April 10, 2018


The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, April 10, 2018, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.


Chairman John Horan (District 2)

Vice Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)

Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)

Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)

Clerk of Court & Comptroller Grant Maloy

County Manager Nicole Guillet

County Attorney Bryant Applegate

Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell



Father Gilbert Medina, All Souls Catholic Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation; and Chairman Horan led the Pledge of Allegiance.


The Business Spotlight video for Big Tonys Chopp Shop was presented.


Agenda Item #1 2018-0652

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt a Proclamation recognizing Master Chief Petty Officer Charles J. McDevitt, Jr., United States Navy, Retired, as Seminole Countys April Veteran of the Month.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Master Chief Petty Officer Charles J. McDevitt, Jr., addressed the Board and expressed his appreciation.

Commissioner Constantine asked Ed Burford, Veteran Services Officer, to inform the Board of the impact the Veteran of the Month presentations have had on the community. Mr. Burford addressed the Board and discussed how the Veteran of the Month is selected and thanked the Board for having this type of presentation for veterans.


Agenda Item #2 2018-0660

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the week of April 8 April 14, 2018, as National Animal Control Officers Appreciation Week in honor of those who protect and support animals in Seminole County.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Carol Coleman, Animal Services Manager, accepted the Proclamation and thanked the Board for the recognition. Commissioner Dallari commended the Animal Control Officers for doing such a tough job so well.


Agenda Item #3 2018-0662

Carla Wilson and Brian Wilson addressed the Board to present an appreciation award from The Humane Society of the United States to the Board. They thanked the Board for all of their work on the bear ordinance, greyhound ordinance, and puppy mill ordinance.


Agenda Item #4 2018-0616

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the month of April 2018 as Water Conservation Month in Seminole County.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Debbie Meinert, Water Conservation, accepted the Proclamation and stated the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) is awarding 27 cost-share programs for recipients all around the district, and the County is number 17 so they are being awarded that right now from SJRWMD. The award is for the cost-share program which is going to provide the County with the University of Floridas H2O tool, which is a software that is going to help the County figure out if their conservation programs are effective and how efficient they are and what direction they would need to go if something isnt working.

Commissioner Dallari asked when they can actually see the results from the new software. Ms. Meinert answered she believes they will get results within six months to see how it is working, and it is going to connect with some of the other entities in the county, like the Property Appraisers Office. She noted it is only for County use at the moment, but in the future there will be a portion of it that is customer friendly.

Ms. Meinert discussed a new program they are implementing to help people determine whether or not their toilet has a leak. She handed out a door hanger that has two tablets attached to it with instructions on how to use the tablets. She confirmed that staff distributes the door hangers into the community.


Agenda Item #6 2018-0633

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the Month of April 2018 as Springs Protection Month in Seminole County.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Kim Ornberg, Watershed Management, addressed the Board and discussed the importance of springs. She thanked the Board for always being supportive of protecting the springs.


Agenda Item #5 2018-0629

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the week of April 8 April 14, 2018, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Lou Tomeo, Undersheriff, addressed the Board and expressed how proud he is of the work his staff does day in and day out and briefly described their job responsibilities.

Don Harkins, Public Safety, addressed the Board and stated he is responsible for planning analytics and information technology. They are on the verge of selecting a new CAD system that will shave seconds off of processing calls as they receive them in emergency situations, and seconds make a difference in lives for his department. He thanked the Board for their help with the new CAD system.

Commissioner Dallari explained the County is investing quite a bit of money into their towers and radios, and this CAD system is really the last critical piece. Chairman Horan pointed out they recently received $1 million from the State to upgrade the CAD system. Commissioner Henley described a recent event where he called 911, and commended the Countys emergency people for their great work.


Nicole Guillet, County Manager, stated there is one add-on item, Item #18A, which is authorization to conduct some additional work related to the Rolling Hills environmental assessment.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize and approve the following:

County Managers Office

Business Office

7. Approve travel and mileage reimbursement to Commissioner Lee Constantine for miscellaneous travel from January 2018 through March 2018. (2018-0657)


Development Services

Planning & Development Division

8. Approve the plat for the Brookmore Estates Phase 2 Subdivision containing seventeen (17) lots on 13.90 acres zoned PD (Planned Development), located on the north side of Chapman Road, approximately 4,000 feet west of Alafaya Trail; Chad Moorhead, Applicant. (2018-0628)


Environmental Services

Business Office

9. Authorize the release of Maintenance Bond (Water & Sewer Facilities) #1961796M in the amount of $36,052.67 for the Bellevue subdivision; and Maintenance Bond (Water & Sewer Facilities) #58732478 in the amount of $20,270.46 for the Aloma Trails subdivision. (2018-0654)


Public Works

Engineering Division

10. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-47 and a County Deed releasing the Countys interest in the subject area being acquired by FDOT (Parcel 137.4) for the State Road 429 (Wekiva Parkway) Right-of-Way Project. FDOT FPN 240200-4. (2018-0631)

11. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-48 and a County Deed releasing the Countys interest in the subject area being acquired by FDOT (Parcel 138.4) for the State Road 429 (Wekiva Parkway) Right-of-Way Project. FDOT FPN 240200-4. (2018-0630)



Resource Management

Budget & Fiscal Management

12. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-49 implementing the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-038 through the Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) Program Fund to transfer a fund advance of $5,700 to cover expenditures for Horseshoe Lake (North) Aquatic Weed Control MSBU. (2018-0646)

13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-50 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-039 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to re-allocate budget in the amount of $372,999 from Project Contingency for Hurricane Irma repaving projects. (2018-0641)

14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-51 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-040 through the BCC Health Insurance Fund to recognize revenue received from BMG Money, Inc. in the amount of $5,000 for the Seminole County Wellness Program. (2018-0642)

15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-52 implementing the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-041 in the net amount of $652,809 through the General Fund and Fire Fund to appropriate budget of $708,000 from Reserves for the Telephone System Refresh project. (2018-0647)

Purchasing & Contracts Division

16. Approve Amendment #1 to RFP-601670-13/TLR - Seminole County Medical Director with Todd M. Husty, DO PA, Oviedo, with an estimated annual amount of $229,726 plus an annual increase not to exceed 3%; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Amendment. (2018-0596)

17. Approve the ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one (1) Master Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-1802-18/RTB - Miscellaneous Capacity and Safety Improvement Evaluations (Estimated Annual Usage of $350,000). (2018-0645)

18. Approve the ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute four (4) Master Services Agreements (MSAs) for PS-1709-18/RTB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Engineering Services (Estimated Annual Usage of $400,000). (2018-0573)

18A. Approve Amendment #4 to Work Order #21 (Response to FDEP Comments on Rolling Hills Golf Course) under PS-9738-14/JVP General Environmental Consultant Services Agreement with E Sciences, Inc., Orlando, in the amount of $33,604.60; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Work Order Amendment. (2018-0674)


With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the Consent Agenda and public input was closed.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Clerk & Comptrollers Office

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the following:

19. Approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated March 12, 19 and 26, 2018; Payroll Approval Lists dated March 8 and 22, 2018; and the BCC Official Minutes dated February 27 and March 13, 2018. (2018-0650)


Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.



The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptrollers Received and Filed:

1. Executive Order #2018-1 declaring a state of local emergency and establishing a local burn ban.

2. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0152-CO-EQ re: Petition for approval of renewable energy tariff and standard offer contract, by Florida Power & Light Company, Docket #20170226-EQ, issued March 20, 2018.


3. Cash Maintenance Bond for water and sewer improvements, and Maintenance Escrow Agreement, for the project known as Highland Memory Garden, in the amount of $3,122.


4. Performance Bond #0173341 (Roads, Drainage, Water, Sewer, Hardscape & Landscape) for the project known as Lake Florence Preserve, in the amount of $603,743.10.


5. Subrecipient Agreement for Program Year 2017-2018 with Goldenrule Housing & Community Development Corp., as approved by the BCC on 6/10/14 in connection with the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Sanford regarding the administration of their CDBG funding.


6. CDBG Program Subrecipient Agreement for Program Year 2017-2018 with United Cerebral Palsy of Central Florida, Inc., as approved by the BCC on 7/25/17.


7. Addendum #1 to Development Order #17-20500028, and Developers Commitment Agreement #17-20500019, for Certus Senior Living PD; Daniel H. Dittmer & Dustin D. Dittmer CO TRS et al.


8. Addendum #1 to Developers Commitment Agreement for Isola Commercial Center PD; Longwood 1, LLC.


9. Bill of Sale accepting the off-site water and sewer system for the project known as Highland Memory Garden.


10. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and wastewater services between Seminole County and Mud Hole Custom Tackle, for the project known as Oviedo Commercial Center.


11. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and wastewater services between Seminole County and Spring Tree Village Apartments II, LLC, for the project known as Spring Tree Village Apartments, Phase 4.


12. Parks Contract for Services with Ethan Brewer, Sergeneno Rankin, and Catherine Jolley.


13. Work Order #8 to PS-0157-15 with S2L, Inc.


14. Change Order #3 to CC-1252-17 with Linton Enterprises, Inc.


15. Work Order #2 to RFP-1294-17 with Pat Lynch Construction, LLC.


16. Change Order #3 to CC-1342-17 with Corinthian Builders, Inc.


17. Change Order #2 to CC-1369-17 with Dager Construction, Inc.


18. Change Order #1 to CC-1458-17 with Linton Enterprises, Inc.


19. PS-1522-17, Master Service Agreements (3) with Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), Ardaman & Associates, Inc., and Tierra, Inc; as approved by the BCC on 12/12/17.


20. Amendment #7 to M-6607-11 with The Triece Company.


21. Work Order #13 to CC-9184-13 with Affordable Development.


22. Fourth Amendment to IFB-602230-15 with Cypress Supply, Inc.


23. Bids as follows:


PS-1405-17 from DRMP, Inc.; Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.; CDM Smith, Inc.; Cribb Philbeck Weaver Group, Inc.; Metric Engineering, Inc.; and


RFP-603047-18 from Charles Aquatics, Inc.


Agenda Item #20 2018-0627

Mary Robinson, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. Commissioner Constantine noted it is a wonderful event.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the Special Event Permit for the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra Concert at 400 Woodbridge Road, within the Springs Association recreation area, to be held April 28, 2018, with rain-out day on April 29, 2018, subject to staffs recommended conditions of approval; Carl Rendek, Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra, Inc., Applicant.

With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Agenda Item #21 2018-0655

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve a reduction to the Code Enforcement Board lien of $11,325, for Case #04-69-CEB, to the total administrative costs of $627.37 on the property located at 225 Temple Avenue, Fern Park, Tax Parcel #19-21-30-507-0B00-0040, owned by Todd Powell; require this reduced amount to be paid within thirty (30) days or the lien will revert to the original amount of $11,325; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien upon payment in full; during the afternoon session (page 114), the Board approved a waiver of the Administrative Costs of $627.37, which would be a total waiver of Code Enforcement Board lien of $11,325, and authorized the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien on the property located at 225 Temple Avenue, Fern Park, Tax Parcel #19-21-30-507-0B00-0040, owned by Todd Powell.

With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Agenda Item #22 2018-0659

Ms. Guillet stated _"_at the last commission meeting, _.1_there _.1_was _.1_a discussion _.3_regarding the rural area. _.1__#_One _.1_of the _.2_follow_.1_-up _.2_items _.1_that _.1_the _.1__#_Board _.1_requested and _.1_what _.1_staff _.2_committed _.1_to _.1_bring _.1_before _.1__%_the _%_Board _.1_was _.1_an _.2_update _.1_and _.1__.1_summary_.1_ _.1_of the _.1_rural _.1_bound_.1_ary_.1_. _%_She explained _"_this _.1_is _.1_an _.2_institution _.2_that's _.1_been _.1_in _.1_place _.1_in some form or fashion since _.2_1977_.1_, so _.1_staff _.1_thought _.3_it _.1_might _.1_be _.2_beneficial _.1_for _.2_folks _/"1_to _/#1_get _/$1_a _/%1_brief _/&2_history _/(1_of the _/)1_bound_/*1_ary_/+1_. _#_There _/,1_are _/-1_ac_/.1_tually _//1_two _/01_rural _/11_boundar_/21_ies _/31_so she wants to explain the distinction between the _%_Charter boundary and the _/41__#_Comp_/51_rehensive _#_Plan _/61_bound_/71_ary, _/83_and _/;1_g_/=1_ive _/>1_a _/?1_re_/@1_mind_/A1_er _/B1_of _/C1_what _/D1_these _/E1_two _/F1_boundaries _/I1_are_/J1_, what _/K2_they are _/M3_intended _/P1_to do _/Q1_and _/R1_how _/S1_they _/T1_came _/U1_to be_/V1_. She noted the _%_Board _/X2_received _/Z1_quite _/[1_a _/\1__/]1_bit _/^1_of _/_1_back_/`1_ground _/a1_information _/b1__%_(included in the a_%_aagenda m_%_emorandum) _%_prior to the meeting including _/c1__/d1_a very de_/e2_tailed _/g1_time_/h1_line _/i1_as _/j1_to _/k1__/l1_the _/m2_history _/o1_of the _/p1_boun_/q1_dary _/r2_since 1977. _#_There_/t1_ is also _/u1_a fact _/v1_sheet _/w1_w_/y1__/y1_ith the number _/z1_of _/{2_acres_/}1__/~1_,_/~1_ land _/1_use_/1_s that are out there, and _/1_some _/1_maps _/1_as _/1_well_/1_. Ms. _%_Guillet stated staff has_/1_ _/1_a _/1_very _/1_brief _/3_presentation _/1_for the _%_Board _/1__/1_that _/1_p_/1_rovides _/1__/1__/2_a 10,000-square-foot _/1_look _/1_at _/1_what _/1_the _/1_bound_/1_a_/1_r_/ 1_ies _/1_are_/1_, the _/3_two _/2_different_/1__/2_ boundaries_/1_, _/1__/1_what _/2_they are _/3_intended _/1_to _/2_accomp_/1_lish_/1_, and _/1_some _/1_of the _/4_characteristics _/1_that _/1_dis_/1_ting_/1_uish _/1_the two _/1_of _/1_them_/1_. Chairman _%_Horan _/2_emphasized_/1_ as part of the _%__/1_agenda memorandum, there _/1_is _/1_a _/1_wealth _/1_of _/1_material _/1_that _/1_can be _/2_accessed _/1_on_/1_line _/2_concerning _/1_the _/2_history _/1_of the _/1_rural _/1_bound_/1_ary_/1_, the _/2_distinction _/1_between _/1_the _/1__#_Comp _/1__#_Plan _/1_b_/1_oundary and the _/1__%_Chart_/1_er_/1_ boundary, a_0"2_nd thin_0$1_gs like _0%1_that_0&1_.

Tina Williamson, Development Services Director, addressed the Board and presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled Comp Plan Urban/Rural Boundary vs. 2004 Charter Amendment Boundary (received and filed). Ms. _%_Williamson stated _0R1__0S1__0T1_she has a _0U1_brief _0V3_presentation _0Y1_to _0Z2_summarize some of the differences between the boundary that is in the _%_Comp _%_Plan _0g1_and _0h1_the boundary that is in _0i1_the _0j1__#_Count_0k1_y _0l1__%_Chart_0m1_er_0n1_. She began her presentation by advising i_0o1__%__#_n _0p3_1991_0s1_, the _0t1__#_Board _0u1_a_0v2_mended _0x1_the _0y1__#_Comp _0z1__#_Plan _0{1_to _0|2_include _0~3_the_01_ _%_Urban/R_01_ural boundary_01__01__01__01_. _01__#_It _01_is _01_a _03_descriptive _01_boundary which means it is depicted graphically on the map and there _01_is _01_no _01_met_01_es _01_and _01_bounds _03_legal _01_description _01_as _01_part _01_of _01_that_01_. _#_ _01__#_In_01_ 2004, the _0 2__#_Charter _01_bound_01_ary _01_was _03_approved _01_by _02_voter _04_referendum _01_and _01_is depicted graphically on a map w_01_ith a metes and bounds legal description_01_ which h_01_as been adopted into the _%_Comp _%_Plan. _%_One of the _02_major _03_differences _01_between _01_the _01_two _03_boundaries _01_is that if a _02_property _01_is within the _%_U_01_rban/R_01_ural boundary and _03_is _01_annexed into a _%_City, _02__01__02__01__01__01_the _%_City then gains land _01_use _01_authority over the _02_property, _01_and _01_they can _02_apply _01_their _01_own _02_future _01_land _01_use _01_designation to it as _03_opposed _01_to the _02__#_Charter _01_bound_01_ary, _01_which _01_if _01_a _02__#_City _01_were to annex into the _%_Charter area, the_01_ _#_Count_01_y _01_would _01_still _02_maintain _1!1_land _1"1_use _1#1_authority _1$1_over _1%1_that _1&1_and the _1'1__#_Count_1(1_y _1)1_would _1*1_still _1+1_be _1,1_responsible _1-1_for _1.1_authorizing any _1/2_future _111_land _121_use _131_a_142_mendments_161_. _171__191__%_Ms. _%_Williamson added _"_another _1:2_difference _1<1_is that _1=1__1>1_the _#_Comp _1?1__#_Plan _1@1_in_1A1_cludes _1B1_specific _1C1_stand_1D1_ards _1E1_for amending the _%_U_1E1_rban/_1E1_Rural boundary and _1F1_the _1G2__#_Charter _1I1_does _1J1_not _1K1_con_1L1_tain _1M1__1N1__1O1_specific _1P1_stand_1Q1_ards _1R1_for _1S3_amending _1V1_the _1W2__#_Charter _1Y1_bound_1Z1_ary_1[1_.

Ms. Williamson referred to the map in her presentation and n_1[1_oted _1\1__%_it shows the 1991 boundary in red, and the _%_Charter boundary is the hashed area_1|1__1]1__1^1__1_1__1`1__1a1__1b1__1c1__1d2__1f1__1g3__1j1__1k1__1l1__1m1__1n1__1o1__1p1__1q1__1r2__1t1__1u1__1v1__1w2__1y1__1z1__1{1__1|1_. _1}1__%_She reviewed the_%_ _%_East _%_Rural_#_ _%_Area _%_Timeline which notes_13__13_ significant _11_e_11_vents _12_between _18_1991 and 2013, including the _%_Comp _%_Plan _%_a_18_mendments to protect the _%_Geneva _%_Freshwater _%_Lens in 1993 and the _%_Charter _%_R_18__18_ural _%_b_18_oundary amendment in 2013 to remove the _%_Mermel property._11__11_

_%_Lastly, _%_Ms. _%_Williamson briefly discussed _%_Proposals _%_Affecting the _%_East _%_Rural _%_Area slides. _%_She pointed out the_%_ most recent one was _%_Florida _%_HB_%__203__203_ 883,_2@1__2@1_ but _2A1_the_2B2_ _#_Senate _2D1_did _2E1_not _2F1_take _2G1_any _2H1_action _2I1_on _2J1_that _2K1_bill_2L1_. Chairman Horan confirmed with Ms. Williamson that that was the bill recently considered by the most recent Legislature. He asked if it passed either house, and Ms. Williamson answered it was a House bill and the Senate did not take action on it.

Ms. Guillet stated she would like _21__21__21_to go _21_back _21_to _22_talking _21__21_about the _21_two _22_different _2 1_bound_21_aries _21_because _22_she is _21_not _21_sure _21_that _21_everybody _21_understand_21_s that there are two _22_separate _21_bound_21_a_21__21_ries_21__21_ and really what their distinctions are. _%_She _21__21__23__21_reiterated there _21_is _25_a_22_n _%_U_22_rban_21_/R_21_ural _21_bound_21_ary _21_within _21_the _21__#_Count_21_y_21_'s _21__#_Comp _21__#_Plan _21_which _21_predates _22__21_the_22_ _#_Charter _21__25_amendment _22_rural boundary_21_. _#_And the _21_bound_21_ar_21__21__21_y that is in the _21__#_Comp _21__#_Plan _22_is really a land use regulatory tool; it_21_ is in_22_tended _21_to _21_reg_21_ulate _22_uses _21_within _21_the _22__22_rural _21_area_21__21_. _3!1_The _3"1__#_Chart_3#1_er _3$1_bound_3%1_ary _3&1_is _3'1_a _3(1_bound_3)1_ary _3*1_that _3+1_was _3,2_established _3.1_by _3/1_a _302__#_Charter, _321_and _332__351_the _362_primary _381_function _391_of _3:1_that _3;1_particular _3<1_in_3=1_strument _3>1_is _3?3_t_3?3_o _3B3_designate _3E1_who _3F2_makes _3H1_land _3I1_use _3J2_decisions _3L1_within _3M1_the _3N1_rural _3O1_bound_3P1_ary _3Q1_area_3R1_. _3S1_It _3T2_doesn't _3V2_define _3X1_what _3Y1_rural _3Z1_land _3[2_uses _3]1_are, and it doesn't talk about or discuss rural land uses at all. _%_It's not a land use regulatory tool other than to say who has authority to make decisions about land use within the rural boundary area. Chairman Horan noted it is a structural foundational document. Ms. Guillet agreed and added it simply designates who has the authority to make those decisions with respect to land use in the rural boundary. It also indicates who has the authority to make changes to t_31_he _3 1_rural _31_bound_31_ary, _31_and _31_that _32__#_Charter _31_a_32_mendment_31_ contemplates by ordinance that the _%_Board can _31__31__31__31__31__31__31_make _31_the_31_ bound_31_ary _31_small_31_er_31_, but it cannot expand the rural boundary. _31__#_It can _31_a_31_mend _31_the _31_con_32_figuration _33_of _31_it _31_by _32_ordinance _31_a_31_t _31__31_its _31_discretion_31_, and _31_there _31_are _31_no _31_guide_31_lines _31_within _31_the_32_ _#_Charter _31_amendment to direct that discret_31_ion; it simply leav_31_es _31_it _31_as_31_ if t_31_he _%_Board feels it is necessary, t_31_he _%_Board can move the line.

