Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Minutes 11-07-2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING FPL Date: November 7, 2005 Convened: 6:00 p.m. Tape: 1-7 Adjourned: 5:08 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Frannie Hutchinson, Doug Coward, Joseph Smith, Paula A. Lewis, Chris Craft Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Katherine McKenzie Smith, Asst. County Attorney, David Kelly, Planning Manager, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Consider Draft Resolution No. 05-384 granting approval of a rezoning from AG-5 to U for an approximately 300 acre property located on the east side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road- Consider staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 05-384. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Consider Draft Resolution No. 05-385 granting Conditional Use and Major Site Plan approval or the project to be known as Florida Power and Light- South West Lucie Power Plant for property located on the east side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road. A declaration of the 4/5 vote was asked and if it was required. The Planning Manager addressed this issue. He stated they have calculated as petitions have come in and as of this moment they have 61.65% of the acreage within 500 feet of the petition opposing. This would require a 4/5 majority vote. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, attorney for the petitioner, addressed the Board and stated due to the information which has been disclosed and of which they were not aware of until 30 minutes and given legal issues which have arisen that are material to the issue of whether or not the percentage in fact does require a 4/5 vote and not withstanding the inconvenience to everyone who are here tonight including the citizens and parties that have come from out of town, they are respectfully requesting this matter be postponed so that they can review and discuss their options. They would also like the opportunity to continue discussion with the County Attorney as to the legal interpretation of the Land Development Code and how the 4/5 vote provision is applied which they at this point in time have agreed to disagree on the interpretation and based on which interpretation is actually correct is material as to whether or not a 4/5 vote is required. In addition, there is a provision and it is perfectly legal for an applicant to create a buffer internal to their property which would preclude the need to even consider 4/5 vote issue. Which to date they have not taken that option and would like the opportunity to go back and review that and decide whether or not it would be in their best interest amend their application to create an internal buffer and would like the opportunity to discuss this option with the County’s Planning staff and Legal staff. Mr. Ferguson respectfully requested the item be postponed which they understand would require to be re-advertised, posting new signs on the property and mailing notice to the list the county has produced and publishing proper advertising in the newspaper. Com. Hutchinson requested legal advice on this request. 1 The Assistant County Attorney advised the Board the decision to continue this meeting is at the discretion of the Board. Com. Coward stated they are 100% consistent with what the Board has traditionally done. The Board also has the discretion to prevent an applicant from attempting to circumvent the codes at the last minute because they do not like the results of the current process, and quite honestly he does not believe it will matter. Com. Craft asked if this was turned down by a 3 to 2 vote, does the applicant still have the ability to come back and re-apply with a smaller boundary. The Planning Manager stated there are two petitions before the Board tonight. If the zoning petition fails, the applicant is not able to bring back the same petition for two years. The same thing does not apply to a conditional use. On the other hand, the 4/5 vote applies only to the conditional use and not to the rezoning. The standards and vote would be different for the two petitions. Com. Craft stated he believed the 4/5 majority requirement did not surprise FPL and he would like to move forward this evening with the vote. Com. Smith stated he has had contact with the FPL representatives today and felt the residents should be heard before deciding whether or not to continue the hearing. Com. Lewis stated she too felt she would like to at least hear the public speak. Com. Hutchinson stated they would proceed with public comments and make a determination to continue. The following disclosures were made by the Board of County Commissioners: Com. Coward, contact with applicant and their team, has received approximately 500 e- mails and there were 6 out of the 500 in favor. He has had numerous phone calls at the office and at home. The property homeowners association has FPL make a presentation, the DEP permitting representative from the state also made a presentation and provided information. Com. Craft, echoed the same disclosure with the exception of the homeowners association. Com. Hutchinson has made one site visit to the Stanton Orlando Plant and a visit to the Martin County plant and has received for and against notifications. Com. Lewis disclosed receiving many phone calls and letters. She made a site visit with the applicant to the Stanton plant as well as the Martin County plant. Com. Smith visited the Martin plant and the Stanton plant. He was present for the homeowners meeting with Com. Coward, received phone call, e-mails, faxes . Declaration of Financial Disclosure by Board Coward – None Craft- None Hutchinson- None Lewis- None Smith- None The Assistant County Attorney reviewed the procedure for this hearing. All testimony will be sworn testimony . The Clerk will swear in those wishing speak . The Attorney’s will have the ability to cross-examine. 