Commission Minutes 8-2001

Development Agreement between the Clausers and the City of Lake Helen relating to the operation of a bed and breakfast facility located at 201 East Kicklighter Road, on first reading.

     Atty. Groot explained that the Development Agreement was the result of a process which asserted the rights of the Clausers as property owners.This Agreement implemented the decision regarding the Clausers’ vested rights and acted as a control mechanism for the use of their property.

     Atty. Groot noted that language relating to the footprint of the house had been incorporated into a revised draft and would be subject to review at the next commission meeting.

      Mr. Findell noted that the primary concern involved providing clarification that the ten room facility would be contained within the existing square footage of the establishment. As a response to this concern, the City Attorney had prepared additional language to clarify what had previously been understood by staff and the Clausers.

     Comm. Tamburro requested that Atty. Groot review the amended language for the Commission and the public.

     Atty. Groot read the existing language of the July 16th draft agreement and reviewed the revised language which would be incorporated into a redraft of the agreement.

     Mr. Findell indicated that a second concern regarding the July 16th draft agreement related to the perception that there was an openendedness in the language relating to ancillary activities of the bed and breakfast facility.

     Mayor Shuttleworth indicated that page 5 of the agreement summarized the uses, intensities and other conditions on the development of the property as follows:

1. A bed and breakfast facility having ten (10) rooms for overnight lodging by the general public may operate on the property.

2. Associated with the operation of the aforementioned bed and breakfast facility, special functions, such as, but not limited to, weddings, receptions and special dinners may occur on the property.

3. Although the property owners shall have discretion to meet the needs of the bed and breakfast guests, the usual and customary hours of operation for the pub shall be 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The pub may be open to the general public and may operate as a special 4 COP alcoholic beverage license issued by the State of Florida. Notwithstanding the preceding, the property owners may operate the pub for weddings, receptions and other special functions and theatrical events from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.. Further, notwithstanding any of the preceding, the property owners shall not admit any non-guest member of the general public into the pub after 9:00 p.m. and the pub shall close by 2:00 a.m. on New Year’s Day.

4. Associated with the operation of the aforementioned bed and breakfast facility, limited retail sales of gift items may be sold to the general public on the property.

     Mr. Findell indicated that concern was voiced for item #2 regarding the language “but not limited to” as it was noted that this language provided a mechanism for additional functions which could be considered inappropriate for a bed and breakfast establishment in a residential area.

     Comm. Tamburro commented that he did not have a concern with the language in the agreement as long as the Clausers owned the property, but that he would be hesitant to approve the language as written if the property was to transfer to new owners.

     Comm. Tamburro sug-gested that another option would be for the Attorney to strike the words “but not limited to” from the draft agreement.

     Mayor Shuttleworth re-quested comments from the Clausers’ attorney, Mr. Bill Osborne.

     Mr. Osborne indicated that the language “but not limited to” was standard “legalese”. He stated that he felt that “special function” was a generic term and could be defined as most anything.

     Comm. Tamburro felt that the examples listed as special functions offered a parameter with which the Clausers and the Commission could work within.

     Mrs. Clauser commented she did not think that it was necessary to remove the words “but not limited to” as they reflected standard legal language regarding the operation of the business.

     MOTION by Comm. Long, SECOND by Comm. Cherry to approve a Development Agreement between Marge and Tom Clauser and the City of Lake Helen relating to the opera-tion of the Clausers’ bed and breakfast facility located at 201 East Kicklighter Road with the inclusion of the language provided by the City Attorney at tonight’s meeting.

     MOTION carried 3 - 2 with Comm. Sonnenfeld and Comm. Tamburro dissenting.

RE: Development Agreement between the Clausers and the City of Lake Helen concerning their bed and breakfast at 201 East Kicklighter Road - second and final reading.

Atty. Groot indicated that the Development Agreement had been modified to accommodate the requests made by the Commission at the last meeting. The conclusion that had been previously reached by the Commission had determined that the Clausers had vested rights on their property and the subsequent Development Agreement was the mech-anism which implemented these vested rights, includ-ing the limitations on these vested rights. He stated that the Development Agreement reflected the interests of the City and the interests of the property owners.

MOTION by Comm. Long, SECOND by Comm. Cherry to approve a Development Agreement between Marge and Tom Clauser and the City of Lake Helen relating to the operation of the Clausers’ bed and breakfast facility located at 201 East Kicklighter Road.

     Comm. Sonnenfeld wished to state for the record that he agreed with granting the Clausers their vested rights on their property, but stated that he objected to the process which had been utilized to approve an alcoholic beverage permit which allowed the Clausers to serve alcohol to the public in a residentially zoned district. He indicated that he felt false information had been provided on the alcoholic beverage application to the State to acquire this permit and because of this, he could not, in good conscience, vote to approve the Development Agreement.

     Comm. Tamburro stated that he shared Comm. Sonnenfeld’s concerns indicating that the State had approved the permit because it had been approved by the City on a local level.

     Comm. Tamburro indicated that the Clausers had worked in cooperation with the City to develop an agreement that was acceptable to all involved. He said the final document legitimized the Clausers’ business while also accom-modating the requests of the City to limit the square footage of the facility and to limit the operating hours of the pub. He stated that ap-proval of the Agreement would prevent frivolous challenges to the operation of the Clausers’ bed and breakfast, although he stated that the City had never received any prior com-plaints regarding disturb-ances or noise problems emanating from the Clausers’ establishment. He stated that his only concern lay with the sale of the business, but indicated that the Development Agreement provided a safety net as it specified to any operator (present and future) of the business what could and could not occur.

MOTION carried 4 - 1 with Comm. Sonnenfeld dissenting.

     Mr. Bill Osborne, Attorney representing the Clausers, requested that a 19 page code enforcement complaint filed by a private citizen against the Clausers be labeled as such. He stated that this document was in the official records of the City of Lake Helen and that this document was also identified in the Volusia County records department as being prepared by the City of Lake Helen and he wished this misunderstand-ing to be rectified. He wished that a statement be prepared indicating that this document was not prepared by the City of Lake Helen and the statements in it were not substantiated or endors-ed by the City of Lake Helen.

     Mr. Findell offered background information on the complaint indicating that this complaint was dis-seminated to the Commission for informational purposes only as it related to a code enforcement complaint which had been filed by a private individual. The code enforcement complaint had become a moot issue as a result of the action the Commission had taken tonight regarding the ap-proval of the Development Agreement between the City and the Clausers.

     The Commission re-quested that Mr. Findell compose a letter to the County relaying tonight’s discussion regarding the genesis and outcome of the complaint.