Ms. Guillet explained in regard to the Comp Plan, to _31_move _31_properties outside _31_of the _31__#_Comp _33__#_Plan _31_rural _31_bound_31_ary_31_, there is a _31__4!1__4"1_very _4#1_specific_4$1_, de_4%1_tail_4&1_ed and stringent set of standards _4,1_that _4-1_have _4.1_to be _4/1_met _401_in _411_ord_421_er _431_for _441_the_441_ _451__#_Board _461_to _471_a_481_mend _491_the _4:1__#_Comp _4;1__#_Plan _4<1_and _4=1_move _4>1_something _4?1_out _4@1_of _4A3_that _4D1__%_Comp _%_Plan rural _4E1_bound_4F1_ary_4G1_ _%_and _4H1_change _4I1_the _4J1_land _4K1_use _4L4_designations _4P1_on _4Q1_it_4R1_. _#_So _4S1_there _4T1_are _4U1_two _4V2_different _4X3_issues _4[1_that _4\1_the _4]1__#_Board _4^1_could _4_1_deal _4`1_with, _4a1_with _4b1_respect _4c1_to the _4d1_rur_4e1_al _4f1_bound_4g1_ary_4h1_. _4i1_The _4j2_issue _4l1_of _4m1_the _4n1__#_Chart_4o1_er _4p3_amendment _4s1_line _4t1_and the _4u1_con_4v2_figuration _4x1_of the _4y1__#_Chart_4z1_er _4{3_amendment _4~1_bound_41_ary _41_and the _42_effect _41_of _41_any _41_action _41_the_41_ _%_Board may_41_ _41_take _41_on _41_that _41_to _41_change _41_that _41_line _41_would _42_simply _41_be _41_who _41_ultimately can _41__42__41_make _41_decisions about the land _41_use_41_s on _41_what_41_ever _42_property _41_is _43_affected _41_by _41_such an action. If t_41_he _%_Board has _41_re_42_moved _41_it _41_from the _42__#_Charter _41_rural _41_bound_41_ary _41_and it annexes _41__41_into _41_the _42__%_C_42__42_ity, _41_the _42__%_C_42__42_ity _41_then _41_has _41_the _43_ability _41_to make the decisions with _41_respect _41_to _41_land _41_use_41_.

For clarity, Commissioner _%_Carey proposed if _42_it is _41_in the _41_rural _41_bound_41_ary _41_and _41_it's adjacent_41__41_ _41_to a _41__41__%_c_41_ity_41_, and _41__41_they _41_plan _41_to_42_ annex _41_into _41_the _42__#_City_41_,_41_ unless _41_t_41_he_%_ _%_Board decides _5'1_to _5(1__5)1__5*1_remove it _5+3_from the _5.1_rural _5/1_bound_501_ary_513_, t_513_hey _541_would _551_still have jurisdiction _563__591__5:1__5;1__5<1_over_5=1_ the land _5>1_use. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet responded that is correct. _%_She added_%_ _5C1_any _5D1_re_5E1_vision _5F1_to the _5G1_land _5H1_use _5I2_desig_5K1_nation _5L1_would _5M1_have _5N1_to _5O1_meet_5P1_ the standards that are in the _%_County's _%_Comp _%_Plan for _5Q1_that _5R1_re_5S1_vision_5T1_. _%_Chairman _%_Horan commented that is _5U1__%__5V1__5W1__5Y2_exactly _5[1_the_5\1_ issue that was litigated when the _%_City of _%_Winter _%_Springs challenged the _%_Plan and lost the_5\1_ challenge. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet stated she wo_5\1_uld defer to _5^1_the _%_County _%_Attorney b_5^1_ecause _%_s_5^1_he was not involved in that litigation so _%_s_5^1_he doesn't recall the specifics of what the issues were on that. Commissioner _%_Carey suggested_"_ if _%_Ms. _%_Guillet is not familiar with that litigation, she needs to look at it because the _%_County prevailed in that litigation and she should get familiar with why the _%_County prevailed. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet advised the_%_ _%_County _%_Attorney's _%_Office is reviewing that.

Chairman _%_Horan p_5^1_ointed out _"_the boundary of the 1991 _%_P_5^1_lan and the boundary of the _%_Charter are not the same. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet agreed they are not the same, but they are very close._%_ Chairman _%_Horan stated _"_if they were to consider land use applications within either boundary, they both go by the same _%_Comp _%_Plan regulations. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet explained _"_all of the properties within the _%_Charter amendment boundary are governed by the land use policies in the _%_Comp _%_Plan that relate to the _%_Urban/R_5^1_ural boundary. _%_Chairman _%_Horan indic_%__5^1_ated those same standards apply to property that may be in the _%_Comp _%_Plan rural boundary but not necessarily in the _%_Charter rural boundary. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet advised that is c_%_orrect. _%_She clarified _"_if the _%_Board was to take an action to_%_ move the _%_Charter boundary line on a piece of property, to remove a piece of property from the rural boundary, and if it remained in unincorporated _%_Seminole _%_County, the provision_5^1_s in the _%_Co_5^1_mp _%_Plan _6~1_that govern the _%_Comp _%_Plan _%_Urban/R_6~1_ural boundary would still apply _61_to _61_that _62_property_61__61_ even if it were _61_not _61_in _62_the _#_Charter _61_bound_61_ary _61_unless _61_it _61_an_62_nexed _61_into _61_a _6 2_city_61_.

Commissioner _%_Carey_61__61_ asked what the requirement is to remove property from the _%_Urban/Rural boundary. _%_She noted there is a burden of proof to take it out of the rural boundary. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet _61_answered t_%_here are a number of things that an applicant would have to demonstrate in order to rem_61_ove property from the _%_Comp _%_Plan _#_Urban/R_61_ural boundary. Ms. _%_Williamson explained basically there is a demonstration of need that is required. _%_The applicant would have to provide analysis showing that there is not enough land available for the population of the horizon year of the plan that is projected; there is not enough land area in the urban area to accommodate that growth in the urban area. _%_She displayed_%_ page _%_FLU-116 of the _%_Comp _%_Plan (included in the agenda memorandum) which addresses _"_standards for _"_amending the _%_Urban/Rural _"_boundary and stated _"_there are also some other standards related to conservation, open space and protecting natural resources, but the main thing is demonstration of need. Ms. _%_Guillet added t_%_hey basically have to demonstrate that there is a need to encroach into the rural area in order to accommodate the urban development needs of the _%_County.

Chairman _%_Horan_61_ _61_i_61_nquired about the fourth standard on page _%_FLU-117 of the _%_Comp _%_Plan (included in the agenda memorandum), and _%_Ms. _%_Guillet stated the fourth standard basically relates to public facilities. _%_If there was a need to locate a school or some other critical public facility, s_61_omeone could demonstrate that; that is really related more_%_ to public improvements. Bryant _%_Applegate, _%_County _%_Attorney, summarized the _71_f_71_our _72_elements_71_: pop_71_ulation_72_ need, afford_71_able _72_housing_72_, econom_71__71_ic _8!1_development,_8!1_ _8"1_and _8#1_the _8$1_need _8%1_for _8&1_a _8'2_public _8)2_facilit_8+1_y. Commissioner _%_Dallari stated he b_%_elieves there are all kinds of_#_ things that whoever is going to be presenting would have to demonstrate.

Chairman _%_Horan _8+1_asked if that _%_would apply to just the _%_Comp _%_Plan border._8+1_ _%_Ms. _%_Guillet answered yes. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey pointed out if they are not removing the land from the _%_Charter _%_boundary, the _%_Comp _%_Plan still applies, so the only way that _%_she sees that it could be impacted is if the _%_Board agreed to remove a piece that was contiguous to a c_%_ity that could be annexed into a c_%_ity because otherwise, as long as it's staying in the c_%_ounty, whether it's the _%_Charter or the _%_Comp _%_Plan, the _%_Comp _%_Plan is going to apply. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet stated that is correct. _%_ _%_Chairman _%_Horan expressed_%_ if you have a piece of land that is contiguous to a c_%_ity, that consideration tactically and strategically would have to be taken into consideration in terms of removing it or leaving it in the c_%_ounty and coordinating the land use with that land use that the c_%_ity may have. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey stated they need to clarify "c_%_ontiguous to a c_%_ity." _8+1__%_She used _%_Snow _#_Hill _%_Road as a_8+1_n example and advised the _%_City of _%_Oviedo is annexed up to an imaginary line in the sand, and on one side of the road t_8+1_hey have urban designations and on the other side t_8+1_hey have the rural boundary. _%_She asked if t_%_hat is considered to be contiguous since there is a road separating it; and _%_Ms. _%_Guillet answered under the annexation statute, that would be contiguous. Chairman _%_Horan stated in the past they have discussed issues like transition. _%_He thinks the reason some of those provisions _%__%_are in there is that strategically and tactically they have to actually take a look at whether the land is contiguous or not and whether or not the transition can be better employed by the _%_County,_8+1_ _%_City or by some kind of joint-use agreement.

Commissioner _%_Carey stated she has_%_ a comment and it is the same comment _%_she had back when they heard this in 2006, and that is at some point they have to talk about _:Z1_transition _:[1_because _:\2_they are _:^1_not _:_1_going _:`1_to go _:a1_from _:b1_four units per acre and some imaginary line and then one unit per five or one unit per ten. _%_They a_%_re always going to have the pressure on the boundary until that is solved. _%_In all those areas where land is contiguous, she woul_%_d _:1_like_:1_ _:1__:1__:1__:1__:1_to _:1_talk _:1_about _:1_trans_:1_itional _:1_zoning _:1_and how _:1_they _:2_transition _:1_from _:1_four _:4_units _: 1_per acre on one side_:1__:1_ of an imaginary line _:1_to _:1_one _:2_unit _:1_per_:1_ five_:1_ on the other side. _:1__#_In _:1_some cases, the transition may have to happen on the rural side;_:1_ _:1_but _:1_again, without looking at it and understanding what every piece potentially is today, they don't really know the answer to that. Commissioner _%_Henley responded t_%_he answer would lie with the_:2_ _%_Board.

Chairman _%_Horan stated t_%_hat is exactly the point _%_he was making which is, if there is something that is going to be created, it is the way the _%_Charter amendment is set up and the way the _%_Comp _%_Plan is set up, that lies within the providence of the _%_Board unless they make the decision to take a contiguous area out of the rural boundary; _%_and at that particular point, there's a responsibility of the _%_City. Ms. Guillet replied if it annexes, then that is correct. She added another distinction between the _%_Charter boundary and the _%_Comp _%_Plan _%_Boundary is that _"_the _%_Charter boundary is of course part of _%_the home rule _%_Charter. _#_Until the _%_Charter is amended, the _%_B_:2_oard is bound by the provision in that _%_Charter. _%_The _%_Comp _%_Plan is different. _%_T_:2_he _%_Board or any future _%_Board could amend the _%_Comp _%_Plan at any time. So while the criteria and the mandates and the expectations that are in the _%_Charter are fixed, and the_:2_ _%_Board or any future _%_Board doesn't have the authority to impact that unless there's some sort of voter initiative or referendum to revise that language, the items that are in the _%_Comp _%_Plan are always subject to review and revision by the_:2_ _%_Board or any future _%_Board.

Chairman _%_Ho_<<1_ran stated he thinks_%__%_ _%_the _<=1_reason _<>1_it was _<?1_set _<@1_up _<A1_that _<B1_way _<C1_in the _%_Charter, if _%_he remembers correctly, is _<D1_because _<E1__<F1_they _<G2_wanted _<I1_to _<J1_put _<K1_the _<L1_responsibility _<M1_for _<N1_those _<O1_land _<P2_uses _<R1_in _<S1_the _<T1_hands _<U1_of _<V1__<W1_the _<X3_governing _<[2_body _<]1_that _<^1_would _<_1_be _<`1_least _<a2_likely _<c1_to _<d2_benefit _<f1_from _<g1_sprawl, from ex_<h2_tending _<j2_urban _<l3_services _<o1_to _<p1_a _<q1_particular _<r1_area _<s2_beyond _<u2_it_<1_. _#_If _<1_it_<1_'s _<1_not _<1_con_<1_tig_<1_uous _<1_to _<1_a _<2__"_city_<1_, the _<2_total _<1_authority _<1_is _<1_in _<1_the _<1__#_Count_<1_y _<1_in _<1_terms _<1_of the _<1_land _<2_uses_<1_. _#_If _<2_it_<1_ is con_<1_tig_<1_uous _<1_to _<1_a _<2__"_city, _<1_the_<2_ total _<1_authority _<1_is _<1_in the _<1__%_C_%_ounty_<1_; however_<1_, they can _<1_ac_<1_tually _<1_a_<2_bandon _<1_that _<1_authority _<1_by _<2_moving _<1_the _<1_line _<1_if the _<1__<1__<1__%_City wants to _<2_annex _<2_it_<1_. Ms. _%_Guillet indicated that is a correct statement. _%_She _%__%__=!1_refer_="1_red _=#1__=$1_to the _=%1__%_M_=&1_ermel _='2_property _=)1_which _=*1_ult_=+2_imately _=-1_be_=.1_came _=/1_part _=01_of _=11_a _=21_development. _%_It was a very small piece of property _=21_that was used for retention and a tot lot. _%_In that case,_=21_ and the only case other than the _%_Rook property right after the _%_Charter _%_Amendment was passed, it is the only piece of property that the _%_BCC has r_=\2_emoved _=^1_from _=_1_the_=`1_ rural _=a1_bound_=b1_ary_=c1_. _#_And _=d1_when t_=d1_he _%_BCC _=e1_did_=f1_ that_=g1_, _=h1_they did _=i1_that _=j1_thr_=k1_ough a _=l1_tri_=m1_-part_=n1_y _=o1_development _=p1_a_=q1_greement_=r1_ that very specifically fixed what the future land uses could be. _%_So the _%_BCC_%_ moved the line but they did it only under _=1_the _=1_condition _=1_that _=1_there _=1_was _=1_a development agreement_=1__=1__=1_ _=1_that _=3_fixed what the uses would be on that property_=1_; that there would be no _=1__=1__= 1_vert_=1_ical _=1_c_=1__=1_onstruction, that there would just _=2_be retention _=1_a_=1__=1_nd a tot lot. Upon inquiry from _%_Chairman _%_Horan, _%_Ms. _%_Guillet stated the three parties in that instance were the _%_County, the _%_City, and the developer. _=1_ _%_The _%_BCC was_=1__=1_ _=1_able _=1_to do t_=1__=1_hat because _=2_there_=1_ is nothing _=1_in the _=1__%_Chart_=1_er a_=1_mend_=1_ment that precludes the _%_BCC from doing that_=1_.

Commissioner _%_Dallari stated h_=1_e believes _=1_in _=1_the _=1__#_Comp _=1__#_Plan _=1_as _=2_it is _=2_stated_=1_ _=1_as well as the _=1__#_Chart_=1_er_=1__=2__=1_. _=1__%_He _=3_believe_=1_s in _=1_the_=1_ rural _=1_area, _=1_and _=1_h_=1_e _=1__=1_will _=1_uphold the _%_Charter and the _%_Comp _%_Plan for the rural area. _%_H_=1_e also believes that this _%_County is special because of that designation and _%_i_=1_t is something that should always be upheld.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:55 a.m., reconvening at 11:00 a.m.

Richard _>I1__#_Creed_>J1_o_>J1_n,_>Z1_ _>[2_1172 _>]3_Apache _%_Drive, _>`1__>e2_addressed the _%_Board and stated he is _>g2_speaking _>i1__>j2__>l1_as _>m1__%_President of the _%_Geneva _%_Citizens _%_Association_>z1_. _>{1__%_He thanked_>|1__>}1__>~1__>1_ the _%_Board_%_ for their continuous support of the _>1_rural _>1_bound_>1_ary _>1_that _>1_was _>1_originally _>1_in_>3_stituted _>1__>1_in 2004 with the _>1_support _>1_of _>1_almost _>3_60% _>1_of the _>2_voters _>1_in _>1_the _>2_entire _>1_count_>1_y_>1_. _>1__%_Mr. _%_Creedon stated _"_de_>2_fending _> 1_the rural boundary may _>1_require _>1_some _>1_new _>3_thinking_>1__>1_ _>1_and they need to _>1_be _>1_will_>1__>1_ing to think _>1_out_>1_ of the _>1_b_>1_ox in _>1_a _>2_proact_>1_ive _>2_manner_>1_. _>1__%_He_>1_ has_>1_ _>3_confidence _>1_that _>1_t_>1__>1_he _%_Board will _>1_be _>2_equal _>1_to the _>1_task_>1_._>1__>1__>1__>1__>1__>1__>1_ _#_He did not ask the folks in his community to _>1__>1__>1__>1__>1__>1__>1__>2__%_attend this meeting_>1__>1__>1__>1__?!1__?"2__?$1__?%1__?&1__?71_ because he _?81_felt _?92_that wasn't _?;1_necessary _?<1_because _?=1_he _?>1_ha_??5_s confidence _?D1_that the _%_Board will do the right thing. _%__?N1_

_?O1__?Q1__%_Chairman _%_Horan reminded that the only thing regarding this issue on the agenda today _?_1_is _?`1_an _?a1_up_?b1_date _?c1_and _?d1_a _?e2_briefing_?g1_. _#__?h2__?j1_ _%_The _%_Board is not _?k2_taking _?m1_any _?n1_action _?o1_because _?p2_there_?r1_ is no _?s1_action _?t1_to be _?u2_taken _?w1_on the _?x1_a_?y1_gend_?z1_a_?{1_. _%_Mr. _%_Creedon noted that i_%_s why he did not ask the people to come out;_?{1_ t_%_his is sort of like policy, this is not specifics. _%_But _"_when the specifics come, he will get the community out if he needs to. _%_Chairman _%_Horan advised there are g_%_oing to be work sessions and they will be doing some other things on this as well.

Don _%_Peterson, 3585 _%_Canal _%_Street, addressed the _%_Board and commended_%_ the forward thinking of the _%_Board._?2_ _?1__%_He stated _?1_in the _?1_up_?1_coming _?1_rest _?1_of the _?1_year_?1_, there _?1_are _?1_going _?3_to be _?1_some _?3_issues _@"1_that _@#1_come _@$1_before _@%1__@&2_the _%_Board, probably _@(1_soon_@)1_, and _@*1_he wants to _@+1__@,1_urge _@-1__@.1_the _%_Board _@/1_to _@01_keep _@11_on _@22_thinking _@41_forward_@51_, looking _@61__@71_at the whole _@82_picture_@:1_, and _@;1_back_@<1_i_@<1_ng up _@=1_the _@>1_citizens._@?1__@@1__@A1__@B1_ _%_The citizens _@C1_need _@D1_the _@E1_green_@F1_ area. _@G1__#_The _@H1_people _@I1_love_@J1_ it_@K1_, and _@L1_to _@M1_keep _@N2_taking _@P1_it _@Q1_out _@R1_i_@W1_s _@X1__@Z1_the_@[1_ wrong _@\1_thing _@]1_to do.

Mary _%_Jo _%_Martin, 1450 _%_Lake _%_Harney _%_Road, addressed the _%_Board and stated several years ago, a lawyer argued_@_1__@_1_ _@t1_for _@u1_his _@v1_client _@w1__@x1_that _@y1_it was a matter of fundamental fairness and rights that he _@z1_should _@{1_be _@|1_able _@}1_to _@~1_sell _@1_one resident per three acres instead of one resident per five in the rural area. _@1__%_S_@1_he _@1__@1_say_@1_s this _@1_is _@1_a _@2_matter _@1_of _@2_fundament_@1_al _@1_fair_@1_ness _@1_and _@1_rights_@1_. _@1_Seminole County _@1_citizens have the _@ 1__@1__@1_right _@1_to _@1_decide _@1_what _@1_they _@2_voted _@1_for _@3__@1_and _@2_approve_@1_d to be _@1_put _@1_in the _@1_Seminole County _@1__%_Charter_@1_. _@1__#_They _@1_have _@1_the _@1_right _@1_to _@1_have _@1_an _@1_area_@1__@1_ with ag_@4__@4_riculture_@1_, nurseries, ranches, and _@1_an _@1_ever _@1_pop_@1_ular _@1_annual extension farm day for _@1_all _@1_count_@1_y _@1_citizens_@1__@1_ to be _@1_able _@1_to see an_@1__@1_d _@1_learn _@1_about _@1_rur_@1_al life_@1_. _@1_They _@1_have the _@1_right _@1_to _@1_have _@3_protected _@1_horse_@1_back _@2_riding _@1_and _@2_hiking _@1_trails_@1_, canoeing/_@1_kayak trails, birding trails with over 92 active bald eagle nests without encroachment by houses and traffic to ruin the experience. _%_They have the right to have a place where they can buy land in the rural area, and not have to worry that they will end up in a subdivision or a transition area.

Ms. Martin stated t_%_hey have a right to see and maybe even own family land with horses, goats, chickens, without close neighbors to complain and the right to feel competent that each and every _%_BCC through the years will respect their vote and subsequently their rights without whittling away the area and will have the courage to stand up for what is in the _%_Comp _%_Plan when it states, _%_"a_@1_ clear and sharp distinction between rural and urban densities is considered more effective in protecting rural character" and "transitioning of land uses is ineffective in a rural area since it does not clearly identify the future limits of urban development and will likely lead to urban sprawl." _%_She thanked _%_the _%_BCC for keeping_%__%_ the rural area rural for all of its _%_citizens and having the courage to stand up to those who wish to delete or change any part of it which would cause a domino effect of urbanization as _@1_stated in the _%_Comp _%_Plan.