2 Attorneys: Mr. John Moyle Jr., Moyle, Flannagan Law Firm, representing Dave McIntosh trustee of Bluefield Ranch mitigation and adjacent property owner to the applicant. Mr. Michael Weiner, 102 N. Swinton Ave, Delray Beach, Fla. attorney representing the Rodriguez family owner 4,000 acres adjacent to the property being purchased by FPL. At this time the Clerk administered the oath of testimony to those who intend to speak. PRESENTATIONS Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager addressed the Board and reviewed the petition of FPL. Mr. Kelly stated staff found the petitions are consistent with the Land Development Code and the Comp Plan. There are recommended conditions for the buffer zone, the lighting design, and traffic issues as mentioned. Environmental impact is an issue on this project. Staff has found that it meets the minimum standards of review as put forth by the county and staff recommends approval of the project. The Environmental Resources Director, Vanessa Bassey addressed the environmental impact issues and stated the environmental resources staff recommended denial of this applicant due to the affects on the nearby property especially the 3,280 acres Bluefield ranch preserve. They believe there would be potential lighting impacts, potential noise impacts and direct impact to the site bringing in the rail spur. There is a main concern with the emissions from the plant i.e 12,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide, 890 tons of particular matter, 200 lbs. of mercury. Attorney Michael Weiner asked to cross examine staff . Mr. Weiner asked Mr. Kelly if he was familiar with the application for them tonight from FPL? Mr. Kelly answered, yes. Mr. Weiner then asked if this application was for 3,000 acres only for utility? Mr. Kelly answered, yes. Mr. Weiner asked if there was an application before him for the rail spur? Mr. Kelly answered, no. Mr. Weiner asked if at any time he had discussions with FPL or agents or representatives concerning an additional 4,000 acres that they plan to own in connection with this plant? Mr. Kelly answered, yes. Mr. Weiner asked if they had mentioned anything to him with respect as to how they plan to develop those 4,000 acres? Mr. Kelly answered, yes. Mr. Weiner asked if they had said it would be a preserve? Mr. Kelly answered, that is an option. Mr. Weiner asked if there was an application before him right now for a 4,000 acre preserve? Mr. Kelly answered, no. 3 This was the conclusion of Mr. Weiner’s cross examination. Mr. John Moyle proceeded to cross examine the environmental staff. Mr. Moyle asked if he had heard the environmental staff recommended denial of the application? Ms. Bassey answered, yes. Mr. Moyle asked if she had talked about the affects upon the Bluefield Ranch mitigation bank and if that was correct? Ms. Bassey answered, no, the county owns 3, 285 acres and it is called Bluefield Ranch Preserve. Mr. Moyle asked if she determined there would be some negative impact on that preserve? Ms. Bassey answered, yes she believed so. Mr. Moyle asked if she had similarly looked to see if there were some affects to the Bluefield mitigation bank? Ms. Bassey answered, as part of the Land Development Code and the Environmental Impact Report process they must determine impact on outside properties, yes. Mr. Moyle asked, has FPL worked with you on some conditions? Ms. Bassey answered, yes. Mr. Moyle asked if she knew if FPL had worked with the Bluefield mitigation bank to see if there are some conditions that may be acceptable? Ms. Bassey answered, no. Mr. Moyle concluded his cross examination. Com. Coward advised Mr. Kelly there were some issues that have not been resolved and there are certain Code requirements that have not been done. Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, Ruden, McCloskey Law Firm and attorney for FPL addressed the comments made and advised the Board they would like to defer their presentation until after public comments. Com. Smith stated the problem he had with this request was the fact there are some residents who have not heard the presentation. Mr. John Moyle opposed change of the order at the last minute. Mr. Ferguson advised the Board they would proceed with their presentation. He stated they concur with staff recommendation and also concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the 3 applications. Ms. Rachael Scott, 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach, Florida, FPL Manager of Generations Communications addressed the Board and stated the reason for this application was due to the increase in cost of natural gas and the fuel portion of the bills continue to rise. They have also found the need to plan for the future. Com. Coward stated it was clear to him we were a net exporter of power of about 3 ½ times what we use in this area. He expressed his concern with the decision to place a 4 clean gas burning facility in Palm Beach, but have decided to place a coal burning facility in our area and we would be shouldering their demands for South