bearer of the responsibility to improve it; o No effort to restrict other permitted users has been made; o Private wells for irrigation purposes; why not a moratorium there? o Technical arguments, based upon models and data. SFWMD responded to Tom Hall's suggestion of a Phase II by saying the situation is not yet critical enough to warrant such a measure, and that the utilities, as opposed to local companies, have the financial resources to find alternative water. Chairman Collings pondered if it was possible to ask for more flexibility. Mr. Staudinger stated he felt no more progress could be made with SFWMD before the June 13 deadline. After June 13, very little could be done regarding the eastern peninsula, because there is a permit in hand. There is an expense involved, but the permit could be modified. The western peninsula, at this point, is theoretical. The primary concern is the limitations between now and when something is brought on line. Village Manager Bradford asked if the Village should file for a Hearing, or accept SFWMD's proposal? Mr. Staudinger stated a large downside to filing for a Hearing would be that SFWMD could decide they were too generous with the Village, and back up a little more. Attorney Randolph stated he would be strongly concerned about the Village making the argument of restricting the Village and not local companies. SFWMD could make the point that the Village is the one seeking the Permit, and this is their way of dealing with it. Stricter regulations could always be imposed at a later time on some of the other users. Attorney Jay Jergens stated the Rood Landscaping pumpage really has no bearing on this issue, because the Village has to provide the basis for their application, as filed. The Rood Landscaping issue should be taken up on Appeal at the first DCA. Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes June 4, 1990 Page 4 --------------------------- It was decided that clarification of the numbers would take place before the June 13 response date, and the SFWMD Permit would be accepted as proposed. No moratorium would take place until the estimated ERC's were calculated. Mr. Bradford stated a Resolution could be done, and SFWMD could be urged to do a moratorium on private wells. Mr. Staudinger suggested the Village watch other permitted users in the area, as well, for over- pumpage. Attorney Randolph suggested that could be done in conjunction with a letter written with the Response to SFWMD stating the Village is reluctantly accepting their proposal because Tequesta wants to do its part to address the water issue; however, these are some of our concerns: (address commercial usage and private wells). III. REVIEW OF VILLAGE'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ORDINANCE. Village Manager Bradford stated this discussion should cover: o the proper definition of "subdivision ", and whether Ordinance wording should be changed to be made more clear that subdividing within subdivisions shall not be allowed to be construed as a new subdivision within a subdivision. o Councilmember Burckart, at the last Village Council meeting, had some new definitions he would like to see reflected in the Ordinance. Attorney Randolph gave a hypothetical situation: Say there's a subdivision which is platted, and consists of several lots, and there are subdivision regulations which are imposed for that entire plat. The mere fact that someone subdivides that lot because it meets Village Regulations does not mean that is a new subdivision. As long as these Rules and Regultions which were applied against that subdivision encompass the entire tract, the mere fact of further subdividing does not create another subdivision. That is not the problem with Country Club Point. Apparently there was some confused situation in the initial stages of the Country Club Point property whereby that particular lot was not covered by those subdivision regulations. The mere fact that applicant is attempting to subdivide that, makes them not covered; it's the fact that they ARE NOT covered by it. Therefore, the Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes June 4, 1990 Page 5 --------------------------- Village could put language in the Ordinance which would indicate "a re- subdivision of land will not be allowed to take that re- subdivision out from under any other Subdivision Regulations ", but that is meaningless, because that can't be done anyway, if the plat is covered by the subdivision regulations in the first place. The Country Club Point issue is a hybrid case - they weren't covered by any subdivision regulations. The Tequesta Ordinance is more strict than those of most other municipalities. That's why this is in the Village Council's lap. If this was the same as most municipalities and State Planning Requirements, (which state that when a lot is divided into THREE or more lots, a subdivision application shall be applied for), then this would not have come before Council. It will now have to be considered whether to follow the State Planning Requirements, or something similar, or if the Village wants to maintain control over two lots. Councilmember Burckart felt this was an Administrative decision. Attorney Randolph informed him it was not. Under Village Code, when someone divides, there are certain restrictions which have to be complied with, relating to the infrastructure being in place. The Village has a lot of control, particularly on a new subdivision, to determine the street widths and what they want, sewer lines and what they want, etc. When a subdivision has already been approved and an applicant comes in for a replat, the infrastructure is already in place. Therefore there is very little the Village has to say about it. Ths Village is caught between a rock and a hard place with the Country Club Point situation, with the public objecting, and the applicant's attorney telling Council there's nothing they can do about it but approve it. It is an opportunity for review to ensure regulations are complied with. Attorney Randolph stated he believed there was no provision in the Village Ordinance which disallows redividing within a subdivision, since the Zoning Ordinance specifies the lot size. To deny further subdivision would be denying applicant something he is entitled to under the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Burckart felt there was a conflict between the definition of subdivision in the Zoning Ordinance, and the definition of subdivision in the Subdivision Ordinance. Attorney Randolph pointed out they were not in conflict: "Start with the subdivision which is under the Zoning Code: The Subdivision Ordinance is simply an attempt to create lots, to begin with. Once those lots are platted and created, go to the Zoning Ordinance, which states you may only have "one dwelling per platted lot ". Say there are eight platted lots - you may have one dwelling per Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes June 4, 1990 Page 6 --------------------------- platted lot. If, under the Zoning Ordinance, those owners wanted to put two dwelling units per that platted lot, they would be told the Zoning Ordinance does not allow it. They would then come in under the Subdivision Ordinance, get two platted lots - now they comply with the Zoning Ordinance provision, which states they may have "one dwelling per platted lot ". Village Manager Bradford explained the culprit is not the Subdivision Ordinance, but it may be that the minimum lot size (R- SA) may be inadequate. Attorney Randolph stated that could create a lot of non - conforming uses. If a provision is put in the Ordinance which states that once the property is subdivided, it shall not be subdivided again, would create a situation where everyone, when initially coming in to subdivide, would try to squeeze the lots down to the minimum requirements, knowing if it is not done now, they will never get it - thereby creating a worse situation. Mr. Bradford stated he would like to see some continuity and would not like to see new subdivisions within a subdivision, or a community within a community. He did not object to replats and lot splits, but subdivisions within subdivisions. Attorney Randolph stated possibly some language could be drawn up in the Subdivision Code that would indicate that no replat shall be done in an established subdivision which has the effect of establishing a new subdivision with separate restrictions. Village Manager Bradford asked what the Committee's general consensus was regarding amending the Subdivision Regulation so that it does not preclude lot splits and replats, but such activity would not allow for the creation of a new separate subdivision. Chairman Collings favored that for all established, existing, occupied, mature subdivisions, as opposed to a subdivision platted to be sold. Attorney Randolph stated he would work on some new language for the Regulation. Finance and Administration Committee Meeting Minutes June 4, 1990 Page 7 --------------------- - - - - -- VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters before the Committee. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Fran Bitters Recording Secretary /fgb Date Approved: ATTEST: Bill Kascev lis Finance Director /Village Clerk