Pam _%_Meharg, _%_P.O. _%_Box 2977, addressed the _%_Board and stated she is_BC2__BE2_ speaking _BG1_as _BH1_the _BI1__%_Conservation _%_Chair for _%_Seminole _%_Audubon _%_Society_Bl1_. _%_She opined they _Bm1_need _Bn1_to _Bo1_talk _Bp1_about _Bq1_the _Br1_rural _Bs1_bound_Bt1__Bu1__Bv1_aries and _Bw1_start the discussion about how _Bx1_they can _By1_best _Bz2_protect _B|1_the rural landscape in eastern _%_Seminole _%_County from more mischief making_B}1__B~1__B1__B2__B1__B1_ from state legislators and _B1_development _B3_interest_B1_. _B1_The _B2_voters of_B1_ _B1_Seminole County _B2_approve_B1_d the _B1_rural _B1_bound_B1_ary _B1_amendment to the _B1__%_County_B1_ _B2__#_Charter _B2_in 2004. _B1__#_The_B1_ purpose _B1_of the _B3_amendment _B2_was to maintain _B1__B1_the current densities and in_B2_tensities _B1_of the rural area_B1_, establish_B1_ a _B1_rural _B1_bound_B1_ary _B1_and _B1_rural _B1_area _B1_in the _B1_home _B1_rule _B2__#_Charter_B1_, and _B1_create a system of checks and balances as _%_Seminole _%_County planned for the explosive growth anticipated in _%_Central _%_Florida. _%_The rural _B1_growth _B3_allows _B1_for _B1_large _B1_lot_B1__B2_, rural residential use, and agricultural use, _B1__B1_pro_B1_vides _B1_a _B1_rural _B1_life_B1_style _B1_to our citizens, limits the cost of public services, creates opportunities for passive recreational facilities and protects environmentally sensitive plans, especially those needed to protect water resources. _%_The explosive growth that was anticipated for _%_Central _%_Florida has arrived and the need for a strong rural boundary is more evident and relevant than ever. _CK1__CK1_ _%_S_CK1_he _CL1_supports _CM1_the _CN1_rural _CO1_bound_CP1_ary _CQ1_in _CR1_Seminole County _CS1_and _CT2_encourages _CV1_any _CW1__CX2_transitio_CZ1__C[1_nal zones that _C\1_t_C\1_he _%_Board _C]1_feels _C^3_may be necessary _Ca1_on the _Ce1_west_Cf1_ern _Cg1_side _Ch1_of _Ci1_that _Cj1_rural _Ck1_bound_Cl1_ary_Cm1_.

Jay _%_Zembower, 3771 _%_Eagle _%__%_Preserve _%_Point, _C1_addressed the _%_Board and stated _%_h_C1_i_C1_s _C2_family _C1_owns _C1__C1_and _C1_will continue _C1_to _C1_own _C1_property in the rural boundary. _%_He cautioned the _%_Board of the _%__C1_back_C1_ground _C2_chatter _C2_that is _C1_going _C1_on_C1_ and _#__C1__C1__C1__C1_urged _C1_the _C2__%_B_C2_oard to _D"1_de_D#1_ploy _D$1_all assets of the assaults that are about to come upon the rural area for a number of reasons. _Ds1__%_He _Dt1__Du1_e_Dv1_njoys a great quality of life with horseback riding, clean water and clean lakes. _%_Mr. _%_Zembower stated _D2_it_D1_ is great _D1_to _D1_make _D1_sure _D1_that _D1_they have _D1__D1_staff _D1_up _D1_to _D1_speed_D1_, but _%_urge_D1_d the consideration _D1_of _D1_an outside _D1_set of eyes relook_D1__D2__D1__D1__D2_ing _D1_at _D1_all the _D2_thin_D1_gs that _D1_have _D3_transpired_D2_ and understanding _D1_what _D1_real_D1__D1__D1__D1_ly occurred. _%_He explained _"_at the time, _%_Commissioner _%_Henley was the_%_ _%_Chairman when a_%_ lot of this went down, and he has a vast amount of knowledge. _%_But this really occurred becau_D1_se of the _%_Battle _%_Ridge subdivision in _%_Winter _%_Springs._E42_ _%_M_E42_r. _%_Zembower understands why there is no transition and_%_ understands the intent of the movement of _E?2_annex_EA1_ation _EB1_of _EC1__ED2_cities _EF1_and _EG1_hence, _EH1_why _EI1_t_EO1_here is an _EP1__EQ1__ER1__ES1__ET1_agreement _EU1_between all parties of what everyone could live with. _%_H_EU1_e urged the _%_Board to look at that very closely and take the necessary steps, not only to get staff up to speed but to deploy additional assets to take a drive-by view of what legislation and what case law has occurred since this all went into place so they can protect the intent of the voters of _%_Seminole _%_County.

H. _%_Alexander _%_Duncan, _%_P._%_O. _%_Box 620092, _E1__E1_addressed the _%_Board and stated _E1_the _E1_truth _E1_of the _E3_matter is_E1__E1_ people _E1_vote _E1_for the members of the _%_Board_E1_ and _E1__E2_tell _E1_them _E1_time _E1_and _E1_time _E1_again _E1_they want the rural boundary, so _E1_it _F!2_shouldn't _F#2__F%1_be _F&1_up _F'1_for _F(1_discussion_F)1_. _F*2__#_So _F01_p_F01_eople _F11_vote _F21_for the _%_Board _F32_to save _F51_the _F61_rural _F71_bound_F81_ary_F91_, but _F:1_they _F;1_have to come _F<1__F=1_every _F>1_year _F?1_to talk about this _F?1_because _F@1_o_FD1__FD1_f the _FE1_people _FF2_that_FH2_ are saying _FJ1_stuff_FK1__FL1_. _%_He has _F1_been _F1_here _F1_with _F1_h_F1_is _F2_family _F1_for _F1_decades. _F1__F1__F1__F1__%__G&1_Mr. _%_Duncan stated he _G'1_knows _G(1_where the _G)1_line _G*1_i_G*1_s _G+1_because _G,1_he came down to the meetings as a kid and went through_G81_ these _G91_same _G:1_arg_G;1_uments._Gg1_ People _Gh1_who have _Gi1_really been here have seen _%_Oviedo encroaching. _Gy1_ _%__%_He just went through this at the _%_October meetings with the _%_City of _%_Oviedo because the _%_Mayor said exactly the opposite of what _%_was said today and said the _%_City has not annexed anything from the _%_County, so who is he supposed to believe.

Joel _%_Alwinson, 1725 _%_Old _%_River _%_Trail, addressed the _%_Board_%_ and stated h_G1_e is on the _%_board of his _%_HOA but he is not_%_ here representing it. _%_He pointed out that they are dancing around a big issue, and they all sort of know what they are talking about. _%_Mr_G1_. _%_Alwinson stated he wants to_%__%__%_ come from_G1_ a little bit of a more pragmatic standpoint. _%_He wants_%_ to think this through and not be a "no guy" but also t_%_hinks there is some talk that's reasonable to discuss a transition zone. _%_People say why do we have to keep talking about something we've already talked about. _#_Things change and populations change, _H1_so _H1_his _H1_position _H1_as _H1_a_H1_ landown_H1_er_H1__H1__H1__H1__H1_ is _H1__H1__H1_he _H1_doesn't _H1_want _H1__H1__H1__H 1_to _H2_close_H1_ a _H1_door _H1_and _H2_then look_H1_ back_H1_wards _H1_and _H1_say if he had _%_been a little more cooperative, there could have been benefit for everyone involved. _%_H_H1_e lives in the rural boundary and _%_would like to maintain that for his family. _%_He expressed that is the tone _%_he wants to present as a landowner adjacent to a very large property that they are all discussing. _%_He opined to say no often times results in a _%_more negative result rather than working together and being a little more cooperative.

Marcus _%_Weaver, 2150 _%_Old _%_River _%_Trail, _Ib1_addressed the _%_Board and stated his _%_property is a five-acre tract, and he _Ic1_had _Id1_the _Ie2_privilege _Ig1_of _Ih2_building _Ij1_his _Ik1_own _Il1_home_Im2__I|1_. _I}1_With _I~1_growth _I1__I1_at t_I1_heir _I1_footsteps _I1_all around _I1_the_I1_ state_I1_, _I2_urban _I1_draw lines _I1__I1__I2_a_I1_re constantly threat_I1_ened_I1_. _%_He has _I1_had _I1_the_I2_ privilege _I1_of _I1_being in a_I1__I1_ rural _I1_area _I1_and _I1_he _I1_wishes to _I1_continue _I1_that_I 1_. _I1__%_He is also on the _%_board of his _%_HOA with _%_Mr. _%_Alwinson, and they_I1_ are _I2_deeply concerned _I1_with _I1_sewer treatment plant_I1__I1_s and _I1_the_I1_ growth _I1_of _I1_U_I1_C_I1_F_I2_. _%_Mr. _%_Weaver is _I1_com_I2_pletely _I2_990 feet _I3_adjacent _I1_to a large piece of property that they are in discussion _I1__I1__I1__I1__I1_with_I1_. _I1_To _I1_come _I1_to _I1__I1__#__I1__I1_a compromise _I1_on _I1_a _I1_lot _I1_of _I2_thin_I1_gs is _I1_a far _I2_better _I1__I2_benefit _I1_to _I1_everybody_I1_. _%_H_I1_e believes that growth _I2__I1__I1__I1__I1__I1_is _I3_inevitable_I1__I1__I1_, but they can _J!1_control _J"1_it_J#1__J$1_. _%_He recalled a _%_member of his subdivision who is passed away now, but he _J31_always _J41_said _J51_they can _J61_slow _J71__J81_growth down _J91_and have a grasp on it and be stewards of the community and stewards of their land for future generations.

Gabrielle _%_Milch, 252 _%_Coble _%_Drive, addressed the _%_Board and_%_ expressed she is here to support the rural boundary and request that in the _%_Board's research t_J1_hey also include a component part about the water supply situation in that vi_J1_cinity. _%_She stated she_%_ knows with the _%_Geneva bubble that there has been a lot of information over the years and different withdraws and the extension of the sewer system out into that area could be very costly. _%_She doesn't know_%_ if that is in any of the five-year plans_K\1_. _K]1__%_She discussed compatibility and transportation t_K]1_o and from _%_UCF. _%_S_K]1_he hopes that as this progresses, everyone keeps an open mind and level head and that t_K]1_hey can all research this in an efficient manner to help to transition_K1_. _#_If _K1_t_K1_he _%_Board is _K1__K1_going _K1_to _K1_make _K1__K1_it an _K2_urban _L!1_area_L"1_, then _L#1_they _L$2_need to do _L&1_the research_L'1__L(1_ _L)1_and _L*1_put _L+1_in _L,2_solar _L.1_and _L/1_get _L01__L11_up _L21_to the _L31_next _L41_level _L51_of _L61__L71__L82_sustain_L:1_able _L;1_developments _L<1_that _L=1_need _L>1_to be _L?1_in the _L@1_count_LA1_y_LB1__LC1__LD1__LE1__LF1_.

Chairman Horan announced the Board received two Written Comment Forms (received and filed) from Nancy Harmon and Virginia Creedon, and those particular comments will also be made part of the record.

Deborah _%_Schafer, 1740 _%_Brumley _%_Road, _Lp1_addressed the _%_Board and stated she looks_Lq1_ _Lr1_back _Ls1_over the _Lt1_last _Lu1_20 years of _%_Seminole _%_County's rural _Lv1_time _Lw1_line_Lx2_, sitting _Lz1_through so many meetings, remembering the 1991 _%_Comp _%_Plan, the annexation of _%_Battle _%_Ridge with _%_Winter _%_Springs, _%_Live _%_Oak_%_ and the Sanctuary with _%_Oviedo, _%_Chuluota design standards, _%_How _%_Shall _%_We _%_Grow?, and the_%_ Chuluota 2004-2006 _%_Rural _%_Charter _%_Plan. _%_They ha_%_ve worked with so many respected professionals over the years to ensure protection of the rural area and discussion on transition has been many times_%_ but the _%_Board has always turned that down. _%_She discussed meetings from the past years w_Lz1_here residents voiced their concerns_%_ to protect the rural boundary and stated some of those concerns are being heard today almost 20 years later. _%_Ms. _%_Schafer stated _"_they_Lz1_ want the rural boundary and the rural area to stay the same as it did when t_Lz1_hey did all of the plans. _%_She a_M1_sked the _%_Board to _M1_do_M1_ everything _M1_possible _M1_to _M1_pro_M1_tect _M1_the county _M1_by _M1_not _M2_having _M2_meetings_M2_, they have _M1_had _M1_them_M1__M1_; and by _M1_not _M2_having _M2_discussions, they have_M1__M2_ _M1_had _M1_them. She asked that the Board_M1__M1_ _M1_be _M1_pro_M1_act_M1_ive _M1_as _M1__M1_they have_%_ been _N"2_asked _N$1_to do _N%1_with _N&1_possible _N'1_other _N(2_folks _N*2_looking _N,1_at _N-2_things_N/1_._N02__%_

With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

_NY1__NZ1__%_C_N[1_ommissioner _%_Carey stated_N\1_ i_#_t was _N]1_this _N^1__#_Board_N_1_, at _N`1_least _Na1_the _Nb2_majority _Nd1_of _Ne1_this _Nf1__#_Board_Ng1_, that_Nh1_ a_Ni2_dopted _Nk1_a _Nl1_lot_Nm1_ of the _Nn1__"_comp_No1__Np1_rehensive land plans_Nq1__Nr1_ into _Ns1_t_Ns1_he _Nt1__#_Comp _Nu1__#_Plan_Nv1_, the rules to _Nw1_pro_Nx1_tect _Ny1_the _Nz1_rural _N{1_bound_N|1_ary _N}3_including _N1_the four _%_C's (_N1_corridors, centers, countryside, and conservation) of "_%_How _%_Shall _%_We _%_Grow?" _%_T_N1_heir commitment was that they would develop in the areas and corridors that were already disturbed by development and in the center of the_N1_ county that was already disturbed by developmen_N1_t, and _N1_that _N1_would _N1_become _N1_the _N2_urban _N1_core _N1_of _N1_the _N1_community_N1_; and _N1__N1_the _N2_country_N1_side _N1_would _N1_be _N1_pre_N2_served _N1_and _N1__N1_the _N1_cons_N2_ervation _N1_areas _N1_which _N1_are _N1_so _N1_important _N1__N1_to the _N1_community _N1_would _N1_al_N1_so be _N1_pre_N2_served_N1_. _%_She opined they have done that. _%_They have over 6,100_N1__N1_ _N2_acres _N1_of _N1_cons_N2_ervation _N1_land _N1_in _N1_th_N1_e count_N1_y_N1_. _N1__%_They _N1_have _N1_a _N1_lot _N1_of _N1__N2_investment _N1_into _N1_life_N1_style _N1_with _N1_trails _N1_and _N1_quality _N1_of _N1_life_N3_ issues_N2_. They ha_#_ve _N2_taken _N1_the_N1_ lead _N1_in _N2_water _O!1_cons_O"2_ervation _O$1_and _O%2_water _O'1_for _O(1_the _O)1_f_O*1_utur_O+1__O,1_e. _%_She recalled when_%__#_ Genev_O91_a _O:1_was _O;2__O=1_nothing except _O>1_a _O?2_couple _OA1_of _OB2_families _OD1_that _OE1_had _OF1_a _OG1_lot _OH1_of _OI1_land. Commissioner Carey_OJ1_ expressed_#_ changes do come _Op1_and _Oq1_people _Or1_do _Os1_come _Ot1_and _Ou1_it's their right to come and ask t_Ov1_he _%_BCC _Ow1_to _Ox1_consider _Oy2_thin_O{1_gs. _%_But she thinks the _%_BCC's_O|1__O}1__O~1_ _O2_actions _O1_have _O1_been _O1_very _O1_sol_O1_id_O1__O1_ in where _O1_this _O1__#_Board_O1__O3__O1_ believes _O1_t_O1_hey _O1_should _O2_protect_O1__O1_ t_O1_he community. _O1__%_She reminded _#__O1__O1__O1__O1__O2__O1__O1_that _O2_the _%_Board had _O1_a_O2_dopted _O1_a _O1_lot_O1_ of _O1_th_O4_ose philosophies _O1_in _O1_the _O1__#_Comp _O1__#_Plan _O1_to _O2_protect _O1_the _O1_bound_O1_ary _O1_and _O1_that _O1__O1__O1_is _O1_re_O1_flect_O1_ive _O1_of the _O2_denials _O1_that have come from the _%_Board of the applicants that have come before i_O1_t.

Chairman _%_Horan _O1_stated _O1__%__"_with regard to the background for having this discussion and this update, _"_one of the _O1_responsibilities _O1_that _O1_he _O1_ha_O1_s as _O1__#_Chair_O1_man _O1_an_O1_d share_O1_s _O1__O1_with _O1_the _#_Count_O1_y _O1__#_Man_O2_ager _O1_is to _O1_make _O1_sure _O1_that th_O1_e _#_Board _O1_is put _O1_in the _O1_best _O1_position _O1__O1__O1__O1_for _P!1_information_P"2_, history_P$3_, et cetera _P'1_so _P(1_it can _P)1_make _P*1_good _P+2_decisions_P-1_. _P.1__%_What happened with the _P/3_legislative _P21_session _P31_was _P43_interesting, _P71__P81__P91__P:1__P;1__P<1__P=1_and _P>1_they _P?1__P@1_do have _PA1_some _PB1_talk _PD1_about _PE1_development _PF1_proposals in the rural areas. _%_So consequently, the reason for this discussion and the reason for listening to public comment is _PG1_to _PH1_make _PI1_sure _PJ1_that_PK1_ whe_PN1_n t_PN1_hey _PO1_have _PP1_to _PQ1_have _PR2_public _PT1_meet_PU1_ings _PV1_on _PW1_what_PX1_ever _PY1_may _PZ1_come _P[1_in_P\1_ front _P]1_of _P^1_t_P^1_he _%_BCC _P_1_or _P`1_that _Pa1_they _Pb1_have _Pc1_to _Pd1_act _Pe1_in _Pf1_a _Pg2_strateg_Pi1_ic _Pj1_and _Pk2_tactic_Pm1_al _Pn1_way in the Legislature, _Po1_that t_Po1_hey are all prepared _Po1_and have the same basis of knowledge. _%_T_Po1_he _%_Chairman thinks they have all been given very good material and asked that people_%_ _P1_look _P1_at _P1_the _P1__P1_materials that _P1_are _P1_part _P1_of the _P1_a_P1_gend_P1_a _P1_m_P1_emorandum _P1__P2_concerning _P1_this_P1_ item.

Chairman Horan pointed out there are one or two things that were brought up today that he made a note to go back and check. He indicated one of them is the statement Ms. Martin made that there is actually a comment on transition in t_P1_he _%_Comp _%_Plan.

Commissioner _%_Constantine stated the_Qw1__Qx1_ _%_Board_Qy2__Q{1_ has _Q|1_been _Q}1_intently listening _Q~2__Q1__Q1__Q1_not _Q1_only _Q1__Q1_to _Q1_staff _Q1_bu_Q1_t to e_Q1_ach other and they _Q1_heard _Q1_a _Q1_lot _Q1_from the _Q2_citizens _Q1__Q1_as well. _Q1__%_He noted _"_some_Q2_body a_Q2_sked _Q1_why _Q1_t_Q1_hey are having this discussion again. _%_Commissioner _%_Constantine explained _Q1__"_most _Q1_of _Q1_the _%_Board was_Q1_ _Q2_involved _Q1_in _Q1_one _Q1_form _Q1_or _Q1__Q1_another in _Q1_t_Q1_he _Q2_battle _Q1_in the Legislature, and t_Q1_hey all understand that that is not going to go away. _Q1__%_H_Q1_e _Q3_appreciates _Q1_what _Q1_staff _Q1_has _Q1_done _Q3_today _Q1_in _Q2_presenting _Q1_this issue _Q1_and _Q1_thinks that it is necessary_Q1__Q1__Q1__Q1_ _Q1__R$1_that s_R$1_taff is revi_R%1__R&1__R'2_ewing _R)1_all _R*3_policies _R-1_and _R.1_reg_R/2_ulations _R13_relating _R41_to the _R51_rural _R61_bound_R71_ary _R81_in _R91_ord_R:1_er _R;1_to _R<5_appropriately _RA1_re_RB1_act _RC1_to _RD1_any development pro_RE2_posals _RG3_affecting _RJ1_this _RK1_area_RL1_. _%_He believes that is _RP1_something _RQ1_that t_RQ1_hey can _RR1_build _RS1_a _RT1_consensus _RW1_on_RY1_ and _RZ1__R[1__R\1_that _R]1_that will _R^1_give _R_1_something _R`1_to the _Ra2_citizens _Rc1__Rd1_to _Re1_know _Rf1_that _Rg2_the_Ri1_ir staff _Rj1_and _Rk1_their _Rl2_commissioners _Rn1_have _Ro1_a _Rp1_watch_Rq1_ful _Rr1__Rs1_eye on _Rt1_every _Ru2_single _Rw1_thing _Rx2_that is _Rz1_going _R{1__R|1_to happen.


Chairman Horan announced there is a work session today regarding the mid-year financial update, and they will start that at 11:40 a.m.


Peter _%_Boykin submitted a _%_Written _%_Comment _%_Form (received and filed) regarding Item #22.


Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 11:32 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials with the exception of Deputy Clerk Kyla Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer, who were present at the Opening Session.


Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Commissioners Dallari and Carey submitted their ex parte communications (copies received and filed) into the record.





Agenda Item #23 2017-0043

Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider adopting an Ordinance amending a portion of Chapter 105, Educational System Impact Fees," Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for an amendment to Section 105.43 Vested Rights; providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for severability; and providing an effective date; received and filed.

Paul Chipok, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. Mr. Chipok explained that pursuant to Board direction, the length of a vested rights certificate pursuant to the existing section, 105.43, is one year. The request was made and direction was given to prepare an ordinance to consider moving that out to two years. He advised that vested rights applications needed to be filed and approved prior to the effective date of the impact fee ordinance and the new fees going into effect. The new fees went into effect as of midnight this morning; so there are no additional vested rights applications that can be considered at this point in time or applied for. Mr. Chipok explained that the nature of the vested rights certificate, if it is granted, allows the holder of the certificate to be entitled to have the existing impact fee applied to his particular property for which he has a vested rights certificate. The new rates do not apply. He is granted the ability, when he pulls a building permit, to utilize the existing impact fees or the prior impact fees. Right now, that has a one‑year lifespan from the date the vested rights certificate is issued. Mr. Chipok advised the only very limited provision the Board is looking at today is to change the life of that vested rights certificate from one year to two years. This was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on April 4, and the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to approve the ordinance with the change that the life of vesting certificates for those units that are subject to a flat rate (single‑family, condominium, mobile homes) would be one year and the life of the vesting agreements for those units subject to the tiered rate (multifamily projects) shall be two years. Mr. Chipok stated the ordinance, as prepared and in the agenda package, is just to move it from one year to two years.