Florida. Ms. Scott stated it was important to maintain a balance in the fuel supply. Mr. David Hicks, Senior Project Director for FPL addressed the Board on the increased dependence on natural gas. The Public Service Commission encouraged FPL to look for alternative fuels particularly solid fuel, i.e. coal. He advised the Board that FPL is committed to $7 million in pollution control equipment. He also advised the Board of the route the trains would be taking to deliver the coal. rd Mr. Ken Cosky, Air Quality Expert Golden Associates, 6241 NW 23 St. Gainesville, Florida, addressed the Board regarding the air quality aspects of the project. Com. Coward commented on the pollutants the facility would be generating. He stated he was not comfortable and did not have much faith in the Federal Standards that have been set. Mr. Coksy stated the project approved last week exceeded the threshold and that was a natural gas plant there’s no difference as to what that plant would go through and what their project would go through. It is a threshold for review. They did supply the air quality consultant the complex analysis as requested and in fact there is no quality issue with regard to public health or PSD increments. Dr. Hank Fishkind, 1251 Corporate Blvd., Orlando, Florida, addressed the Economic Affects of the project. He advised the Board the project would generate $1.07 billion dollars in property tax revenues over the life of the project with a net fiscal impact of $568.1 million dollars generated to the county. The School District would generate $349.3 million in tax revenues. Mr. Richard Zwolak, Director of Environmental Planning, Golder Associates, Tampa, Florida, addressed the projects summary standards of review. He stated there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetlands, threatening of species or Flora. Mr. Fred Schwartz, Professional Engineer, Kimley Horn and Associates, addressed the Board regarding traffic engineering for the project. Com. Hutchinson alluded to a letter received from the City of Ft. Pierce expressing their concerns. Mr. Ferguson, attorney for the petitioner addressed the train traffic issue and advised the Board he was not sure where the rumor started that there would be train traffic only at night, and as they have provided to the County Attorney, Federal and State law pre-empts local regulation of train traffic. They are committed and it is public record, to meet with the City of Ft. Pierce, the County and also include the other jurisdictions and try to coordinate their efforts at the times the traffic would occur which they are aware will take place several years from now, but under state law these are the best efforts they can make. Mr. Ray Butts, FPL Environmental Services Department, addressed the Board regarding FPL’s renewable energies, energy conservation, and their continued improvement in generation efficiency. He also commented on the reduction of CO2 emissions while responding to the growing needs of electricity in Florid and the U.S. He advised the Board by 2008 they would reduce the emissions rate of greenhouse gases 18%. Mr. Christopher Teaf, PHD Toxicologist, Florida State University, 2976 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida, addressed the Board and stated he was the one to compile the mercury level reports presented and provided to the Board by FPL. He stated the emissions from the stacks would be monitored to make sure they continue to meet the required levels of air quality standards. 5 The Board commented on the conversion rates. Com. Coward stated our area is one of the greatest conversion areas in the country. Mr. Teaf stated we are not a major generator in this area it is coming from distant sources that are unrelated to activities here that they can control. th Com. Coward advised Mr. Teaf Florida ranks 11 in the nation in terms of output of mercury. Mr. Teaf addressed Com. Coward’ s comments and stated the background deposition rate is not from anything that is going on here has to be born in mind when you consider the contribution of this plant which will be very small. The plant will be 38% better than the new requirements. Com. Smith questioned clean up of a mercury spill and the procedures outlined in the California poison control response in a thermometer. Mr. Teaf stated the clean up procedures listed by the California Dept. of Health are designed to prevent the spread the mercury. Com. Craft stated the more they keep approving coal or oil plants, the longer they put off the industry finding something that makes more sense. Com. Coward questioned if there would be any methyl mercury coming from the plant. Mr. Teaf stated, “no”. Mr. Steve Jenkins, IGCC Technology, 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway, Campbell, Florida addressed the Board and stated with IGCC the coal is converted into a synthetic gas and burned in a combined cycle unit instead of natural gas. He is a proponent of IGCC Technology and should be utilized however, for the FPL South west St. Lucie Plant, he does not think IGCC is the appropriate technology. He believes the super critical technology selected by FPL is the right choice for this application. Com. Coward requested Mr. Don Alias, Independent Air Expert, answer a few questions regarding mercury emissions from electrical facilities. Com. Coward asked if the mercury coming from this plant would convert into methyl mercury? Mr. Alias being sworn previously stated his address as, 239 US Route 22 East, Greenberg, New Jersey, 08812, stated the elemental mercury coming from the plant, will eventually, a portion of it will react and become a reactive species which as its deposits into a wet soil environment where active bacteria can convert into methyl mercury, he believes what Dr. Keith was responding to is due to the dispersion characteristics of this plant locally there will be no measurable amount of methyl mercury in St. Lucie County or nearby areas in the surrounding counties. Cross examination: Mr. John Moyle, Moyle Flannigan Law Firm, cross examined Dr. Tief, previously sworn in, regarding his comments. He asked if he had heard correctly as to his comment stating where he believed , “there was an unequivocal safe level for mercury”? Dr. Tief stated, “ I had said the ESEA referenced a safe level, 5.8 micrograms per deciliter. Mr. Moyle asked if he was familiar with Environmental Research Journal. 6 Dr. Tief stated, “no”. Mr. Moyle continued and then concluded his cross examination. Mr. Weiner, Weiner and Aronson, Law Firm requested cross examination of Mr. David Hicks, FPL , previously sworn in. Mr. Weiner asked if PSE has ordered FPL to build the coal plant. Mr. Hicks stated they have not ordered FPL to build the coal plant as they have discussed with the Commissioners, they are developing the coal plant and then as part of the need process they will put this coal plant out to bid. Mr. Weiner continued and concluded his cross examination and requested Mr. Richard Zwolak, Planner, Golden Associates answer some questions. Mr. Zwolak acknowledged being sworn in. Mr. Weiner asked if he had read the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan in its entirety. Mr. Zwolak stated he had. Mr. Weiner asked if there was an objective in the Comprehensive Plan that is inconsistent with the project considered. Mr. Zwolak stated there is no policy that he reviewed that is directly inconsistent with this project. Mr. Weiner asked if there were any indirectly inconsistent with the project. Mr. Zwolak stated there are a couple of policies in the plan they used to have guide the development to enhance the compatibility of the project with the adjacent land use to minimize adverse impacts and on that basis they were able to state in his opinion that they are consistent. No indirectly inconsistencies . Mr. Weiner continued and concluded his cross examination. The Secretary read the letter submitted by the St. Lucie Waterfront Council into the record as well as a letter received from the City of Ft. Pierce City Commission. Com. Coward advised the Board a letter from the City of Port St. Lucie had been received late this evening where the City Council 4 out of 5 members had withdrawn their support for the Coal Plant. Public Comments Ms. Karen Smith, representing South Florida Water Management District, acknowledged being sworn in. Ms. Smith weighed in on one consideration , the land transaction that affects the Indian River Lagoon Plan. The land transaction represents a win/win situation for the residents and the environment. The 3,000 acres the SFWMD has purchased from FPL at a $ 5 million dollar saving to the taxpayers represents the majority of the land needed to build the C-23 and 24 reservoir project. These projects will capture 80% of the phosphorus entering the estuary. The following residents addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Jay Seizmore, Fire Department, expressed his concerns with train transportation of the coal and their travel from north to south with their equipment. He felt this train transport would impact delivery of service requirements for their area. Also, he expressed his concern with this project impacting the new proposed station near the railroad tracks. 7 Major Mike Monahan, St. Lucie County Sheriff’s office stated the Sheriff does not have a comment on the project. He addressed the Board in opposition and expressed his concern with the traffic problems the transport of coal by train would have in the area. He stated they now have a traffic problem with the train that is in operation at this time. Mr. Pete Hegener, Core Communities, addressed the Board and asked them to take a step back and examine the impact this project would have on the surrounding counties. Mr. Bob Norton, 698 Rio Vista Drive, addressed the Board in opposition and stated the power is not needed for several years. He felt soft coal was not profitable. Ms. Leilani Chandler, 698 Rio Vista Drive, addressed the Board in opposition and expressed her concerns regarding health and environmental issues. Mr. John Csapo, Kolter Development, addressed the Board and stated he felt better technology was available. Ms. Susan Glickman, Natural Resources Defense Council- addressed the Board in opposition and stated there are 5 other coal plants being considered in the State. Dr. Stephen Smith, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, addressed the Board on the Environmental policy. He advised the Board he was a stockholder in FPL, but was opposed to the project. Dr. Ronald Saff, Asthma and Allergy Specialist made a power point presentation and stated his opposition to the project. Ms. Grace Stock, St. Lucie Audubon Society, addressed the Board in opposition to the project to the pollutants she felt the plant would generate. Dr. Anthony DeLucia, resident of the State of Tennessee, addressed the Board regarding the lung problems this plant could cause. He stated asthma was a leading cause for loss of work time as well as school absences. Mr. Michael Weiner, attorney