Mr. Chipok advised that the impact fee rates are established in Section 105.21. He displayed that section (received and filed) and pointed out that the single‑family rate, the townhome/condo/duplex rate, and the mobile home rate are flat rates. P&Z recommended for those three items that the vesting certificate have a one‑year lifespan. For the multifamily, which is a tiered rate based on the size of the multifamily unit, P&Z recommended that the vesting certificate have a two‑year lifespan. Mr. Chipok explained that what the Board has in their ordinance as drafted is that across the board any vesting certificate right now has a one‑year lifespan. The proposal as stated in the ordinance is to extend that to two years. He added that was at the Board's prior direction and for their consideration today.

Commissioner Constantine confirmed with Mr. Chipok that the deadline to apply for vested rights is already over; so no one can walk in and ask for vested rights. He asked Mr. Chipok if it is correct that not all of the applications will be approved and it will only be those that have substantially been completed based upon criteria that staff is looking at. Mr. Chipok replied that is correct; he added if they are denied, they have an appeal right to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Constantine reiterated that no one can come in and qualify today because that vesting rights opportunity has been eliminated and only those that have come in and qualified can even be considered to get the opportunity to be vested.

Commissioner Carey stated that as she understands it, there were 15 applications to the County. Nine of them were approved based on the fact they were already at final engineering and six were denied; so there are six potential that could appeal to the County Commission. She then asked how many applications there were at the cities and the School Board. Rebecca Hammock, Planning and Development Division Manager, addressed the Board and reported there were a total of 20 applications to the cities and a total of 7 to the School Board. The latest she has heard from the School Board is that six of the seven have been approved and the seventh one is under review.

Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Hammock that the 20 applications that were submitted to the cities were all approved although Ms. Hammock believes one of the applications was still going to one of the city commission meetings. Commissioner Carey noted that it is a pretty small number they are dealing with. Ms. Hammock stated the total between the County, the cities, and the School Board is about 42 applications plus the six that would be coming back on appeal. Ms. Guillet clarified that the 42 include the 6. Chairman Horan summarized that a developer could submit an application to one of the cities, to the County, or to the School Board. The Chairman advised that 42 total applications were submitted; and of those 42, all but 7 have been approved.

Walt Griffin, Superintendent of Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS), addressed the Board and stated he wants to first set the record straight on a public perception issue. Superintendent Griffin noted he has been contacted by many of their families who seem to have the impression that because of this particular issue, the School Board does not get along with the County Commission. He stated he knows that is not the case and gave several examples (SRO, shared fiber, inclusion in the penny sales tax, and numerous roads and safety projects) that illustrate the excellent working relationship they have. Superintendent Griffin stated he wants the public to know the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners work together for the citizens of Seminole County, and this is one issue that they are dealing with and it is business. Commissioner Dallari talked about how he is working with the SCPS staff on Oviedo High School, Lawton Elementary, and Jackson Heights. Superintendent Griffin stated the Commissioners are responsible for the growth of Seminole County and he is in charge of schools. Those are two different roles. He reiterated that they have worked together very well. He talked about how, first and foremost, the Commissioners have always supported Seminole Countys quality school system. Seminole County is a destination in great part because of the premier schools that the Board has supported.

Superintendent Griffin discussed some of the challenges with the schools and their funding at the State level such as meeting class size, which has been in place for over a decade now and continues to be a challenge. He explained that when class size was imposed on them, a situation was created where the same number of kids required many more classrooms. The Superintendent reported that since 2014/2015, SCPS has added 2,200 students, which includes almost 500 students from Puerto Rico. Because of growth this year, he advised they closed Lawton Elementary in Oviedo and Bear Lake in Altamonte to anybody. Because of class size (they cannot go over class size), there was no more room at those schools and families had to be offered other choices for their students to be able to attend school.

Superintendent Griffin stated the capital millage rate was two mills ten years ago and it is now 1.5. Back on January 1, 2016, the assessed property values were still below ten years ago when they built the 2016/2017 budget. He pointed out they have capital issues. He knows it is a State problem, but it has forced everyone to look more closely at all of the local revenue. Overall, capital revenues (including PECO) are $20 million less annually then they were ten years ago. Superintendent Griffin discussed the conservative work they have done to increase capacity; such as, refurbishing Hamilton Elementary School; adding a new classroom building at Goldsboro; refurbishing and reopening Longwood Elementary School; creating a new classroom building at Midway; creating a 9th Grade Center at Seminole High School; adding capacity at Lake Brantley; and adding a classroom building at Endeavor. They plan for growth but plan very conservatively looking at every facility that they have.

Superintendent Griffin talked about Seminole County being a "Choice District," and how it helps them balance population. They have diversity options, capacity transfer options, and magnet schools. They encourage families to pick schools that they are interested in and the District has continued to provide transportation to all of the magnet programs. In summary, Superintendent Griffin stated that impact fees are the fairest way for them to raise money to build some of their classrooms. The new growth, to him, should pay for the new classrooms for the expanded growth. He reiterated that the public should know they have a great relationship with the BCC and he values that relationship. This is one piece of work that they are working on now, and they have a lot more to come down the road.

Commissioner Carey agreed with the Superintendent that they have a great working relationship and that people want to move to Seminole County because of the schools. The Commissioner stated what was proposed by the School Board in the original resolution was to have tiers with one set of rates for 2018 and then have them go up in 2019. She pointed out that the Board chose not to do that. She asked what the value was in their analysis of the dollar amount to the School Board if the Board would have chosen to tier them. Joe Ranaldi, Executive Director of Operations for the SCPS, addressed the Board to state that they estimated that the tiering would have cost the District somewhere between $4.5 million and $5.5 million based on the amount of collections they had seen in previous years.

Commissioner Henley told Superintendent Griffin that he appreciates very much the challenge that he has. He added that it is not a new challenge, and they have had it down through the years. The Commissioner stated, in his opinion, the biggest problem with the County school system is the State Legislature and the rules they are passing that create problems locally. Commissioner Henley noted several years ago the BCC instructed staff regarding any project that comes before them that one of the first things they have to do is determine the number of school‑aged children the project will generate. The second question they are asked is have you contacted the public school system to see if they can absorb that number. He pointed out that for the last several years, every answer they have gotten back from staff and the School Board has been yes, we can absorb them.

Commissioner Henley stated he is a little bit confused as to what the Superintendent described a moment ago since his staff has indicated to the County that yes, they have room for those children. Otherwise, this Board would be faced with a challenge of whether they want to approve something or not since it would create additional problems. Commissioner Henley requested that Superintendent comment on that. Superintendent Griffin replied that he thinks the challenge is with the question they ask, "Do you have space anywhere in the county?" because sometimes they do. He gave an example of Tuskawilla Crossings, which is being built in the backyard of Indian Trails and Keeth Elementary School. When asked whether there are seats in Seminole County, the answer is yes. When asked whether there are seats in the closest school to the subdivision, the answer is no. Superintendent Griffin explained the challenge they have is they have to provide busing; they have to move kids around depending on the location. There is frequently capacity somewhere in the district but a lot of times it doesn't make sense. If he is overcrowded at Bear Lake and there are seats at Geneva, he still has to approve the project. He advised that he has to look at it from 38,000 feet and it is an issue that they have been working on for several years now. Commissioner Carey remarked that maybe they are asking the wrong question.

Commissioner Constantine stated that when they had the work session way back at the School Board, that was his first question, as Commissioner Henley just suggested. Every time they ask if there is capacity, the answer comes back yes. The Commissioner added if there is a better way to ask the question to help the School Board, the Board would encourage the School Board to give it to them so they can all work together to help in that capacity. Commissioner Constantine stated he does believe Superintendent Griffin is correct, that the impact fees are the best way to pay for growth when they are talking about new growth paying for itself. He agreed that the Board and SCPS have a great relationship. Commissioner Constantine remarked that he knows the Board took the heat after the School Board negotiated with GOBA (Greater Orlando Building Association) and gave them a $2,000 discount for a certain period of time for phasing. The Board decided to change that. Commissioner Constantine advised that he made the motion and got a great deal of heat from GOBA about that. He wondered why that was okay and this, which is simply putting in perspective the type of development it is and the fact that the vesting opportunity is over, would cause such heartburn to the School Board when they didn't even talk to AAGO.

With regard to what question should be asked, Superintendent Griffin explained the question the School Board should be asked is whether there is room in the school zone that the school is zoned to. If you want to build an apartment or a large subdivision and you want the school to be close to the neighborhood, he thinks they have to ask the question about the geographic area of the school. The Superintendent suggested they can talk about concurrency and everything else but he believes there are a few different ways to look at that. Commissioner Constantine remarked as long as that is okay within the state law, he would be in favor of that because it has always frustrated him when everybody says yes, they have full capacity and then the School Board says they don't have enough room.

Commissioner Henley stated that it would help the Board if the Superintendent or his staff had answered, as he did here, that yes, they have capacity in the county but not in that area. The Commissioner suggested that would put the Board in a position where they might be able to negotiate a little bit to provide a classroom in order to get approval. There are all types of things and deals they can work out if they have all of the information.

Ms. Guillet stated she wants to ask for clarification. She stated her understanding is when the School Board reviews development proposals with respect to available capacity, they look at what is called the capacity service area (CSA). If there is no capacity available in the capacity service area where the project is, they look at the adjacent capacity service area; so the example of Bear Lake and Geneva, that circumstance might be too far apart. Superintendent Griffin agreed it might be too far of a spread but added that two concurrent areas can be quite a few miles apart and a long distance to transport students. Ms. Guillet advised that is how it is set up in their interlocal agreement. She does not want folks to think the Board is approving projects in Bear Lake when there is only capacity in Geneva. Superintendent Griffin remarked that they are moving kids quite a distance.

Mr. Ranaldi explained that typically a CSA at the elementary level has three schools. They then look at the contiguous zones, which typically have three schools as well. So at the time, they are actually looking at 15 schools; and that is where they get the geography from Heathrow all of the way to Geneva. They have revised those letters to identify if they are going to a contiguous zone and then state they are going to a contiguous zone. He added that the key is they are not guarantying enrollment at the closest elementary school to wherever that development is. They have been highlighting that as well. Commissioner Carey stated as Board members, they need to better understand if there is not anything in the area. She stated there are other solutions. Commissioner Carey referred to Seminole High School and talked about how kids that live two blocks away can't get into the school and are being bused somewhere else because someone else is being bused in because they want to be in the health magnet program. She noted there was a reason why they did all of the magnet schools and maybe the School Board needs to go back and look at some of those issues to see how they can keep their kids closer to home because it is not healthy for the kids. Superintendent Griffin explained that every example that he gave of where they are adding seats deals exactly with that issue, to try and keep families closer to their homes.

Ms. Guillet talked about working with the School Board for a number of years on the interlocal agreement. The cities and the County and the School Board have all been working together on the interlocal agreement they have with respect to concurrency and capacity. She stated it is a tough nut to crack. The issue of the impact fee revisions really came out of the discussions they were having in that group. Ms. Guillet echoed what the Superintendent said about them working very closely together on a number of issues, and they have been working together trying to resolve the capacity issue for a number of years. Commissioner Carey pointed out that if there are other things going on in the policies of the School Board causing overcrowding in some areas versus others, it doesn't make a lot sense to her to spend all of this money to build more school capacity if they have school capacity and maybe a discussion about some of those policies could fix some of that distribution issue. She suggested that while they are having the discussion and they have everybody here, they might as well just put it all out on the table. The Commissioner would prefer to see it specific to an area when they are making their decision.

Commissioner Dallari requested either the County Manager or County Attorney talk about school concurrency for the school zone and not the adjacent school zone. He wondered if that is a possibility. Mr. Applegate advised that they can ask the specific question about is it going to impact the immediate area of the school zone. He does not see a problem with that. The question might come down later on as to how does it affect the overall approval process of a project that might be before the Board, but that is for down the road. Commissioner Carey suggested their interlocal agreement is probably part of the issue and the County Manager agreed. Commissioner Dallari wondered about changing the interlocal agreement. Ms. Guillet reminded the Board that five or six years ago when the State Legislature removed the mandatory requirement for school concurrency, this Board directed County staff to work with the cities and the School Board to eliminate concurrency as one of the regulatory tools they use with respect to schools and to find another way of addressing and reviewing capacity; and that is what they have been struggling with for all of these years, to try to get there. She stated they can certainly do what Commissioner Dallari suggested but that will take them in a different direction. Commissioner Dallari advised that he understands that but explained it also addresses traffic issues and transportation issues. He just wanted to know legally whether that was allowed or not allowed because there are a lot of ramifications to it.

Ms. Guillet advised there are ways to get there but there are very specific criteria if they want to start changing and beefing up the way they approach school concurrency. There has to be some agreement throughout the county. There are a number of provisions. She added that it would take them in a completely different direction than they were given a number of years ago. Commissioner Constantine suggested it may be time to reevaluate that in light of the fact that development is in a much different situation than it was then. He added that answering the question of whether there is enough capacity in the zone and if not, then where is the capacity (which would take into account other things such as transportation) would mean a lot to the Board when looking at these developments. Superintendent Griffin stated that would be something for them to work together on. Commissioner Carey stated she thinks it would require their interlocal agreement to be finished, and she believes there is no reason why it should take five or six years of discussion to not end up with an agreement.

Chairman Horan pointed out that in 2011, concurrency was removed as a mandatory concurrency item and the direction went to the County Manager to remove that from the interlocal agreement. The Chairman stated at the time he was the Board's representative on the Public School Facility Advisory Board. He described how, beginning in 2012 in reviewing the agreement, they went through countless meetings and many iterations of the agreement. He stated they never got to the point where they got to a work product that was a revised interlocal agreement.

Commissioner Carey suggested that maybe they could just focus on this one piece of it. Chairman Horan stated he thinks that is a good idea and then added that this one piece of it was the linchpin. They agreed on everything else. Chairman Horan stated their dynamics are such that they are "trying to pin a moth to the wall a lot of the times." They are trying to make some educated guesses; and on top of everything else, they are not getting the money from the State they need for capacity anyway. Discussion was had with regard to the cost of building new schools and how much will be collected from the new impact fees. Chairman Horan pointed out that there is no new school construction projected in the School Board's capital improvement plan until Years 7 and 8. Since the School Board will obviously have to accumulate money under the impact fees for a number of years in order to just build one elementary school, the Chairman questioned what, in the interim, they are going to use these impact fees for. Superintendent Griffin replied it is the list that he went through before where they are adding classroom buildings at some of the schools and growth to existing facilities.

Chairman Horan summarized that the School Board is going to be expanding and making larger most of the existing schools. Superintendent Griffin replied that it is many of them. Chairman Horan reiterated that a new school is not in the plan for seven or eight years. He pointed out that the amount of money the Legislature appropriated this year for fixed capital outlays to the entire public school system in the state of Florida was $50 million, which is not enough to build one high school. Charter schools received $150 million. The Chairman suggested to Superintendent Griffin that his problem is not here with the BCC and his solution is not here. His problem and solution are up in Tallahassee. Superintendent Griffin advised that the Superintendents' Association has been lobbying this for years. He stated that impact fees are a small piece of a puzzle. Superintendent Griffin stated he would like to make one thing clear and does not want the public to think they are not planning for new schools. He discussed Endeavor School and pointed out they built it on an elementary footprint. Right now it is a special ed center. It is fully convertible with the addition of one building to a full elementary school, and it sits right off of Old Lake Mary Boulevard where they have a lot of growth. They will pull that trigger in 2020 when it is ready to go. The Superintendent stated the new Millennium being built is built on a high school footprint. With adding one building and a stadium, they have a high school. The School Board has been extremely conservative not just in putting new schools everywhere but also in proportionately adding seats as necessary. Superintendent Griffin talked about Controlled Open Enrollment and advised that he cannot add too many additional seats to Seminole County because he has to offer them to other counties. They already have children from other counties attending their schools. He has to add a little bit as they need it and add it proportionately. Discussion ensued with regard to Controlled Open Enrollment. Superintendent Griffin stated it would not be prudent for the School Board to just be putting up schools that are not at capacity because then they are using Seminole County taxpayer dollars to educate students from outside of Seminole County. He added their School Board clearly knows what they are doing and they are doing it very carefully.

Chairman Horan emphasized that the BCC wants to make sure in this process that the schools get what they can out of the increased impact fees. He then detailed the amount of percentage increase the impact fees went up by. He advised these are large impact fee increases; so the BCC is not trying to hurt the schools. They will get a lot of increased impact fees revenue from these new fees, and it still is not going to be enough to solve capacity. Superintendent Griffin stressed that it is one piece of the puzzle and he has to fight for every piece of the puzzle to keep the District running. Chairman Horan explained how the Board is trying to treat everyone in the process fairly and make sure that everyone bears the burden in an appropriate way. He added they are not trying to hurt the schools. Commissioner Henley mentioned the large number of homeless people in the community and noted that every time they increase these costs and fees, they disenfranchise a number of other citizens who can no longer afford to buy a house because of these sizable increases. They need to be sensitive to the impact to the citizens of the county who are already paying sales tax and things like that.

Mr. Ranaldi reviewed the process that was put in place in order to update the impact study. He noted they are tied to both the ordinance and the Land Development Code in regards to the process that they go through with the School Board. He explained how the School Board put together the Citizens Advisory Group and who was in the Group, as per the language in the Land Development Code and the ordinance. Mr. Ranaldi noted that one of the parties they are discussing right now is not specifically addressed in the ordinance. He pointed out they did reach out to ABC and their executive director declined to participate. They reached out to the American Institute of Architects.

Mr. Ranaldi talked about the five public hearings they had with the Citizens Advisory Group working with Tindale‑Oliver, the School Board's consultant, going through the initial data collection to the point of the initial recommendations. This group put together a set of recommendations that were presented to the School Board at the end of the final meeting. He discussed the six additional community presentations that were held, which included School Board members, the Superintendent, and staff, and the groups that they met with. In addition to that, there were two publicly advertised work sessions in which they presented the process. There was one public hearing where the two resolutions that were presented to the County Commission were approved. They had three joint meetings and presentations between the School Board and BCC along with a joint work session on June 20. The Planning and Zoning hearing was on December 6 and the BCC final approval happened the first week in January. Mr. Ranaldi summarized that overall they held approximately 17 meetings, not including the one‑on‑one meetings held with the Commissioners during the process. They are approaching 30 meetings when it came to actually evaluating this study as they went through the process.

With regard to what the impact is to the District, Mr. Ranaldi displayed a chart (received and filed) illustrating the number of units and the collection difference and pointed out they roughly have 42 developments that they are looking at right now. He noted they are looking at 42 developments; however, those developments have some fairly large numbers when it comes to the actual units they are looking at. On the chart, he reviewed the Number of Units and reported there are 1,156 Single‑Family Detached, 3,446 Multifamily, and 495 Single‑Family Attached. Mr. Ranaldi advised those numbers he mentioned are the numbers they received from the County late yesterday afternoon. With regard to the multifamily number of 3,446, Chairman Horan inquired as to the size of the unit. Mr. Ranaldi stated that none of the municipalities actually gave the School Board the breakdown of their units. They did receive breakdowns for the County's units; so they averaged it at this point. Mr. Ranaldi indicated they did include the applications the County denied because those are going back through again. He explained that they discounted these to 35% with the thought that some may come through. The actual impact to the number when they looked at it was right around $1 million with taking 35% of the denied, if any of them are, in fact, successful when they present to the Commission.

Mr. Ranaldi stated in taking a look at the first year, they used 45% of the units while County staff used 42% of the units. He stated there is no question in regard to what the collection is going to be for the impact fees; it is right around $6 million using the 2008 rates for the first year. In looking at the second year, the County discounted down to 30% and he is not sure why they went from 42% in Year 1 down to 30%. The School Board thought, if anything, there would be a little bit of an uptick as developers tried to get the building permits and get their vested numbers as opposed to the new numbers. They felt that the 45% may go as high as retiring all of it, but they stayed at the 45% for their Year 2 analysis.

Clerk Maloy left the meeting at this time.

In response, Ms. Guillet indicated they used the 42% and 30% that were based on actual trends. They looked at historic trends in recent years with respect to absorption rates for single-family. She stated they did not assume there would be a "mad dash" to pull permits, especially for single‑family to take advantage of the lower impact fee because they believe builders will build what the market demands and that they are not going to build homes simply to save some money on an impact fee if they don't have buyers. Chairman Horan stated that a builder is not going to spec 150 units or spec 400 homes just to save $4,000 per unit. Mr. Ranaldi pointed out that it was almost a third of a drop going from 43% down to 30%. Chairman Horan remarked that it was based on actual experiences. Mr. Ranaldi pointed out that is the kind of documentation they have been asking to get since September as they were putting their numbers together in regards to the impact fee collection. Ms. Guillet explained they did it based on trends but emphasized that it is a guess because it is just based on what has happened in the past. She does not think that anyone can definitively say at what rate any of these projects are going to develop because they are fact specific. She stated they felt the best way to approach it was to take the historic trends for the last couple of years with subdivisions that were just recently approved and that is the absorption rates they saw.

Mr. Ranaldi continued his review of the chart and noted that in looking at Year 2 with the scenario that the School Board put together, saying 45%, they were just a little bit over $10 million. In looking at the scenario that the County put together in regards to dropping it from 42% down to 30%, they are around $7.1 million. Mr. Ranaldi stated they are somewhere between that range of $7.1 million and a little bit over $10 million in regard to the ultimate impact. Discussion ensued with regard to Year 2s numbers. Mr. Ranaldi advised that $6.4 million is the figure for Year 1 that they will collect with the vesting; $16.4 million is what would have been collected with no vesting. He added both of those numbers are at the 45% that the School Board is estimating.

Mr. Ranaldi stated that in summary, they are looking at a student generation rate from the projects that are in vesting right now of a little bit over 1,500 students. If they go to two years, they will have to find a way to construct at the 2008 rates in 2018 with construction costs increases. He added that they do utilize the impact fees to leverage for construction as well. For instance, with the $60 million bond they utilized for the opening of Longwood, for Millennium Middle School, and for the ILC that they are doing at Midway, they pledged $3 million worth of the impact fees in order to undertake those projects. In the future, they will probably do similar leveraging in order to resolve the gap that is talked about regarding saving the money versus they need it today. With their bond rating and with the flow of the impact fees, they are able to leverage that as well.

Commissioner Carey and Mr. Ranaldi discussed using 45% in Years 1 and 2. Mr. Ranaldi stated the School Board is looking at building out 90% of the units and he believes the County was at 75%. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Ranaldi to explain the $16 million on the chart because she does not understand how he came up with his math. She asked whether he is saying that the difference between one year of vesting and two years of vesting is $10 million; Mr. Ranaldi replied that is what they are saying. He believes the County's numbers are around $7 million. Commissioner Carey pointed out that there are only 42 projects and whether they are done in Year 1 or Year 2, it is still 42 projects and that is all that there can be. Mr. Ranaldi agreed and added they are projecting how many units on a percentage basis will be built each year.

With regard to the chart, Ms. Guillet stated that she does not disagree with the numbers on the numbers of units. Her only concern is that she is not sure that the difference between Year 1 and Year 2 really reflects what the true difference would be because their discussions internally were that they think most of the multifamily units will probably develop in the first year. The difference between Year 1 and Year 2 might not be that great.

Commissioner Carey suggested they say the delta is $10.4. She stated that Mr. Ranaldi told her earlier that the tiering option that they proposed was $4.5 to $5.5 million and pointed out that is not taken into consideration on the chart. If they had done the tiering, it would have had a bigger impact. The Board did not go with that; so the School Board gained $5.5 million by the Board not doing the tiering. The Commissioner pointed out that the Board does not get any credit for that. Mr. Ranaldi stated they really lost $5 million. By doing the tiering, it was probably a net loss of around $5 million when you look at the potential collections of close to $10 million at the half tier. Commissioner Carey advised that she asked the question before; if the rates go 100%, which is what the Board adopted with no tiering, Mr. Ranaldi stated the difference was $4.5 million to $5.5 million with the tiering proposed. The Commissioner reminded Mr. Ranaldi that she is not talking about vesting at all.

Chairman Horan explained to Mr. Ranaldi that what Commissioner Carey is saying to him is that he originally came to the Board with a tiering option where the first year was supposed to be $7,000 and the second year was supposed to be $9,000. The Board decided not to accept that and decided to give the School Board the full fees in the first year, which Mr. Ranaldi has already indicated is a $5 million delta. The Chairman explained to Mr. Ranaldi that what Commissioner Carey is saying is that the $5 million delta has to be taken off the $10 million. Mr. Ranaldi remarked that he was looking at the impact of Year 2 alone. Commissioner Carey stated at the end of the day whether they are talking about vesting or tiering, they are talking about dollars; so the fact is they adopted it to go 100% from Day 1 and got the School Board $5 million more than they would have gotten if it had been tiered. She stated she is trying to understand what really the impact is at the end of the day, bottom line. She does old school math, but she believes it is about $5 million if she uses Mr. Ranaldis $10.4 million. Mr. Ranaldi agreed that if she is using the delta she is talking about, it is $5 million if they roll in that loss. Discussion ensued regarding previous numbers.

Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Ranaldi about the application the School Board received yesterday. Mr. Ranaldi advised they are working that application through legal. Commissioner Carey remarked that the ordinance is very clear as to what the cutoff date was so there should not be much legal to that. She wants to be sure that everybody is clear that the cutoff date was last week. Ms. Guillet explained that was the cutoff date for the County and that was in the County's Administrative Code. The ordinance says the vesting agreements have to be in place before today. Commissioner Carey wondered how you could get a vesting agreement in place if it was not submitted until yesterday, which is why the County had the cutoff date they had.

Commissioner Constantine asked the County Manager if the County's number was seven. Ms. Guillet stated she would have to go back and go through the spreadsheet. She explained that the County's numbers were not that definitive and they had a lot of disclaimers in that the multifamily would not have the same absorption rate the single‑family development would have. She pointed out that it is a guess whether they would develop in Year 1 or Year 2. They know the timing for development, but every project has its own issues. Knowing whether or not a multifamily project is going to develop in Year 1 or Year 2 from the County's standpoint is just a guess. They only approved one vesting agreement for multifamily. They have a few that she thinks are going to be on appeal. That is why she believes the number for putting all of the multifamily units in Year 2 may not reflect impact.

Commissioner Carey stated the reason they only approved one is because staff was using final engineering as the determination to determine whether they were going to approve it or not even though they had multifamilies that were in the approval process. They had made application, were relying on the fact that they made application. Some had even been through the planning and zoning process and had just not made it to the Board of County Commissioners yet. To her, that is in the process, but staff made that determination and denied them because they were not in final engineering. That will be the debate at the appeal discussion.

Discussion ensued with regard to the applications that have been approved by the municipalities and by the School Board and their approval rate compared to the Countys approval rate.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 2:47 p.m., reconvening it at 2:55 p.m.

Tom Sullivan, attorney with GrayRobinson Law Firm, addressed the Board to state he is here on behalf of Taylor‑Morrison Homes with respect to the vesting provision. Mr. Sullivan advised that Taylor‑Morrison is in the process of developing a number of single‑family detached residential communities around the county and has applied for and received vesting certificates for each of those projects. He explained why he is requesting equal treatment with respect to the two‑year vesting period consistent with staff's recommendation. He stated he does not think it makes sense to make a distinction in the length of vesting based on land use.

Hal Kantor, attorney with the Law Firm of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, addressed the Board to advise he is here representing the Apartment Association of Greater Orlando (AAGO). Mr. Kantor began his presentation entitled "Seminole County Educational System Impact Fees," displayed the Why are we Here? slide, and reviewed the first four bullet points. Mr. Kantor discussed multifamily developers and how they go as fast as they can to build the product, to get the building permits, and to get it opened. He explained how it takes three years to get a multifamily project approved, constructed, and fully occupied.

Clerk Maloy reentered the meeting at this time.

Mr. Kantor advised that it takes about a year or more to go through the processing; it takes about a year or more to go through construction; and it takes about a year to fill up. He suggested that when they talk about the impact to multifamily, they have to think about what they are really talking about. Mr. Kantor stated the numbers that Mr. Ranaldi had were irrelevant. The only issue they are here to talk about today is whether it is a one‑year vesting or a two‑year vesting. He can't tell the Board the unit count but there are probably only one or two multifamily projects that they are really even talking about that will go into the second year.

Mr. Kantor reviewed the Realistic Development Schedule for Multifamily Project and talked about how developers will go as fast as they can through the process. He emphasized that the only point of the request for this extension is that some of these projects will take a little longer. Lending institutions and investors look at it and say what happens after 12 months if they don't get their building permits. There can't be a $2 million to $3 million bust in a project because of that. Mr. Kantor explained that all this does is allow a few projects the opportunity to get completed. He stated they have bigger issues. This is the mole hill and the mountain is a 400% increase in impact fees. He reminded everyone they are not dealing with that toady. They are simply dealing with the fair implementation of the ordinance. Mr. Kantor offered to answer any questions and requested an opportunity to respond to matters as they come up.

Commissioner Carey referred to Mr. Kantor's schedule and remarked that they are dealing with the water management district probably concurrently with getting through engineering because they would need to know the answer to the water management issues before getting to the final engineering part; so that is a couple of months off of the schedule. Commissioner Carey summarized that Mr. Kantor indicated that it is a three‑year process with one year to get approved, one year for construction, and one year to fill it up. The trigger for the concurrency letter is the building permit. In the apartment business, they are going to get not one permit for each of the 200 houses that are being built but rather they are going to get one permit for the complete apartment project that is being built. Mr. Kantor stated it is actually one permit per building. He added it is not one permit but rather multiple permits. Commissioner Carey stated that would be if they were doing multiple buildings and Mr. Kantor agreed. The Commissioner mentioned that they could get their foundation permits for the additional buildings. Commissioner Carey pointed out that if someone has not started the process, they cannot come in and ask for vesting anyway. Everybody had to be in the process. She added that all of the things that were approved by staff that were in final engineering were only two months out from final plat and four weeks out from a permit.

Mr. Kantor stated most all of these projects can get approved in the first year and get building permits and start construction. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Kantor why he is arguing for two years then. Mr. Kantor replied that not all projects are going to take two years. If a project has passed all of the requirements to be vested and spent all of the money and taken all of the steps, it is unfair if someone takes 14 months or 15 months or 18 months to have the rug pulled out from under them. It is just a matter of fairness for a very few projects. Commissioner Carey stated she has said all along that she is trying to be fair, but she is trying to be fair to all parties.

Denver Marlow's name was announced and it was determined he was not in attendance.

Scott Glass, attorney with the Law Firm of Shutts & Bowen, addressed the Board to state he is the attorney for Meritage Homes of Florida. Mr. Glass mentioned that Mr. Marlow is the representative of Meritage. Mr. Glass then distributed a document (received and filed) regarding the legal requirement that Amendment to 105.43 treat multifamily and single‑family equally.

Mr. Glass stated they agree with Mr. Kantor that the entire purpose of the vesting ordinance is to treat projects fairly. They agree that in order to do that, fairness demands that some of these projects are so far in and have so much money, time, effort, energy, and resources invested in them, it is not fair to pull the rug out from under them at this juncture and change the rules. Mr. Glass urged the Board that whatever they do, they do it consistent with the equal protection requirements and they don't treat multifamily differently. He pointed out that the schedule that Mr. Kantor referenced is not different for a comparable single‑family project. Mr. Glass advised that in order to have an ordinance that treats multifamily differently from single‑family, they would have to pass what is called the rational basis test, which is a two-part test. Mr. Glass discussed how the County would have to show there is a legitimate objective for the ordinance in the first place and secondly, whether the ordinance rationally advances the County towards that legitimate goal. In order to show the separation, the distinction, between multifamily and single‑family furthers the goal of the ordinance, which is to treat everyone that has been vested fairly, there has to be competent evidence that shows there is a rational reason for the separation. Mr. Glass reported that he watched the P&Z hearing and then explained how there was no competent evidence presented where they could decide that multifamily is somehow different than single‑family. Mr. Glass requested that whatever the Board does today, they treat both sides of the industry fairly. He concluded by stating the County has onerous but fair vesting standards and any project that meets them should be vested and it should be for two years.

Brian Dalrymple, 2600 Lake Lucien Drive, addressed the Board to state he is with Taylor‑Morrison. Mr. Dalrymple thanked the Commissioners, the Chairman, and Superintendent Griffin and talked about how he would only educate his sons in Seminole County Schools because there is no place better.

Mr. Dalrymple referred to the BCC and the School Board being partners for many years and added that the developers and builders and apartment folks, everybody that pulls a permit, are their partners as well. They invest time and money year after year in this county to meet the market demand. With regard to the question of why two years, Mr. Dalrymple explained it takes a year to get a project approved; it takes up to a year to get a project developed, the sales office opened, and to be in operation. He suggested a litmus test, and explained if someone is in the process and has applied for a zoning application, he believes they have already done $100,000-plus of work; they have paid someone to apply to get the project rezoned. He thinks that would qualify someone as being in the process. Mr. Dalrymple stated they just want it to be fair and do not think it should be based on an apartment guy or single‑family builder or anything of the sort. He thinks anyone who is in the process to be rezoned should be treated with a two‑year extension because it will allow someone two years to absorb those increased fees into their business model.

Vivien Monaco, attorney with the Law Firm of Burr & Forman, addressed the Board to state she is representing Greater Orlando Builders Association (GOBA). Ms. Monaco stated she is here to basically support the same things that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Glass and others have said and ask the Board to please not treat the single‑family builders differently than they treat the multifamily builders. There is no rational basis to make that distinction as Mr. Glass pointed out. The difference between multifamily builders and single‑family builders in terms of the time that it takes and the money that it takes to go through the development process is a distinction without a difference. Ms. Monaco displayed her presentation entitled "Timeline for Single‑Family Subdivision" (received and filed) and reviewed the chart illustrating the timeline for going from contract to the first building permit; the total time to building permit from contract is 19 to 28 months. She stated that is the absolute minimum and does not count additional time for comprehensive plan changes, rezoning, some sort of PD amendment, or the same types of hiccups that Mr. Kantor was talking about. Ms. Monaco remarked that they can see it is very much the same type of process. She added there is not a distinction in terms of the purpose of the vesting, which is for fairness.

Commissioner Carey requested that Ms. Monaco go back to her schedule and pointed out that for the public process through local governments (that being the preliminary subdivision plans and those types of things) Ms. Monaco has four to six months. The Commissioner emphasized that everybody that applied for vesting that was approved is already in the final engineering stage; so they can take nine months off of Ms. Monaco's calculation, which would put them at 18 months basically.

Ms. Monaco stated the other distinction that was brought up at the P&Z meeting was that perhaps there was a difference because the multifamily housing impact fees are tiered and the single-family is not tiered. She stated she went back and looked at the impact fee study and found the reason for the tiering was primarily to recognize the difference in the student generation rate of those smaller apartments, which have a much lower student generation rate. According to the Impact Fee Act, the impact fees have to be based on the latest and most localized data. Ms. Monaco advised they also looked at tiered impact fees in terms of the size of the different single‑family units as well as multifamily units. The differences were not as great as they were with the multifamily. The differences were not as great when they looked at the single‑family units and the student generation rates and the other single‑family types. She stated that is a distinction without a difference and does not have any substantial and just relationship to the purpose of the vesting, which is fairness.

Chairman Horan advised that a single‑family fee is going up 180% and on average the multifamily is going up over 300%. He asked Ms. Monaco whether it would be fair if the Board just raised the single‑family fee three times. Ms. Monaco responded no, that the impact fee has to be based on the actual impacts and those are based on the student generation rates. Based on the student generation rates, multifamily is generating more students now than it was during the last impact fee study.

Lennon "Chip" Tatum, 340 N. Maitland Avenue, addressed the Board to state he is with the Apartment Association of Greater Orlando. Mr. Tatum remarked that AAGO is grateful that the Commission and staff are reconsidering vesting periods for multifamily. He believes they have demonstrated that while the change has a minimal impact on the school's impact fee collection, it has a significant impact on a relatively few number of multifamily developments that are already in the process and substantially invested in these communities. He also thinks it is important to reiterate that these developments are not creating population growth but rather playing a critical role in housing it. The industry's investment in schools does not stop with impact fees. The communities and ultimately the residents pay the highest rates for property taxes and school taxes. Additionally, apartment communities contribute substantially to employment and to the local economy. Mr. Tatum reiterated that they appreciate the Commission's reconsideration of this and asked for their support of the increased vesting period for multifamily.

Chairman Horan asked Mr. Tatum if he was aware that the multifamily apartment unit of 1,000 feet or more generates more than twice as many children as the same size single‑family house. Mr. Tatum replied that is not data that they would find necessarily valid. They are going to go back to the drawing board and look at that. They have done some "back of the napkin" math on this and had some alternative studies done in different counties. Student generation rates based on what they see anecdotally arent necessarily what they are seeing in practice with their communities as well. Mr. Tatum suggested that Mr. Kantor could provide better data on that. Chairman Horan advised that they are raising the impact fee 414% on a large apartment. Commissioner Dallari reminded that they are here to talk about two‑year vesting versus one‑year vesting and not the amount of impact fees. Chairman Horan stated that he understands that but is just responding to single-family comments. Commissioner Carey stated if they could prove that there is a flaw in it, they should bring it back because there has to be a rational nexus legally to impose the impact fees. Chairman Horan stated that is why he is asking the question because they are talking about rational basis here. Mr. Tatum stated he does not know that he could intelligently answer the question without giving the Chairman bad data and suggested he would like to come back and talk about that. He thinks they can address the vesting periods.

Mark Ogier, 237 South Westmonte Drive, addressed the Board and stated he is the past president of AAGO and the current Developers Council Chair of AAGO representing over 27 developers within the organization. Mr. Ogier thanked the Board for their time in the previous meeting as well as today to hear this issue. He requested that the Board approve the two-year vesting period as presented by Mr. Kantor. Mr. Ogier stated that the student generation rates are a key number for this discussion and are provided by third‑party consultants. The issue with the rate with the consultants is that they take a historical look at apartments but when looking at that generation rate, they have to look at new apartments as well as older apartments. The newer apartments are the ones that are being charged the rate. He stated all of the numbers are irrelevant if the projects aren't built. He believes the growth is here and the students are here already and they are just housing them.

Mr. Ogier pointed out that if new developments are not built, the impact fees don't come in and the dollars don't come into the schools. They create an additional problem of affordable housing and housing the work force. If they provide a lower supply of housing, both single‑family and multifamily, all housing costs are going to go up and all housing choices are going to go down. He believes that needs to be part of this discussion as they look at how to develop more housing, single‑family and multifamily, so they can house all different income levels. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Ogier if he can address the two-year versus one-year issue. He added that is the issue they are discussing today. Mr. Ogier advised that he recommends approval for the two years. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Ogier if there was any reason why and he replied because he knows how long it takes to get the different developments done. All of the various steps they are required to take are generally out of the hands of the developer and in the hands of other third‑party approving authorities, some at the state level and some at the local government level. He advised that it just takes longer than everybody wants it to.

Mike Mulhall, 100 South Eola Drive, addressed the Board to state he is the development partner for Florida for Jefferson Apartment Group. Mr. Mulhall thanked Superintendent Griffin and then talked about his children's amazing experience going through Seminole County Schools. He stated it is difficult to be up here "pitted" because he thinks they are all on the same team. He would love to add more money to Seminole County Schools because he believes they are a great asset.

Mr. Mulhall explained they have to get their projects, which are $70 million to $80 million projects, invested. They have to get an equity partner to kick in 30% to 40%, and then they have to get a bank to finance the remainder. They don't do that at the end but rather relatively near the beginning or the middle. They are underwriting the project; and if they think there is any chance that the clock is going to strike midnight at 12 months and they are going to have a big increase, 80% of the investors, if not more, are going to bail out and not take a chance. Mr. Mulhall noted that several years ago construction costs went up 10% to 12% in a year. He added that to get a deal approved and get it financed is the most critical part.

Mr. Mulhall explained how they have to pull all of their permits at one time. They finance it at one time. They close the financing and close on the land and they have to build. For them to be able to provide housing, they have to get the financing. If there is anything that is uncertain like they might have a huge bust, they won't get it financed and the project won't happen. Mr. Mulhall noted there has been a lot of talk about dollars and the delta between the vested and non‑vested. The reality is the projects they are working on in Seminole County would die. If it is so tight, they won't get any impact fees. With a $70 million project, a portion of the taxes will be going every year to the school system. He talked about a project in Osceola County they dropped because the impact fees went up and there was not a vesting period. Not only were they losing any impact fees, they were also losing all of the subsequent years of real estate taxes, a portion of which would be going to their school district. Mr. Mulhall concluded by saying that the critical part here is just the investment and the kill ratio.

Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Mulhall if he had a project that applied for vesting and he responded yes. As to what point he is at, he indicated they are in the approval process. He confirmed with Commissioner Carey that they have been through P&Z and zoning. He agreed they are in the final site development and getting ready to submit that and then apply for the building permit. Commissioner Carey advised that is part of the issue she is having with one‑year vesting versus two‑year vesting; everybody that has applied for vesting and been approved is already at the final engineering part of this. From that time frame to get a building permit, if they are single‑family, it is probably three to five months. If they are multifamily and at site plan, it is probably ten months. She is not going to base the time of vesting based on the fact that someone has not even started the project yet.

Commissioner Carey pointed out that they are dealing with 42 applications. Nobody else can come and ask to be considered to be vested. She is trying to be realistic for Mr. Mulhall's industry, the single‑family home industry, and also be fair to the School Board and to the County. Mr. Mulhall stated they have gotten through P&Z. They were doing a comp plan amendment so it has taken a little bit longer. He noted that they sometimes have been held up in permitting for eight months. He talked about their investors and how they look at that. If they can have it extended out, then they know for certain that it won't go two years. It might go 15 or 16 months, but the investors are not going to drop the project because they have this time bomb that is going to come hit them at 12 months. That is the critical part for them.

Ms. Guillet announced that they do have one vesting application they have approved for a multifamily project and that was approved under the impairment of contract standard rather than the equitable estoppel standard. They have simply applied for rezoning. She wanted to make sure the Board knows they do have at least one that has not reached final engineering and also that the ones that are subject to appeal are at different stages too.

Kami Corbett, attorney with the School Board, addressed the Board to echo Dr. Griffin's sentiment that the perception that they are not working collaboratively with the County is also incorrect. Ms. Corbett stated County staff, the County Manager, and the County Attorney's Office throughout the impact fee process was great and very helpful. They have been working late into the night trying to pull the numbers together and she wanted to say that she appreciates that. Ms. Corbett stated they support the Board's original deliberation from January and would like the Board to stick to one year.

Tom O'Hanlon, 827 Division, addressed the Board to state he feels so blessed to be a resident of Seminole County and to have the Commissioners sitting behind the dais representing the citizens. He talked about what a great job the Commissioners do in working with all of the different groups to make Seminole County such a phenomenal place to live. He believes the Sheriff does a phenomenal job in keeping them safe. He feels blessed that they have Superintendent Griffin here and the School Board and believes they do a phenomenal job with the schools.