for the Rodriguez family, owner of 4,000 acres expressed their opposition to the hearings being held simultaneously. They felt the application to rezone is inconsistent with the plan. Dr. Chuck Olsen, Bluefield Mitigation Bank representative expressed his opposition and stated it would set a precedent if approved. Mr. Ray Crossman, advised the Board Ms. Beatrice Cogler, the Reserve resident was in opposition to the project. Mr. Crossman addressed the permitted areas. Mr. Charles Pattison, ( was not present at the initial swearing in, was sworn in by Secretary), 927 East Park Avenue, representing 1000 Friends of Florida, addressed the Board and asked them to review the Comp Plan amendment. He stated the issue of compatibility has not been addressed and it is a fundamental point. Mr. Carl Rivasi-7389 Reserve Creek Drive, addressed his concerns of chemical reactions. Mr. John Holt, 11122 Orange Avenue, addressed the Board with his concerns on the water and asked if the train cars would be covered or sealed. Mr. Sam Comer, Canal Road resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the project and expressed his concerns about traffic. Mr. Ben Kirman, 7007 Willow Pine Way resident, Port St. Lucie, addressed the Board regarding CSX transportation issues and their plan. 8 Mr. Ryan, Winter Haven, Florida, Economic Development Council addressed the Board and stated FPL would not have it easier if they attempted to have the project in Okeechobee. He stated this was not a timely application and there are too many factors that have not been considered. Ms. Terri Palumbo, Ft. Pierce Downtown Business Association advised the Board they are in opposition to the project. The 125+ cars approaching the area would cause problems for those coming to Ft. Pierce to the downtown area to shop or enjoy the businesses in the area. Mr. Richard Furman, Miami, Florida, retired Engineer and former employee of FPL, addressed the Board and advised the Board of a recent study done and the IGCC Technology. Mr. George Cavros, National Environmental group addressed the Board regarding the mercury. He stated FPL is the one disseminating the misinformation on mercury. Ms. Ann Vanek-Dasovich, Florida Wildlife Federation, addressed the Board in opposition to the plant and expressed concern with possible mercury pollution. Ms. Susie Caron, SLC resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the plant. Mr. Sean Mitchell, 802 S. W. Munjack Circle, Port St. Lucie, addressed the Board regarding the promise of jobs . He stated most of the contractors are brought in from other areas for projects. Ms. Diane Goldberg, 402 NW Shoreview Drive, Cascades Homeowners Association, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Phillip Stickles, 10800 Carlton Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Ray Worley, Okeechobee Florida, Florida Consumer Action Network, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Henry Dean, 201 Owens Avenue, St Augustine, Florida, and Consultant for FPL addressed the Board and advised them the project solves the pollutant discharge problem in the St. Lucie River. th Mr. John Ferrick, 4802 South 25 St., representing the North Fork Property Owners Association, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Ms. Kathy Schoen, 9338 Carlton Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Bob Simmons, Mystic Way, St. Lucie West, addressed the Board in opposition. Mr. Bill Hearn, 5051 Tozier Road resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Ms. Christy Mullen, representing the Indian River Drive Freeholders Association, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Ms. Jean Hearn, 5051Tozier Road addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Roger Sharpe, 8205 S. Indian River Drive, addressed the Board in opposition to the plant. He advised the Board he was a former FPL employee. Mr. Charles McSwain, AVP,CSX Transportation Inc., 500 water St., Jacksonville, Fla., addressed the Board regarding the reasons the company would like to haul the coal for FPL. 9 Ms. Mary Chapman, 5051 N. A1A , Environmental Advisory Committee, addressed the Board in opposition to the plant. th Mr. Robert Hall, 606 S. 24 St., addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. John Arena, 1509 Faber Court, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Mr. Patrick Hayes, 18809 SE Federal Highway, Tequesta, Fla., addressed the Board in opposition . Ms. Joan Bausch, 20 S. Sewall’s Point Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. Ms. Lisa Nelson, 4875 Oleander Avenue, addressed the Board in opposition. Mr. Kevin Stinette, Indian River Keeper, addressed the Board in opposition. Ms. Pamela Hammer, Reserve resident, addressed the Board in opposition to the project. It was noted for the record, St. Lucie Village stated their opposition to the project. The following are speakers in favor of the project. nd Ms. Judy Miller, 125 N. 2 St., Ft. Pierce, Florida addressed the Board in favor of the project. Mr. Charles Grande, 9950 South Ocean Drive, addressed the Board in favor of the project and addressed the benefit of the plant, the need in the future and cost. Mr. John Donahue, SLC Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board in favor of the project and recommended approval. Craig Mundt, Hutchinson Island resident, addressed the Board in favor and alluded to a consumer bulletin. Dr. K.R. Olen, 4097 Gator Trace Road, addressed the Board in favor and stated it would be a very clean plant. Public Comments