Mr. O'Hanlon pointed out that they keep on talking about being fair and he applauds that, but one of the things that has not been discussed here today is Mr. Taxpayer. There is talk about the risk of who is going to foot the bill. He pointed out they are the developers and they are the ones building the growth. They are making the impact so that they need more schools. The taxpayer should not be bearing that risk. That is the developers' risk. He stated he is the taxpayer and he is not bringing more people here to Seminole County. The developers are. Mr. O'Hanlon stated he knows the Commissioners always take care of the taxpayer here. That is why they have such great services for such low taxes, and the School Board does the same. The quality of the schools and education that people get here for the amount of taxes that they levy is just tremendous. He stated he applauds the Commissioners and suggested they keep doing a great job. He advised that he is opposed to this because the school impact fees need to be paid.

Katrina Shadix, 995 Oklahoma Street, addressed the Board to state she believes what they are not addressing is that they have a human overpopulation problem and they should be addressing that first and foremost. She referred to a website,, and explained that it is a Florida guide to the taxpayers' costs of residential development. These developments do not pay for themselves and the citizens end up incurring the cost in more ways than one. Ms. Shadix noted that people who live in Seminole County live here because of the schools with their natural lands being the second top draw.

Ms. Shadix wondered what the number of trees that have been destroyed by the developers is. She thinks it is appalling that developers have been given carte blanche to make billions of dollars destroying the natural lands and now they are crying "not fair" to paying an increase of impact fees that will benefit the schools. She stated she has no sympathy for them in this situation. All she has heard today is fair, fair, fair. That is what has been repeated over and over. She wondered when the developers have ever been fair to the traffic commute times, to the rural quality of life, to their forests, to their wildlife, or to their peace and tranquil; and the answer is never. Ms. Shadix suggested if the County is going to allow the developers to pave over this beautiful county, over nature, then the least they can do is make them pay for it and pay big. She pointed out that the Board voted to raise the impact fees 400%, and she would like them to stick by that. She hopes the Board does not give the developers any breaks; and if she had her way, she would like the Board to rescind all of the approvals of the applications that were already approved.

Bill Hyde, 2379 Audley Street, addressed the Board to note there have been a lot of numbers thrown around and a lot of big words thrown around; so he went directly to the backup material that was provided where it says, "the economic impact on individuals or businesses should be a reduction in development costs." Development costs mean developers save a lot of money. Mr. Hyde stated that it goes on to say, the proposed ordinance would result in moderate reduction in revenues received by the School Board for constructing school facility to address new growth." Mr. Hyde advised that someone is going to pay for that and Mr. O'Hanlon got right to it. At the end of the story, it is going to be the taxpayers because when the School Board comes up short of money next budget time, they will point back to the Board and say that the Board jerked the rug out from under them. He suggested it will be the taxpayers who will pay that. Mr. Hyde suggested they can't keep blaming Tallahassee and everything else. He remarked that the ball is in the Board's court and this is probably the one time they will hear him say they need these taxes and fees. He suggested this is one they need to stick with because this one will actually keep them from eventually having their taxes raised. That is really what it is all about. The Board has heard "fair, fair, fair" but he really hopes the Board considers paying attention to the taxpayers and treating them fair too.

Polly DeLucia, President of SCCPTA, addressed the Board and stated she has a daughter attending Seminole High School and her kindergartener is now registered to begin at Idyllwilde Elementary this fall. Ms. DeLucia advised she is speaking today in her role as president of the Seminole County Council Parent Teacher Association (SCCPTA) and then gave a brief description of SCCPTA. Ms. DeLucia stated that a key PTA advocacy position at all levels of government is that public schools should be adequately funded by public funds. She stressed that their schools deserve both adequate operating funding and capital funding sufficient to meet the projected needs of Seminole County. Ms. DeLucia stated that toady they are speaking to their local leaders and asking that they not extend vesting rights for the County's new educational impact fee.

Ms. DeLucia noted that their students and families are already facing challenges as the schools approach 100% capacity countywide. New building in the county is not necessarily positioned to access open student seats. Already there are more than 200 families attending alternate schools because of capacity issues. She stressed that their public schools need additional funds to build new student seats and the funds are needed now. By allowing extension of the vesting period, the County will effectively push the receipt of increased funding from development into 2020. She stated capital projects are multiyear undertakings; and with an additional 6,000 new students expected within five years, she believes work on these projects must begin today.

Ms. DeLucia pointed out that in just unincorporated Seminole County, a loss to the schools of at least $4.6 million has already been approved through vesting certificates. If the vesting period is extended, over an additional $2 million could be vested through appeals. That breaks down to $1.2 million for multifamily and $800,000 for condominiums and single‑family homes. These figures do not include any development within the cities. Ms. DeLucia talked about trying to get information regarding educational impact fees vesting certificates from the cities and believes the dollars at stake from these seven cities are significant.

Ms. DeLucia advised that SCCPTA is supportive of a reasonable vesting policy. Developers with significantly in‑progress projects should have their investments protected; however, developments are speculative with no sure outcome in any situation. Government action is only one factor in a tricky industry. She stated that continued expansion of the vesting policies to accommodate additional developers in an effort to be fair to them is not fair to the schools or to the current county residents. Developers want to build in Seminole County because their quality schools attract renters and buyers and allow them to charge premium prices. She reiterated that if new development fails to bear a proportional cost of the education impact that it creates, all of the county's children will suffer.

Ms. DeLucia referred to an argument that has been advanced by AAGO; that since they were not explicitly invited into the Citizens Advisory Group, they were excluded from representing their members. She noted the County's policy required that the School Board consult community stakeholders and a good faith effort was made to do so. Even recognizing that AAGO was not initially invited into the discussion, Florida's policy of Government in the Sunshine requires substantial public notice so that AAGO should have known about the educational impact fee discussions long before this January. She explained that AAGO has used this circumstance to push the issue of extended vesting. Last week the Planning and Zoning Commission did vote to recommend to allow two‑year vesting for multifamily projects. If the County Commissioners decide to accept this, they would be recognizing the possibility of losing $1.2 million on appeal in the County alone.

Ms. DeLucia remarked that the process of increasing the educational impact fee in Seminole County has not been handled in a way that gives credit to any of the parties involved. Despite inflation, growth, and development, this School Board has allowed the same impact fee to remain in place for ten years. Although they did campaign for additional sales tax revenue during that period, a direct connection between the educational impact fee for new homes and the actual cost of enrolling new students was not maintained.

Ms. DeLucia stated that today is the third revisiting of the subject due to perceived fault with the educational impact fee. She implored the Board, that regardless of the outcome of this vote, to please let the matter end today. The educational impact fee has risen. Vesting has been provided to those significantly in progress with their developments. To continue reopening this issue prevents interested parties from adjusting to the new reality and moving ahead with their future plans. Ms. DeLucia concluded by stating that SCCPTA is requesting the Board of County Commissioners not extend vesting rights another year. Additionally, they request that discussions of and changes to the new educational impact fee end today because continued County action on this issue is unwarranted.

Kristine Kraus, 3173 Bothwell Court, addressed the Board to state she is opposed to extending and expanding the vesting. Ms. Kraus noted that the Seminole County Schools have done an amazing job with very little. They are constantly being under attack both at the federal level and at the state level. She asked the Board for their help at the local level because they do have the ability to help. The builders are for‑profit businesses and the schools are not.

Bobby Luthra, 5051 Isleworth County Club Drive, addressed the Board to state they have been talking about this issue for over a year; so as developers, they all knew this was coming. Mr. Luthra discussed time frames and how long they have known so they could make adjustments in developments and in what they are doing. He referred to six or seven developments in the East Seminole County/Sanford area. The reason why the developments are successful today and are going forward is because of the work of the School Board in going from "D" and "F" rated elementary schools to "C" rated schools. That is the reason why the builders are coming. They are kind of caught in a Catch‑22. They have done such a good job that people can afford to come here and people will be coming here and the developments are proceeding. He suggested they give the schools a round of applause. As a developer, he believes they should commend the School Board on the wonderful job they have done. He added that the reason they are in this situation today is because of the great job they have done.

With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the item and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Carey advised that she has spent a lot of time talking to staff about schedules and she has looked at these projects. She pointed out that the original document had a two‑year recommendation and the Board opted not to take that and instead said one. She thinks there have been some things brought out that it may be slightly longer than 12 months. She believes that whatever they do should be across the board. Whether it is single‑family or multifamily, it doesn't really matter. Commissioner Carey stated the vesting time should be the vesting time, and she thinks 18 months is adequate for any of the scenarios they are looking at. She stated that is something she would be willing to support and would be happy to put it in the form of a motion.

Commissioner Constantine stated since they don't have the numbers, he is a little concerned since they haven't discussed about single‑family homes. He asked what that would do if they extended it from one year to 18 months for single‑family homes. Commissioner Carey suggested that was in the calculations that were shown. Ms. Guillet replied that they did a one‑year and a two‑year for single‑family and multifamily. The single‑family was more scientifically based in an estimate and was anecdotal. They had some trends they could look at in order to establish that. Ms. Guillet advised that she believes the impacts would be similar since they are talking about 18 months as opposed to 24 months. Obviously, they would not get as many homes; so they would have probably half of that 30% in the second year. The 30% absorption rate was shown on the charts for the single‑family. She does not know what impact it will on have multifamily. As she noted earlier, they had several multifamily projects that came through and applied for vesting. In Seminole County, they approved one based on the impairment of contracts standard. She added this is a project that is just at the very beginning of the review phase. There are others that are subject to appeal. There are a number of multifamily projects in the cities, and she is not sure at what point in the process those multifamily projects might be. The same is true for the single‑family projects. She stated she does not know and can't tell the Commissioners what the impact might be for the 20 projects that were in the cities.

Motion by Commissioner Carey to adopt an Ordinance amending a portion of Chapter 105, Educational System Impact Fees," Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for an amendment to Section 105.43 Vested Rights moving the length of a vesting agreement from one (1) year to eighteen (18) months; providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for severability; and providing an effective date. Chairman Horan called for a second to the motion without response; whereupon, the motion died for lack of same.

Chairman Horan stated a lot of things have been discussed today but the issue is going from one year to two years. Commissioner Carey advised if there is no motion made for two years, it will stay at one year. It is already one year. Chairman Horan asked the County Attorney whether they would have to take formal action on that. Mr. Applegate replied that he does not think they do. If there is no consensus to move it from one year to two years, then it stays at one year as the Board previously adopted. Mr. Applegate advised that Mr. Glass today and Ms. Monaco in her letter stated the basic principles that apply in law. He added that any decision of the Board to change the ordinance would have to be on a rational basis promoting a legitimate government interest, fairly debatable, and could not be arbitrary and capricious. If the Board did vote to go two years and one year, they would have to provide a rational basis for that distinction. If the Board fails to move the proposed amendment forward, then the ordinance stands as previously adopted.

Commissioner Constantine stated that he thinks the problem here that has caused the greatest angst was when they started hearing from the apartment association that they felt they were not included in the discussion. He does not think anybody can say they have not had their voice heard now. The Commissioner stated he believes the real problem was the fact that the School Board waited so long to bring this issue forward. He thinks the Board has been blamed a little bit here, but the fact of the matter is that $5,000 per home was not sufficient to pay for the growth that was coming. They did have a little bit of time lapse and there was a lack of development for a while, but that has not been the case for the last three or four years.

Commissioner Constantine pointed out that when it was brought forward to the Board the first time, there was vesting in the School Board's request. There was also a $2,000 discount for homebuilders for a two‑year period. There was no discussion of what was an up-to-400% increase for apartments. Right now they have looked at and discussed the fact that one year for the most part for most situations would be sufficient. Commissioner Constantine advised that he was waiting to hear what others had to say, including Mr. Kantor because he said he reserved the right to come back but didn't come back. He noted that the one thing he does agree with is that rooftops don't pay for themselves and ultimately the cost is going to be burdened by the taxpayers. The fact is here they have a situation where a certain time frame had to be established to give people the ability to complete their development. He is trying to find a fairness issue because as the attorney just said, they need to ensure that they are fair for both sides.

Commissioner Constantine stated it is clear that one thing that has been misunderstood from the very beginning is that this is not an open‑ended discussion that anybody that comes in between now and two years or 18 months or one year from now is going to get this vesting. The fact of the matter is the vesting period has closed and no one else that is looking to come in is going to get any ability to have vesting rights. Commissioner Constantine confirmed with the County Manager that the new ordinance states the School Board has to look at this every three years. He stated that, in itself, will start to move the ball forward so there will be a proper payment of impact fees going down the line. With that said, he thinks in looking at where they are, he agrees with Commissioner Carey that 18 months is probably the fairest for all considered; and therefore, he would go along with that recommendation. Again, not hearing anyone else speak on it, he thinks that is probably the fairest for both sides. He added that would be for everyone. Discussion ensued.

When asked by Chairman Horan whether she agrees that her motion is still on the table, Commissioner Carey agreed.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt Ordinance 2018-13 amending a portion of Chapter 105, Educational System Impact Fees," Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for an amendment to Section 105.43 Vested Rights moving the length of a vesting agreement from one (1) year to eighteen (18) months; providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, as described in the proof of publication.

Under discussion, Chairman Horan pointed out that based upon the discussion they had here today and the different types of vesting periods and the evidence they have of the applications and what process they are in right now, he thinks there is a rational basis for the 18 months. It is fair to everybody and there is definitely a rational basis in setting it at that particular time period. He added that the 18 months also mitigates whatever the effect might be in terms of the effect on the School Board; the delta goes down.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.



Agenda Item #24 2018-0572

Continuation of a public hearing from March 27, 2018 to consider vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1, page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and East SR 415, Sanford, Florida, as described in the proof of publication, Archie and Debbie Smith.

Angi Kealhofer, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board to inform them that Public Works has recommended this item be continued until May 22.

With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the continuance and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to continue to May 22, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to adopt a Resolution vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1, page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and East SR 415, Sanford, Florida, as described in the proof of publication, Archie and Debbie Smith.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.




Agenda Item #25 2018-0004

Continuation of a public hearing from March 27, 2018 to consider a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional, and Planned Development to Planned Development, and a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a 243 multifamily residential unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres, located on the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of publication, WP South Acquisitions, LLC.

Matt Davidson, Planning and Zoning Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. Mr. Davidson stated the Applicant is requesting a Large Scale Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone to Planned Development in order to develop a luxury multifamily apartment complex with a maximum density of 20 units per net buildable acre. The complex will consist of a maximum of 243 residential units with a maximum building height of 40 feet. Mr. Davidson talked about the three different future land use designations that the subject site currently has; Medium Density Residential, High Intensity PD Transitional, and PD. The majority of the site is comprised of an expired Planned Development, which permitted office and commercial uses. Mr. Davidson described the proposed buffers (such as a masonry wall, a six-foot high decorative metal fence, and landscaping) and the various building setbacks.

Mr. Davidson stated that the subject property is located in the Countys Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and explained that TCEAs are established to promote development and redevelopment where opportunities for expansion or addition of new transportation corridors are limited. The Applicant has provided a traffic impact analysis (TIA) that indicates that the roadway segments currently operate within their design capacities and Level of Services (LOS); however, a few directional movements (pre- and post-development) currently operate at unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Tuskawilla Road and Aloma Avenue. Mr. Davidson noted that at full build-out, the TIA shows that some movements at the intersection will operate at an unacceptable LOS during the AM and PM Peak Hours with a slight increase of delay. He advised that the Applicant will be required to reconstruct and restripe by extending the length of the southbound center left-turn lane on Tuskawilla Road at the intersection of West SR 426 as part of the site plan approval process. Additional right-of-way dedication along West SR 426 will be required for an additional future right-turn lane.

Mr. Davidson reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny the transmittal of the subject request. He indicated that the proposed development would serve as a transition between the single-family subdivision to the east, Cross Seminole Trail to the north, and Tuskawilla Road to the west. With frontage on two arterial roads, it is appropriately located at a major intersection with retail uses to the south, west, and east of the site. Mr. Davidson stated that staff finds the request to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding trend of development in the area and recommends the Board transmit the proposed ordinance to state and regional review agencies.

Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Davidson whether the current uses that are allocated to that property are more intense than the request that is being applied for today. Mr. Davidson replied that according to the future land use that is out there, a portion of the property does have a High Intensity Planned Transitional Future Land Use that allows for up to 20 dwelling units for net buildable acre. The majority of the subject property was a previous PD that expired eight years after it was approved in 1995. That allowed for commercial and office uses with approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial use and 20,000 square feet of office use. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Davidson that under Seminole's own comp plan, somebody could come in and apply for some higher intensity than what is out there and being proposed. The Commissioner asked whether, with this transmittal, it would down‑zone the Comprehensive Land Plan; and Mr. Davidson replied that it would for a portion of property, yes. Commissioner Dallari asked what percentage that portion of the property would be. Mr. Davidson stated with regard to the HIP‑TR, they did take a look at that but he does not have specific acreage in front of him. He referred to a map being displayed (page 361 in Agenda Packet) and pointed out the smaller section. He indicated the larger section has the expired PD Future Land Use.

Charlie Madden, Madden Moorhead & Stokes, addressed the Board to state he is representing the contract purchaser of the property which is Wood Partners. Mr. Madden announced that those present today are: Brian Borland, a partner at Wood Partners; Greg Lee, counsel with Baker & Hostetler; and Mohammed Abdallah with Traffic and Mobility Consultants. Mr. Madden displayed a map (received and filed) and pointed out the portion of the property that is HIP‑TR. He stated the rest is the expired PD, which had similar buffers and setbacks as the Clayton Crossing project. He believes it is a reasonable assumption that someone could come in and apply for something similar to the expired PD and probably expect an approval. He indicated on the map the location of the residential that they are directly by, Clayton Crossing, and explained that it shares a property line. He stated they had good-sized buffers and building setback requirements to create compatibility between the single‑family and commercial.

Mr. Madden stated that for the past 30 years, the property has been for sale and marketed as commercial and office; and they have not successfully sold it to anyone for that purpose. He advised they are here today requesting that the property be down‑zoned to the multifamily use. Mr. Madden talked about what was allowed in the original expired PD and what uses and buffers are now being proposed. He referred to the original PD uses and explained that translating those uses into multifamily units based on a trip equivalency matrix would equate to 349 units from a traffic standpoint. The proposed request is for 243 units. He advised they had three community meetings.

Mr. Madden distributed copies of his presentation (received and filed) and then displayed the Aloma at Tuskawilla Apartments Conceptual Site Plan that he took to P&Z and reviewed that plan. The Landscape Buffer Plan was displayed. He stated that at the second and third community meeting, there clearly was a group that was not happy with the plan; but he didn't really grasp how unhappy they were with the plan until he got to P&Z and heard their comments. Mr. Madden reported that subsequently that plan got denied at P&Z; so they went back to the drawing board. Based on the comments they heard at P&Z, they came back with a new plan. Mr. Madden displayed the Alta Seminole Conceptual Site Plan and talked about the changes that were made to the setbacks and the landscaping buffers. He indicated on the Site Plan the locations of the two‑ and three‑story buildings and the one‑story detached garages. Mr. Madden displayed a black and white rendering of the Site Plan and explained how, at Commissioner Dallari's request, they dropped 10 additional units and did more two‑story buildings on the east side closer to the single‑family. That is how the number of units went from 253 units to 243 units. He pointed out that they are well beyond the setbacks that were approved for a much more intense development over in Clayton Crossing with the 120‑foot building setbacks for three‑story buildings. He indicated a location on the Site Plan and stated if they measure from there to the property lines across the trail, they are meeting those setbacks which they have proposed in their Development Order. Mr. Madden displayed and discussed the updated Landscape Buffer Plan. He noted that the retention pond that had been approved with the two‑story office building is now going to be an attractive water body.

Mr. Madden displayed the Aerial Exhibit and stated it is to give the Board a better idea of all of the uses in the area. He pointed out Clayton Crossing, the Shops at Clayton Crossing, Aloma Self Storage, the 7‑Eleven, the Wendy's, an insurance office, and some townhomes. He stated what they have done from a compatibility standpoint is classic planning of transitioning from commercial uses to multifamily and in their case transitioning from commercial to three‑story buildings to two‑story buildings on the east next to the single‑family, which makes them clearly compatible with their neighbors.

Mr. Madden distributed the Alta Seminole Vicinity Map and Rent Comp Summary (received and filed). He advised that a concern about student housing came up at P&Z; so they looked at the nearest "competition" for other apartment complexes that are within a mile of the site. He indicated the various locations on the map for Mystic Cove (two‑story affordable housing), Loma Vista (three‑story affordable housing), and Elmhurst Village (three‑story market rate). Mr. Madden stated of their 243 units, there are 130 one‑bedroom units, 109 two‑bedroom units, and 14 three‑bedroom units. He then referred to the Rent Comp Summary and compared the various rents with the rents at Alta Seminole. Mr. Madden advised that the rents at Alta Seminole are significantly higher than the three apartment complexes that are closer to UCF, which is where the students are going to come from. They believe this clearly demonstrates that students will not be renting from Alta Seminole; that is not the Wood Partners business plan or model. The Wood Partners model is to attract working young professionals that are not ready to buy a house yet. Mr. Madden displayed a rendering (received and filed) of the proposed three‑story building and discussed building heights. He noted they are asking for 40 feet, which is the same thing that was approved at The Alexander at Sabal Point, and talked about why they are asking for that height.

Mr. Madden advised that the main topic they heard about at the P&Z meeting was the traffic situation. He mentioned that they are in a Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and that they did have their traffic engineer look at a number of issues in the area to look for solutions to help improve the Tuskawilla/Aloma intersection. Mr. Madden stated he understands the original PD has expired. With regard to doing something more intense from a traffic standpoint, he suggested if they compare the 40,000 square feet of commercial and the 20,000 square feet of office to the 243 multifamily units, the 243 multifamily units are three and a half times less than the previous approval. The previous approval allowed for up to 5,521 average daily trips, and the 243 apartments will produce 1,591 average daily trips.

Mr. Madden reported that the capacity for Aloma Avenue is 60,000 average daily trips in this segment. After they develop, there will be 10,900 daily trips remaining on Aloma Avenue. For Tuskawilla Road, the maximum capacity is 42,560 average daily trips. After they develop, there will be 7,900 average daily trips in that segment available for use before it would reach maximum capacity. He explained that they fully recognize that during AM and PM peaks, that intersection gets very snarled. They understand that some of the turning movements today are failing. Mr. Madden announced that Greg Lee, with Baker & Hostetler, is going to now talk about the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area and then Mohammed Abdallah is going to display some exhibits on what their proposed solutions are to make that intersection operate at a higher level of service than it is operating at today before they construct.

Greg Lee, attorney with Baker & Hostetler, addressed the Board and stated this has been a long process and they have gone through a lot of dialogue and a lot meetings and a lot of communication, both with staff and members of the community. Mr. Lee stated that in the community meetings, the one overriding comment that they heard was concerns related to traffic and transportation. As staff indicated and as Mr. Madden indicated, they are in a Dense Urban Land Area (DULA) as defined in the Florida Statutes. They are also part of a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) that was established by Seminole County. The purpose of establishing the TCEA was to permit urban infill development and not have development relegated to areas that are outside the urban core. Part of the process for establishing a TCEA involves coordination with FDOT, establishing certain improvements and rules and principles. Mr. Lee pointed out this TCEA has been in place for a long time. The project being in the Dense Urban Land Area and the TCEA make it excepted from transportation concurrency. He noted that the County's code lays out a process for projects that are similar to theirs to produce a traffic study and identify some things that can be done to mitigate impacts. Mr. Lee mentioned that the other projects that were approved on this subject property were more intense and explained that this is a down‑zone. This is truly an effort to try and see if they can engage in infill urban development, which was the desire of Seminole County when they established the TCEA, and to mitigate the impact and address the impacts in a way that leaves the intersection and leaves the area surrounding the subject property in a better position than it is today.

Mohammed Abdallah, Traffic & Mobility Consultants, addressed the Board and distributed his presentation (received and filed). Mr. Abdallah displayed a map of the intersection of Aloma Avenue and Tuskawilla Road with proposed intersection improvements and advised that his company prepared a traffic study for the subject site. He noted, as indicated in the staff report, there is currently a deficiency on certain movements at the intersection and those are based in the operation of the signal, the character of the traffic, and some of the geometry that exists at the intersection. Mr. Abdallah talked about the improvements that the County implemented a few years ago and how it took the extremely heavy flow of traffic from Tuskawilla southbound onto Aloma that is trying to get to the 417 and instead of trying to accommodate it in dual left-turn lanes, which is what had been used until this intersection came along, they put in triple left-turn lanes. There has been quite a bit of attention to this intersection and some improvements that have come along. Looking at it a few years later, there are still challenges. Mr. Abdallah referred to the displayed map and discussed the proposed improvements to the intersection; such as, retiming and balancing the signal. He explained how they would modify the three left-turn lanes by (1) removing the through cars from the outer most left-turn lane; (2) extending the left-turn lane that is next to the outer most lane back so it is 750 feet long; and (3) leaving the third left-turn lane as it is. He emphasized that a lot of traffic they are handling through this intersection is commuter traffic and not necessarily traffic just coming from this area.

Mr. Abdallah explained that those physical improvements along with the signal timing improvement are going to basically leave the intersection better when they are done with it than it is today and that is with adding the traffic from this project. He referred to a location on the map and talked about the dedication of a right-of-way for additional future improvements, if they are deemed necessary, along the state road. Those improvements would be to add a second right-turn lane so there is not just one right-turn lane going from Aloma to Tuskawilla.

Mr. Abdallah displayed the AM Peak - No Build Level of Service map, which represents the current conditions. He explained that in the traffic engineering world, LOS D is amazing. If they see a LOS D, they are happy. LOS E means they are nearing capacity, and LOS F means they are over capacity. Mr. Abdallah referred to the red, yellow, and green arrows on the map and discussed the traffic movement. He displayed the AM Peak - Build/Improved map and talked about the significant improvements in traffic movement. Commissioner Constantine remarked that he has already seen this presentation and he believes everybody else has also. He asked Mr. Abdallah if he is suggesting that the developer is willing to pay for the improvements. Mr. Abdallah stated he believes that is the case and that everything they are proposing on Tuskawilla itself, the physical improvements, the developer will be doing as part of this project and is committing to do as part of this project.

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Abdallah to talk about the right‑in/right‑out of the project and how people are going to make U‑turns now. Mr. Abdallah stated with the way the access for the project is proposed, there would be a right‑in/right‑out on Aloma Avenue and a right‑in/right‑out on Tuskawilla. He then explained that if you live in this community, should it be approved and constructed, and you are trying to go toward the east toward SR 417, there are two choices to make that movement. One choice is to come out of the Aloma driveway and make the U‑turn at the Tuskawilla intersection. He illustrated the movement on the map. He stated it will be a challenging movement but it is a doable movement. The other choice is to come out on Tuskawilla and go up half a mile, make the U‑turn at Old Bear Run, come back and make the left turn at the signal light intersection. He illustrated the movement on the map. Discussion ensued with regard to making U-turn movements.

Commissioner Carey remarked that yesterday afternoon they received an amendment to the development order that indicated these are improvements being made by the developer as part of the development order. Mr. Davidson confirmed that is in the development order. Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Davidson that the right-of-way on the 426 is being donated.

Mr. Madden summarized that what he heard today is that County staff is recommending transmittal of this and approval of their PD request. He thinks they have clearly demonstrated compatibility with their neighbors and changed the plan substantially from what was denied at the P&Z meeting by matching Clayton Crossing, which is a much more intense use, with the buffers and building setbacks. They are even exceeding those building setbacks. He believes they are a much less intense use from a traffic standpoint over what could be developed there. Mr. Madden explained that when the original PD was done (although the PD may be expired), the shared access was set up with 7‑Eleven. That was done a long time ago, and that access is there with cross access easements with the 7‑Eleven. That is where they have to come in and out. They basically have no choice but to come in and out on Aloma as well to disburse the traffic. He stated that what could go in there with some kind of commercial/office use is going to be a much higher trip producer. With regard to the proposed intersection improvements and the exhibits that Mr. Abdallah just handed out, Mr. Madden suggested that if the Board looks through those, it will be clear they are going to improve the efficiency of that intersection after their development is done more than how it is functioning today.

Mr. Madden stated that despite the fact they are in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area, they are still doing those improvements to that intersection to increase its efficiency. He referred the Commissioners to the Aerial Map Exhibit from his presentation and pointed out that in this corridor, this is the last piece. He thinks they have done everything they can do to leave it in the best traffic situation that it can be. Obviously, no one likes rush hour traffic but they have come up with a way to improve that intersection. Mr. Madden stated they would appreciate the Board's support today. He also requested the opportunity to respond after the comments from the public.

Steve Shideler, 4648 Creekview Lane, addressed the Board to state he has lived in Bear Creek for 32 years and has seen all of the changes over this time period. Mr. Shideler referred to an article (received and filed) that was in the Orlando Sentinel last month regarding pedestrian deaths and issues in the state of Florida. He has not heard anything today that addresses the pedestrian concerns. He talked about the number of children that walk to and from school. Mr. Shideler read some of the facts from the Sentinel article into the record. With regard to the distractions listed in the article, he believes this project will impact all of those. He listed the three areas in Central Florida that are under the most scrutiny (UCF, Pine Hills and Oak Ridge Road) and talked about how UCF has grown. Mr. Shideler continued his review of the article. In closing, Mr. Shideler noted that they need to improve signage and those issues. He then suggested putting a park in this area. He stated there are a number of children that live in the area. They could maintain the trees and the beauty of the area and yet assist the community with a park for children to go to.

Anthony Scotti, 5208 Hidden Cypress Lane, addressed the Board and indicated he is the president of Clayton Crossing HOA. Mr. Scotti pointed out that Mr. Madden kept referring to Clayton Crossing as having higher density or more intense density and citing as his reason in his mind why this project is compatible with Clayton Crossing. Mr. Scotti reported there are 218 households on about 50 acres of land compared to 243 units on 12 acres. He advised that the setback that Mr. Madden referred to does not belong to the retail center but rather is Clayton Crossing's tract. Mr. Scotti stated that Clayton Crossing residents are overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal. They feel like the changes are an arbitrary urbanization. Currently, the land is a horse farm. They understand that eventually it will be developed; but they were hoping it would be developed as expected, which would be commercial. They are concerned about the impacts to the infrastructure and the school. Mr. Scotti stated the density of this project seems like it is five times the density of Clayton Crossing, and they disagree with the project manager's statement that the area's growth is trending toward this density. The nearest high density growth that they found is many, many miles north in the Winter Springs Town Center area where the nearest apartment complexes are being built. Mr. Scotti stated it just seems like there is no hardship that would warrant this kind of capricious proposal and it is incompatible with the surrounding area. He urged the Board to deny it.

Martha E. Pultz, 1039 Northern Way, addressed the Board and stated that she moved here in 1981. Ms. Pultz stated she is advocating on behalf of the owners of this property, who bought the property in 1983. She talked about the different projects that failed to come to fruition. She noted that now there is this proposal for a downgrade in development into a multifamily residential and she hopes the Board will consider it. Several Commissioners confirmed with Ms. Pultz that she is in support. She stated she does drive in with horse trailers and drive out to take care of her animals. She knows it is sometimes challenging but it just takes patience.

Al Portugal, 4587 Tigua Island Court, addressed the Board and stated that he has lived in the Antigua Pointe subdivision for 15 years. Mr. Portugal reported that Tuskawilla is only ten miles long and this is the last piece of that ten miles. There is another project going in near SR 434, and he has seen the degradation of the quality of life in the communities. There are traffic jams, trucks going down the road speeding. He stated it is really crazy right now with the volume of traffic they are experiencing in that location. Mr. Portugal talked about how, in the last five years, the criminal rate has increased in the neighborhood. He stated he thought the zoning department had denied this rezoning. Chairman Horan informed Mr. Portugal that this item went in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is an advisory board to this Board, and it was voted down five to one. The Chairman clarified that that is just a recommendation to the BCC and the BCC makes the final decision. Chairman Horan pointed out that the staffs recommendation is in the agenda and he believes the staffs recommendation is approval. Mr. Portugal requested that the Board deny this rezoning.

Shawn Stafford, 2584 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and stated that he lives in the Bear Creek subdivision right next to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Stafford indicated that he has also been the homeowners association president for the last five years. He stated he is also a human factor psychologist and an expert witness. He does a lot of murder cases, civil cases, and traffic cases. Mr. Stafford talked about looking at the data that is present in the traffic study and advised that he does not believe the Board has enough data to actually make an informed decision. He then discussed U‑turns and the number of U‑turns that will be added to this intersection. Mr. Stafford stated that while they are improving the traffic lanes, it is a very risky behavior they are adding; and in adding 450 U‑turns, they do not know what is going to happen to that intersection.

Mr. Stafford suggested that if someone goes to any of the journals on transportation, they would see that the journals say U‑turns are very risky. He talked about why U‑turns are even riskier when there are multiple lanes turning left. There is data out there that suggest this is going to be an issue, and the traffic study does not take that into account. Mr. Stafford suggested they look at other apartment complexes that are right‑in/right‑out where the majority of the maneuverers are going to be U‑turns and asked how that will impact flow. He wondered whether the model accounts for 450 U‑turns. He stated he would argue that it does not.

Mr. Stafford announced that his community is united against this for a number of reasons, a lot of them emotional. Even with traffic improvements, he asked what 450 U‑turns are going to do. Before they got their "no U‑turn" sign at the exit of Bear Creek Lane, they had a lot of traffic accidents. People do not expect U‑turns. Commuters that go through this area use the area as an access to 417, and now they are putting in 450 U‑turns. He wondered how many traffic crashes they will have in that particular area. He concluded by emphasizing that he is definitely against this project and his entire community is as well.

John Fairchild, 2585 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and displayed a photograph (received and filed) of a large dump truck doing a U‑turn. This happened within the past month with the "no U‑turn" signs in place. Mr. Fairchild stated he tried to read the traffic study and saw where it said that "U‑turns were not a thing." He talked about why they are a "thing."

Mr. Fairchild referred to safety, especially regarding the Cross Seminole Trail, and talked about the road opening up from a two‑lane road and ultimately going into two right‑turn lanes and into three left‑turn lanes. He emphasized that is where everybody is trying to rush through that area as quickly as possible. He displayed another photograph (received and filed) of a street view and advised that when people approach this intersection, they are not looking at that trail light. The trail light is green 90% of the time, and people are focused on getting through that Aloma light as fast as possible. With regard to adding more congestion, he pointed out that it is not just adding more cars that could potentially hit pedestrians, it is making people more frustrated and adding aggravation which will make human behaviors even worse behaviors.

Mr. Fairchild stated he has heard a lot of fancy terms; such as, DULA and TCEA. He does not know what these terms are but he does know snarled. That is the thing that people do when they are waiting to get through the intersection which makes them make poor decisions. He suggested they not snarl up that intersection any more. Mr. Fairchild mentioned the U-turn into the Starbucks and talked about why there is no way to get out of the proposed right-out and into the Starbucks U-turn lane. He advised he is opposed to this item.

Ruth Wood's name was announced and it was determined that she was not in attendance.

Kelly Martins name was announced and it was determined that she was not in attendance. A letter (received and filed) from Ms. Martin was submitted into the record.

Pat Parker, 4548 Whimbrel Place, addressed the Board to talk about her family's citrus farm and grove caretaking business (Parker Brothers Grove Service), which was located where Think 'N Play nursery is located near Bear Creek. Ms. Parker stated that in 1917 her grandfather and uncle bought 40 acres at Tuskawilla and Aloma. They had to work the land from scratch to plant citrus trees. She remembers as a little girl in the '50s and '60s that there was no traffic. There were no subdivisions; it was all orange groves or woods. Families that lived on Tuskawilla had acreage and they knew almost everybody that drove by. She advised her dad's mother was a Dodd and they had family reunions on the Dodd Ranch before Christmas every year. Her uncle, Corbett Dodd, was a Seminole County Commissioner in the '50s; and her dad, Bob Parker, was a Seminole County Commissioner in the '60s. She noted that the church east of them is where they vote.

Ms. Parker stated she thinks it would be a big mistake to add an apartment building to an already crowded road. People are coming off the 417 and getting on it. They have no apartment buildings around their neighborhoods. It would be better for an apartment building to be built near the university. She stressed that they already have backups and accidents at the intersection of Aloma and Tuskawilla and they don't want to add to the problem.

Joe Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and distributed an information packet (received and filed). Mr. Wheeler displayed a map and explained that the 417 is a man‑made boundary that separates the east side from the west side. The environments on the two sides are not comparable. Mr. Wheeler referred to a memorandum from Planning to the Board and advised that in the memorandum, they refer to two different apartments; Trails at Aloma and the Promenade at Aloma. He discussed the two apartment complexes, which are three‑story and a mile from the property that is under consideration, and pointed out they are one‑half mile from Duke Energy, FDOT Industrial Yard, and AK Business Center.

Mr. Wheeler displayed another map depicting the west side of Tuskawilla and Aloma and pointed out there is none of that industrial business there. He then listed the subdivisions on the map and indicated the thing they all have in common is that they are single‑owner residences, whether they be townhomes or single‑family residences. He remarked that there are no apartment complexes along Aloma from the 417 to the county line. There are none from Aloma to 434 along Tuskawilla that are three‑story in height.

Mr. Wheeler next talked about when Clayton Crossing was first proposed as a high-density apartment complex that stretched from Aloma north through the 50 acres that Mr. Scotti mentioned. The Commission, at that point in time, thought that was not a good idea; and as a result, they ended up with 218 or so townhomes on that 50‑acre plot of ground leaving room for the Publix Shopping Center that now faces Aloma. Mr. Wheeler explained that in 1995, the Commission issued a Development Order, which has expired, that memorialized the Commission's belief that the buildings in this area should not exceed 35 feet. He wondered what had changed in the last few years or even the last several decades that makes it appropriate for a high-density apartment complex to be built on that particular parcel of ground because there are no comparables in that area at all.

Kathy Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board to state that she disagrees with the compatibility that the project manager presented. The three‑story apartments are not compatible with the makeup of their community. All of the structures in their community are single‑family homes or two‑story townhomes. Regarding the traffic study and the number of trips that were talked about, Ms. Wheeler stated commercial properties have trips throughout the day. They are not all during peak hours because most of the businesses are not open during the morning hours. The apartment complex would complicate their traffic issues much more heavily. Ms. Wheeler stated she thinks the traffic study report is inaccurate and reported that the "no U‑turn" sign outside of their neighborhood doesn't work. Human behavior says, "I need to get to the 417 very quickly." Anybody that goes to the 417 from this complex has to make a U‑turn regardless of which exit they use; so it is dangerous. Ms. Wheeler described how people, not wanting to make the U‑turn where the "no U‑Turn" sign is, pull into their complex in the morning in order to make a U‑turn and then make a left turn out onto Tuskawilla. That happens to be where the kids meet for the bus; and she believes it is very, very dangerous to have people avoiding the U‑turn sign by pulling into a neighbored where children are waiting for the bus.

John Oakes, 5620 South Lake Burkett Lane, addressed the Board and stated he represents the Trinity Bay Subdivision. Mr. Oakes remarked that he is a contractor and is typically pro‑development, but in this particular case, he does not think the proposed development is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and the area; so he is opposed to it. Mr. Oakes talked about taking a drive from Dean Road on the east, Paul Road on the west, and Gabriella to the north and counting 19 different neighborhoods with four of those neighborhoods being townhomes and the other 15 being residential single‑family homes. He pointed out in that area there is a broad spectrum of neighborhoods but they all have one thing in common and that is they are not rental properties, not high-density transient tenant apartment complexes. He thinks the proposed apartment complex would be inconsistent.

Mr. Oakes explained that a few years ago they put a concrete barrier in front of Trinity Bay so people would have to make a right turn and then to go to the west, they would have to make a U‑turn at Tuskawilla. He stated there is a light there and it is a nightmare with the light. He cannot imagine an additional 500 U‑turns coming out of this new proposed property across three lanes of traffic to make them. The traffic study is a novel at best. Mr. Oakes encouraged the Board to consider this project carefully. He cannot imagine it is consistent with the neighborhood that is there now. He noted that they call this an area in transition. Based on the neighborhoods that are there, this area is not in transition; this is a primarily residential group of neighborhoods and he would like to keep it that way.

Jacquelyn Clement, 1388 Augusta National Boulevard, addressed the Board and stated she is a member, ordained elder, and president of the board of trustees at Tuskawilla Presbyterian Church and Preschool. She indicated they have formally declined to accept a proposal of sharing a driveway with this development. They feel the high density nature of this project is going to increase demand on services including school, utilities, law enforcement, and traffic. Ms. Clement talked about how this complex may not be a home to criminals but it will be a magnet for them. The impact of that will naturally spill over onto the church property.

Ms. Clement explained that another issue regarding the impact on their church property is that the developer is asking for a waiver for off-street parking. The County requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit and the developer wants to reduce that to 1.75 and also reduce the size of each parking stall, which will increase the likelihood that people with very nice cars or large SUVs are going to take up two stalls. Ms. Clement discussed what might happen when that parking lot gets full and suggested the risk that the residents and visitors may try to park in the church lot is substantial. They are a church and welcome guests with open arms; but to protect their members, to protect the children who attend their preschool, to protect the other members of the community that they serve with their church, they can't allow public parking on their property and they don't want to have to police that kind of an issue.

Ms. Clement stated the biggest issue is traffic. She advised that they have been told the roads are not operating at full capacity and that even when this apartment complex is fully occupied, it will not bring the roads to full capacity. Ms. Clement wondered what that means because when you are sitting through multiple light cycles and creeping along at a snail's pace, that feels like full capacity no matter what the engineers say with all due respect. She pointed out that there is going to be an additional driveway on Aloma Avenue between their church and the 7‑Eleven and she believes that is dangerous, especially when you consider that a substantial portion of the people that are exiting the complex are going to want to quickly cross three lanes of traffic into a turn lane to make a U‑turn. Ms. Clement urged the Board to deny this application.

Commissioner Carey stated that the plan they have shows there is a cross access easement. She remembers when Tuskawilla Presbyterian Church was approved and asked whether the church, when they got their permit to build the church and school, was required to give a cross access easement there. She asked whether there is a cross access easement there as part of the church condition. Mr. Davidson replied that on the initial plan there was a proposed cross access easement to the church property but that has since been removed. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Davidson that the access is going to be directly off of Aloma onto this property and that is why they are giving the additional right‑of‑way for the right‑turn lane.

Katie Maze, 8410 Admiral Point, addressed the Board and indicated she is the president of Trinity Bay Homeowners Association. Ms. Maze advised that their subdivision was established in 1985 and it is primarily residential from the 417 west. She mentioned the Publix at Clayton Crossing and pointed out that it services the residents of those 15 to 19 communities in that area. She believes that adding an apartment complex, with the transient nature of apartment complexes, would affect the residential neighborhoods that are currently established there and have been established for over 30 years. Ms. Maze advised that those in Trinity Bay definitely oppose the amendment.

Eric Cappabianca, 2772 Regal Lane, addressed the Board and stated he is opposed to this development. Mr. Cappabianca noted that he appreciates the developers reaching out to the community and allowing them to choose their trees but he would like to keep the mature oak trees that are there and most of the nature. He referred to Seminole County's slogan, "Florida's Natural Choice," and stated he does not think this is the natural choice for the trail or the consistency of the 20 or so established neighborhoods in the area. Mr. Cappabianca stated he is also concerned for the two day-care centers in the area. He stated they are going to pave all 10 to 12 acres and wondered where all of the animals, the wildlife, are going to go. He suggested the animals will go into his backyard and hurt his child, other children, and the children at the two day-care centers. He strongly opposes this development. When he moved in, he did not expect there to be a three‑story and now possibly a two‑story with a lot of noise, crime, and traffic.

Warren Caplan, 2782 Sweet Magnolia Place, addressed the Board and stated he lives in the Clayton Crossing Subdivision. Mr. Caplan submitted into the record 194 petitions (received and filed) of people that live in the area who are against the project.