concluded. Board Comments/Action: Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, representing the Petitioner stated they do not have a rebuttal to any of the comments made, however, they are at this time renewing their request and had 3 points he wished to make on their request for a postponement and asked there not be a vote taken this evening. The first point, he stated was there are two unanswered issues that would affect the vote depending upon the outcome of the resolution, those legal issues are: One has to do with the ability to amend the application to create internal buffers which is a majority rule throughout the United States and the Courts and the second is the interpretation of the Land Development Code and how you would calculate the percentage which would have a immaterial affect on whether they would need to have 3 votes or 4 votes tonight. Those issues cannot be resolved, he believes whatever the Board takes whether they succeeded or lost, that vote is at risk by whatever party may wish to challenge it. He does not believe this is fair to either party. The second issue is not everyone has been opposed to the project tonight, there have been those who were in favor, but there has been more than a fair number of those who still expressed concerns, not necessarily opposed, but expressed concerns and those include 10 Mr. Hegner, Core Communities, Chief Seizmore, the Sheriff’s office, Kolter Properties, the City of Ft. Pierce did not say they were opposed but wanted further assurances on how to deal with the train traffic. A postponement would allow them to explore those options to go back re-evaluate the project and what they may or may not be able to do and sit down with those persons and address concerns or come up with another conclusion. The third issue is what the Board has done policy wise in the past and the fact this is not a fly by night developer. FPL is here for the long term. He asked out of fundamental fairness to postpone the decision for two or three weeks. Com. Craft if an attempt had been made by FPL to make an offer to any of the neighbors adjacent to the property to rescind their vote requiring the 4/5 majority. Mr. Ferguson stated he was advised that FPL was approached last week by one of the property owners before the property owner was going to turn in their form that they received as part of their notice and they discussed it with FPL and after discussing it, FPL at that time they decided to cast their vote in a certain manner and over the weekend they decided to change their vote and as a follow up to the change there were further discussions with the property owner about purchasing their property, but at this time there is no deal to purchase property from anyone out in the Bluefield Road area. Com. Coward stated if they were not prepared and did not have a project that satisfied law enforcement, fire district, elected officials, the community, why did FPL wish to bring this forward. He is prepared to vote and make a sound decision tonight. Ms. Pam Rousch, Attorney FPL, stated it would be unprecedented in her experience for a Commission to hear all these concerns and not allow an applicant to go back, look at its presentation, listen to what they head and to consider what issues can be raised and to give the Commission a chance to hear what they have to say and what they can come back with, further information and further things for the application. This is too good a project not to give FPL a chance. Failure to grant FPL a postponement would deny FPL its due process rights and would seriously jeopardize the vote tonight. Com. Craft stated he felt that would have validity had the request not come immediately after they heard a 4/5 majority had been required. Com. Lewis stated she felt it was a fairness issue and they should grant a continuance. The Board has granted continuances in such instances. Com. Smith stated the issue is fundamental fairness to him and this is to do the homework before coming to a meeting. Fundamental fairness is being prepared and does not feel there are extenuating circumstances. He would be inclined to move forward for a vote. Mr. Ferguson requested they be permitted to withdraw the application. The Asst. County Attorney stated it would up to the discretion of the Board whether or not to accept the withdraw. Mr. Ferguson stated it was a request to withdraw the application to rezone the property which does not need a super majority vote and also withdraw the major site plan application and the request to withdraw the conditional use permit application. Com. Coward stated he was ready to vote, he had received a lot of input, has met with the applicant several times and has spent countless hours on this issue and felt it was only fair to the public not to go through this again. Com. Craft stated they needed to send a message to the power industry that you need a better technology than coal and it needs not to be in our backyard and this includes Martin and Okeechobee counties. 11 Com. Smith questioned the depreciation schedule and the standard which would be used. Mr. Hicks, FPL, stated the method FPL would use is the method they are required to use by law which is GAP depreciation, 40 year straight line. This would not change unless the law changes. Com. Smith asked who would be in charge of the coal mining operations in Columbia. Mr. Hicks stated there are two large companies, one is Drummond headquartered in Birmingham Alabama and the other BMC which is a South American company and they have ongoing negotiations going on with them. Com. Smith asked if he knew anything about coal cleaning. Mr. Hicks stated the way to source low sulfur, low ash, low chlorine contained which is what you want to use, is to actually buy this type of coal. Com. Smith stated the mercury is his issue. How much mercury is too much and to him 200 lbs is too much. He stated the issue was not that we do not need other sources of power, the issue is, is this the correct type of power source to bring to this county and he believes it is not. He stated they are trying to build a new coal fire plant in this county, but the issue is if FPL works with the county governments, help us help you to reduce power so then in that case we are not consuming as much and that power is now available for the customers and FPL can still charge what they need to charge without doing a thing or not doing too much to the environment we have presently. Com. Hutchinson stated in going back to the issue of fairness that Mr. Ferguson pointed out, the fact that the public has sat here and have attended numerous meetings at the request of FPl, the fact that this Board, and I have seen them walk out with stacks of boxes that they have collected and have gone over not to mention the endless hours they have spent on their own at home researching this, in all fairness to that, no matter what they agree to whether it be to withdraw or take a vote or do a conditional use, no matter what the outcome, she felt very strongly out of fairness that she should be able to speak to the issues, whatever they may be. If they do a continuation or a withdraw, prior to this being on the record, we may not have the opportunity to state that there by this is being unfair to us. There are some issues that still need to be addressed and whether this is the right time for it, she does not have a clue, there are still issues out there. Com. Lewis stated she still had concerns regarding the environmental issue on the property would be and also had a concern with the conditions there may be things left open to be done within the next six months and some of them could have been flushed out overtime and some should have been more developed by this time. One of the things that concerned her was a condition that stated within 3 years of starting the plant, there would be a determination made as to whether the activated carbon injection would be used. Com. Craft stated his largest problem is basically they are being asked to place a coal fired power plant in our backyard because of the ineffective land management policy of the state of Florida and he does not think there is much FPL can do to address that. Com. Coward wanted to address the county of Okeechobee taking this plant. Essentially the philosophy was that he should make a bad decision because if I don’t my neighbor will. The second issue is the demand and we do not need this plant for St. Lucie County, he recognizes FPL has service demands beyond that and he recognizes they will be looking for areas for various fuels. He believes we are already shouldering the burden for South Florida. The next issue is diversification, we have a power plant here and we are already doing that, we just prefer cleaner fuel. 12 Com. Hutchinson stated she wanted to express her thanks to the staff, the public whether they are watching or in the audience and also to FPL. She does not believe there is anyone who has taken this issue lightly and she wished FPL had come more prepared. She is not against the power plant, she is against the coal power plant. Like it or not this is a regional impact to the state. She invited FPL to work with the Research Committee. St. Lucie County has value for their quality of life. It was moved by Com. Coward, based on Section 1106 03 of the Land Development Code which are the standards of review, and the areas where he felt the applicant has not met those standards; subsection B ( 1.1 to insure the highest quality living environment, this plant is not meet that standard, ( it reflects the needs) we don’t need it and the county does not want it, (to enhance St. Lucie County’s man made natural resources) that goal is absolutely not being met; subsection E deals with public facilities, we have heard that law enforcement and EMS has serious concerns relating to public facilities mainly train traffic, this burden has not been met by the applicant; subsection G, is specifically with adverse property values, our staff has acknowledged there would be adverse impacts, every landowner is opposed to this plant because they feel it will have a detrimental affect on their value, as well as business owners and those interested in the research and development park, people interested in the economic development we are trying to promote within this community and it is clear to him this issue has been unmet, item J any other matter deemed appropriate, and to him that is the massive emissions coming out of this plant, 70 million pounds he recommends denial; Seconded by Com. Craft, and; upon roll call, Com. Hutchinson stated she would prefer the right to have the applicant withdraw but will agree with the motion to deny, motion to deny carried unanimously. This was a denial of the zoning. The Planning Manager stated if they do not have utility zoning they cannot have a conditional use. Item 2 need not be heard. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. __________________________ Chairman ___________________________ Clerk of Circuit Court 13