Paul Wolbert, 2826 Regal Lane, addressed the Board and pointed out that nobody has mentioned what the availability of school capacity is for the schools in that area. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Wolbert referred to the trees that the developer talked about planting at the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated the trees they were talking about were going to take a long time to mature. He wants to make sure that they have mature trees going in if this project moves forward. Mr. Wolbert talked about how the crime in that area is going up. With regard to traffic, he talked about how he comes out of his subdivision in the mornings on Regal Lane and has to cut across three lanes of traffic to make a left turn to get onto the 417. When he comes home in the evening, he is sometimes coming from the other direction and has to make a left‑hand turn at Clayton Crossing and a U‑turn to get into his subdivision. He pointed out that the "do not turn on red light" that is posted on Aloma and Clayton Crossing doesn't work; it is a fantasy. He talked about people being hit there and about being stuck in traffic and not being able to make the turn because of the traffic that is going on.

Mr. Wolbert stated development is going to happen and it is a good thing. He stressed they need to be consistent with the development that is going on. This is low‑rooftop residential in the area and he believes it should be maintained and be in that same direction, low‑rooftop residential. Mr. Wolbert stated he hopes that the Board will oppose this and vote against it.

Katrina Shadix, 995 Oklahoma Street, stated that she supports smart development, the kind of development that is happening at Mitchell Hammock and Alafaya where they tore down the Harley Davidson building and built all of those new businesses. They could do something with the Albertson's corner and that would be awesome. Ms. Shadix stated to tear down any swath of land is what she is vehemently opposed to. She remarked that she noticed the word "bear" is in a lot of the neighborhood names mentioned with this situation. As the director of Bear Warriors United, it is her duty to speak up for the bears, even though they are probably not there anymore.

Ms. Shadix stated that she sees a lot of trees in the aerial shots and cautioned that those animals will be displaced once this small little forest is allowed to be destroyed. She stated she speaks for the trees because the trees have no tongues. Ms. Shadix questioned the developer as to how many trees will be chopped down and turned into burning piles of mulch; how many animal homes will be destroyed. She wondered how many sandhill cranes, gopher tortoises, indigo snakes, and other species have been documented on this parcel and whether the developers have paid into a mitigation bank for this parcel. She talked about why Seminole County needs a land-buying program. Ms. Shadix noted that all of the residents are against this and she represents the trees and animals in opposition to this.

Mr. Lee thanked the Chairman and the members of the Commission. He stated notwithstanding the fact that most of the people were not in favor of the project, he does appreciate their participation in this process. Mr. Lee referred to the comments that this area is predominately a single‑family area and pointed out that there is a large amount of commercial development in this area as well. As they have indicated, the previously approved uses were commercial and office uses that were far more intense than what is being proposed today. This is a corner at a major intersection contiguous to and close to a lot of other commercial and other developments that would be far worse than what is being proposed.

With regard to the comments that there are no apartment complexes nearby, Mr. Lee stated there is an apartment complex near the county line. He advised they do feel this is compatible for the reasons they have expressed. They have matched the setbacks and other development characteristics of the neighboring projects in order to achieve compatibility. As far as crime is concerned, this is going to be a gated and a walled community. It is a high-end community and they take great care in making sure they keep everyone protected and safe. They would also go to great measures to make sure that was the case for their neighboring landowners as well. They would not want to have anybody spill over into neighboring properties to park or recreate or anything like that. Mr. Lee advised they will follow all regulations regarding any species relocation or anything else that impacts the neighboring residents as well.

Regarding the traffic study, Mr. Abdallah pointed out the study was consistent with the County's standards and with every professional standard. The study was submitted to the County's professional staff. The County has very competent professional engineers that do this as well; and they reviewed the work, commented on the work, and requested revisions and iterations, which were provided. In the final document, the County staff accepted the study and approved its findings.

Chairman Horan asked Mr. Abdallah to specifically address the issue about the 450 U‑turns. Mr. Abdallah stated he believes there was a statement made that U‑turns are undesirable or an unsafe maneuver. He advised that the fact is in the professional traffic engineering world, U‑turns are really the darlings of how you get rid of angle crashes, left‑turn crashes. He added every time you see the State out implementing a safety project, essentially what they are doing is putting a hard median in the road and trying to force left turns to U‑turns wherever possible. Chairman Horan explained that he is concerned about the number. Mr. Abdallah thinks the number cited was extrapolated from 35% to the daily number of U‑turns. They deal with peak hour movements and that is all they have reported. If 450 is the number, that is a 24‑hour number and is happening in a total day. He stated he never estimated the daily number of U‑turns. Mr. Abdallah advised that he thinks the gentleman extrapolated that if so many people are trying to get to work and back from work during the peak hours, then they must be making the same movements all day long and that is not the case. Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Abdallah that the 450 number is not in his report.

Mr. Abdallah referred to the comment about commercial trips versus residential trips and pointed out that the previously approved commercial development would generate significantly more traffic. He noted that one of the comments was that in the peak hours, it is better in commercial. The previously approved commercial would generate 153 trips in the morning and 280 trips in the afternoon. This development will generate 87 trips in the morning and 104 trips in the afternoon. By any measure, the current proposal is a lower traffic intensity proposal than the previously approved proposal.

Mr. Lee again thanked the Board. He pointed out this is the last piece of infill. They are in the middle of the TCEA with the goal of the TCEA being to develop an urban area. He stated that a lot of the dialogue today was about traffic and then pointed out they are in an excepted area and will be leaving this in a better position than it is in today. He reiterated that they appreciate the Board's time and appreciate staff's recommendation, which they agree with. They would appreciate the Board's support of this application.

With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #25 and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms and Written Request Forms were received and filed.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 5:55 p.m., reconvening it at 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner Dallari talked about the various people he has met with and talked with and thanked them all. He stated he has driven, walked, and bicycled through this intersection many times throughout the years. The Commissioner stated he is glad that Mr. Abdallah and staff agreed that the straight through to Tuskawilla south is going to be moved over to the right‑hand lane because that is a right-on-red and he is hoping that will work. He believes that will make a good improvement. Commissioner Dallari quoted from the Staff's Findings, "While the character of the surrounding area has not changed since the existing future land use designations were assigned, the proposed amendment is in keeping with the development intensities originally intended for the subject property based on its assigned FLU designations," and advised he is in disagreement with that statement. He explained he would not have supported the existing designation as he believes it doesn't keep with the character and the intensity of the surrounding uses. He also feels similarly with regard to the proposal, that it is not in keeping with the character and intensity of the surrounding uses. He recognizes that it is a reduction in the intensity; however, he feels that it is not appropriate and also feels that the proposal will negatively affect the residents and the businesses in this area.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to deny transmittal of the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development, and to deny transmittal of the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) to state and regional review agencies, for a 243 multifamily residential unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres, located on the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of publication, WP South Acquisitions, LLC.

Under discussion, Chairman Horan pointed out that this is the first bite of the apple. This particular consideration today is to transmit to the state for review. Commissioner Dallari emphasized that he is making a motion to deny transmittal. Chairman Horan stated he wanted to make clear that all they are talking about today is the transmittal and not the approval of the project itself.

Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Davidson about the assigned Future Land Use to this projects property and pointed out that whether that use had been adopted by this Board, it has been confirmed by this Board many times. She asked if the assigned Future Land Use is for medium and high density intensity, which allows for 10 and 20 units per acre, and Mr. Davidson replied that is correct. Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr. Davidson that it also includes PD. Commissioner Carey stated it is High Intensity PD and the PD that was on it expired, which was commercial and office and had even more traffic problems. She confirmed with Mr. Davidson that their report says it is consistent with the Land Development Code. Mr. Davidson added that it meets their transitional zoning requirements. Commissioner Carey advised that she is not going to support the motion. She noted, as they discussed earlier in their rural boundary discussion, they have a lot of infill pieces that they will see. She added this is a corridor; and as so, it has already been impacted. If they don't infill these pieces, then they start to put the pressure on that rural boundary area. This Board has also adopted the principles of the Four Cs; looking at the corridors, looking at centers, protecting their countryside and conservation areas.

Commissioner Carey explained why the County cannot buy every piece of property that people don't want rezoned and protect it. She stated the County's logo is what it is because they have purchased over 6,100 acres of natural lands and trails and built over 62 miles of trails. She stated when she looks at a case, she has to look to see whether it is compatible. Multifamily residential is residential whether they want to admit it or not. Single‑family and multifamily are all residential and more compatible, in her opinion, than commercial and office adjacent to residential. The fact that the trips are reduced by doing this residential and because of the concessions that the developer has proposed with the additional setbacks, the two‑story adjacent to two‑story homes, and a lot of things that have happened, she thinks this is a very reasonable request for a site that, if it is denied, could come back as commercial and office. She thinks that would create more problems. The Board has put a Future Land Use allocation on this property to be Medium and High Intensity PD, which would be 10 and 20 units per acre.

Commissioner Henley stated he thinks the Applicant has made all kinds of concessions in order to try to make the development more acceptable. The fact that they don't particularly want something is not necessarily a reason to not allow it to happen. He advised this is an infill area there. The Board has heard repeatedly concerns about traffic on almost every project that comes before them. Commissioner Henley stated because of the downgrading of this and from the standpoint of the adjustments that the Applicant has made, he does not feel he can support the motion in view of that.

Commissioner Dallari stated that to the north, the existing land use is single‑family. The Future Land Use is low density. To the east, it is single‑family and a church, low density residential. To the south is SR 426, which is commercial, and the Future Land Use is commercial. To the west is Tuskawilla Road, which is commercial and single‑family. The Future Land Use is planned development, high intensity transitional, commercial, and low density residential. He believes that also supports what he stated.

Commissioner Constantine concurred that the developer has made some concessions and tried to make applesauce out of rotten apples. He mentioned the difficulties that there would be to develop the property, the difficulties of ingress/egress and the intensity of the development. He was not here when that zoning was put in and he would concur that the zoning is far too intense for the area, especially with it being single‑family on three sides. Only on the opposite side of Aloma is more intense and there is commercial there. Commissioner Constantine stated that right now with the 20 units per acre, he just cannot concur and thinks the intensity is wrong for the area. He is supporting the District Commissioner and his recommendation of denial.

Chairman Horan advised he has looked at this very, very carefully. He pointed out that they have made several legislative decisions here that really dictate what his decision on this is. First, they made a legislative decision to put this in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. He knows the area is very congested, but they have made a legislative decision that the subject property is in this area and that these Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas are established specifically to promote development and redevelopment where opportunities for expansion or addition of new transportation corridors are limited. That is a legislative decision which he can't seem to get around.

Chairman Horan stated he respectfully disagrees with Commissioner Dallari that it is not consistent with the trend of development in the area. As noted in the staff reports, there are several different developments approved already in the area for medium or high density that are less than a mile away. He stated that it is obvious that apartments are being built throughout the County. He does not think the traffic is going to get better with this project. He thinks the Applicant has done a very good job in offering to pay for a number of traffic improvements at that particular intersection. He does not think they are going to make things better, but he does not think they are going to make things worse. He stated that in the face of their own statute that this is a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area, it would be difficult for him to not follow the law here and approve this development. He will not be supporting the motion.

Commissioner Dallari confirmed with the County Manager that this area is in the Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area. He then asked Ms. Guillet if it is correct that they do that because there is hope that someday they will put transit in the area. Ms. Guillet stated it qualified as an exemption area because it is located in a DULA, a Dense Urban Land Area. They have the opportunity to do that to encourage infill development and to contain and push development to urbanized areas. She does not know if, when the policy was actually established, there was discussion about transit; but she does know that the statutory basis for establishing the ability to do a TCEA was to encourage development within urban areas of governmental agencies. Ms. Guillet suggested Ms. Williamson or Mr. Davidson could discuss the role that transit played in that decision on a local level.

Tina Williamson, Director of Development Services, addressed the Board and stated there was discussion of mobility and looking at different options with transit being one of them; things such as sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, and those types of things. They do have mobility policies in the comprehensive plan that were adopted at the same time as the TCEA. Commissioner Dallari questioned if, with that, there would not have to be a plan in place for different forms of mobility because in order to get around this area, they need transit and there isn't any. Ms. Williamson stated there is a plan for mobility but not necessarily transit.

District 1 and 3 voted AYE.

Commissioners Horan, Henley and Carey voted NAY, whereupon the motion failed for lack of a majority vote.

Commissioner Carey reiterated all of the reasons why she supports this item and believes it is an appropriate use.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to transmit the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development, and to transmit the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) to state and regional review agencies, for a 243 multifamily residential unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres, located on the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of publication, WP South Acquisitions, LLC.

Under discussion, Commissioner Constantine described why he is not in favor of approving this item. He stated this is urban development gone awry and he believes they need to look at a lot of different transition areas and look at the needs of the future of the county and the growth. He talked about how these land use decisions put them at the highest level it can possibly be. As they continue to move forward, he believes they really need to look at this. Chairman Horan stated he would agree with everything Commissioner Constantine said but if they want to do that, they will need to change the policy. Commissioner Constantine stated statutes can be changed. Chairman Horan stated they should take a look at something like this and take it out of a DULA and take it out of the TCEA. Commissioner Constantine stated that is what he is suggesting. Chairman Horan reminded that they operate by those rules. The developers and property owners have to operate by those rules. He believes the Board has to follow the law just like everybody else.

Districts 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioners Dallari and Constantine voted NAY.

Commissioner Carey remarked that all of the Commissioners, except for one, were here when the Board reconfirmed the ERA (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) and adopted the DULA's and adopted these Transportation Concurrency areas. Commissioner Carey asked the County Manager when the EAR amendments will come before the Board again since it is a regularly scheduled process. Ms. Guillet stated she does not know exactly what the schedule is but she informed the Board that they can address their policies and the Comprehensive Plan at any time. They do not have to wait until the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Commissioner Carey stated they do it in their regular course through the EAR process. She pointed out it was choices that have been made by this Board except for one. Ms. Williamson stated she does not know the exact date but believes there are about three to four years left until the next EAR cycle. Chairman Horan advised the Board can perform any legislative act at any time. Commissioner Constantine stated they seem to be making excuses on these things all of the time because of things that have happened in the past; that is all he was trying to say. He indicated that it frustrates him.




District 3

Commissioner Constantine reported that he has a three-page report but in light of the time, he will not make any comments.

District 4

Commissioner Henley reported that he just received from their MSBU manager the latest on the MSBU in Rolling Hills. He explained they have to have a public hearing, which has been set for May 8. They are required to use different forms of notice; one was mailed on April 6 to the appropriate people and the other notice will appear in the Orlando Sentinel on April 12 regarding the upcoming public hearing. There were 1,160 parcels included in this property, which turned out to be more than they anticipated. They have received 918 responses; and of those, 40 were in opposition, 242 did not respond, and 878 were in favor. Once the ordinance has been reviewed, it will be made public. He hopes this will move forward quickly.

District 5

Commissioner Carey pointed out that sometimes they recognize people for their extraordinary leadership. She advised that she has a letter (copy not received and filed) that she will pass to each Commissioner for their signature and then they can give it to the County Manager so it can go out to Ms. Bernadine Lanzano. Every day Ms. Lanzano picks up the trash on Red Bug Lake Road and has for quite some time. They have put together some things from Seminole County in appreciation to send to her as well.


Commissioner Carey reminded everyone that they will be honoring Dr. Hitt from UCF at the Boy Scout dinner on April 23.

District 1

Commissioner Dallari stated he was reading the Winter Park and Leisure minutes and they were talking about the potential of acquiring additional property on the back side of Red Bug Lake Road. He would like to get properly briefed and bring that back so they can all understand what they were talking about.


Chairman Horan remarked that the Board may recall he discovered they had an extra person who they could appoint to the CareerSource Board. Commissioner Constantine represents the County on that board. The CareerSource Board has agreed that Matthew Wilson is qualified; and therefore, they have made a recommendation to the BCC. He asked for a motion to nominate Mr. Wilson.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to appoint Matthew Wilson to the CareerSource Board.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


With regard to the Girl Scouts, Chairman Horan suggested the Board may recall there was a large fire and the Girl Scouts of Citrus are seeking some support. He received an update (not received and filed) about the Mah‑Kah‑Wee Program Center one year post‑fire. Approximately half of the 250‑acre camp was impacted by the fire and continues to be closed due to safety concerns. They are still negotiating with the insurance company and have been brainstorming on how to gather funds together so they can restore this camp. It is estimated that restorating and modernizing the camp may cost up to $5 million. He emphasized that the Girl Scouts need help and suggested if there is anything the Board can do to promote their efforts, it would be appreciated. Discussion ensued.


Chairman Horan announced that the Charter Review Commission adjourned indefinitely. He advised the CRC had one proposal that they decided to reject in terms of recommending it. They have adjourned, not quit, indefinitely unless they are called into action for some proposal.


The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:

1.      Letters dated March 26, 2018, from Chairman Horan to the following: Senator David Simmons, Rep. Jason Brodeur, Rep. Scott Plakon, Rep. Robert Cortes, FAC member Ginger Delegal, FAC member David Suggs re: appreciation for their support during the 2017-2018 Legislative Session.


2.      City of Sanford Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use for 120 & 124 West 2nd Street, Sanford. Meeting to be held on April 5, 2018, 10:00 a.m., City Commission Chambers.


3.      City of Sanford Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Rezone for 4005 Church Street, Sanford. Meeting to be held on April 5, 2018, 10:00 a.m., City Commission Chambers.


4.      City of Sanford Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a PD Rezone for 2247 Marquette Avenue, Sanford. Meeting to be held on April 5, 2018, 10:00 a.m., City Commission Chambers.


5.      Letter dated April 2, 2018, from Patricia Sargent to Commissioner Horan re: why she does not support privatization of Seminole County Public Libraries.



Agenda Item #25-A 2018-0675

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the appointment of Olivete Carter as the Community Services Director effective April 16, 2018.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Ms. Carter expressed her appreciation for being given this opportunity. She thanked her management team.


Mr. Applegate announced that Desmond Morrell has been selected as one of 25 young attorneys around the state of Florida to be part of the Florida Bar Leadership Academy. He pointed out this is a huge honor and Mr. Morrell will learn a lot. It is a feather in this Countys cap that he was selected.


Regular Agenda Item #21 2018-0655

(continued from morning session pages 9 and 10)

Todd Alan Powell, 225 Temple Avenue, addressed the Board to explain that he did not get a chance to speak at the morning session regarding Item #21, a Code Enforcement Lien. Mr. Powell stated his residence is all that he has after battling cancer since 2012. He stated he cannot afford to pay the copays on his treatment and there is no way he can afford to pay anything at this point. He requested the Board reconsider waiving the administrative fees.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, second by Commissioner Dallari, to waive the Administrative Cost of $627.37 for Case #04-69-CEB on the property located at 225 Temple Avenue, Fern Park, Tax Parcel #19-21-30-507-0B00-0040, owned by Todd Powell.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Carol Learned, 103 North Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board and stated that on July 25, when concerned neighbors and good friends on Mellonville Avenue were here, the Board voted to look for new options for the Lake Monroe Trail Loop. Ms. Learned advised they have been wondering this past year what progress was being made. About five days ago, the residents received a letter from David Martin; and he stated that based on the meeting of last July 25, a recommendation for final selection of Alternative A will be placed before the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners for approval on April 24. She stated this came as a surprise. She asked the Board if they could enlighten her and her neighbors as far as what option they found. She wondered if she understood it right last July 25 that they were going to look for more options. She noted that she is confused.

Chairman Horan confirmed with the County Manager that this item is on the agenda for April 24. Commissioner Carey reported that at the last discussion they had, they directed staff to go back to DOT to see if they would fund the grant if they reduced the size of the trail from 12 feet to 8 feet or less. She thinks that DOT came back and said they would accept eight feet but no less. Mr. Jreij stated that is right but only in that section. Commissioner Carey stated from the waterfront down to 8th Street, that is what is coming back as proposed. She explained that was the direction of the Board. Ms. Guillet advised they did also look at other options. They looked at doing it on the other side of the street and they looked at doing an on‑street trail. Option A remained the best option in staff's opinion.

Commissioner Dallari asked staff if they had any advance information they could give to the residents. Commissioner Carey advised the residents got the notice, which is what they will hear at the April 24 meeting. Ms. Learned stated it would have been nice to have received a letter. She stressed that safety is their biggest concern and mentioned the new Heritage Park and how there is going to be a bike lane in the street. She believes this is what they need along Mellonville. The trail cannot come down their properties because it is totally unsafe.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.


Doreen Freeman, 705 Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state she got a letter on Thursday and this was the first information that she received since the meeting last July 25. She explained that they were promised there would be other alternatives looked at. She emphasized that she has not received any information concerning this, yet the Board is going to vote on this in two weeks. She wondered whether any of the Commissioners received information on this. Chairman Horan stated they have had briefings periodically as they have gone through the process. Ms. Freeman advised they were supposed to be included in this process, and she has not received a thing nor has Ms. Learned received anything. She stated she guarantees the 21 residents along Mellonville Avenue have not received anything and are very displeased with what is going on right now. Ms. Freeman advised that they gave the Board an extensive inventory and study that they did on their own and it proves their theory. She stated she would like to see the study that the County did along the other side of Mellonville and also the other alternative studies. She would like to see that report in writing.

Chairman Horan explained that in terms of the public meeting they are going to have on April 24, there will be an agenda item that will be promulgated. That agenda item will have material that will be pertinent to it. He suggested if Ms. Freeman wants additional material or supplemental material, for example the study that she was talking about and what analysis was done, he would encourage her to go ahead and ask for that from the staff. Ms. Freeman explained that the last time she asked for it on "B" and "C," she did not get it. They did not have anything. They didn't have cost factors for either "B" or "C" because "A" was the one they wanted to go with. Chairman Horan confirmed with the County Manager that the agenda package should be out at the end of the week. Discussion ensued with regard to Ms. Freeman receiving an agenda package.

Commissioner Constantine asked whether back in July they said they were going to have a community meeting. Ms. Guillet stated they have had a number of community meetings. Ms. Freeman stated they have not had the first one since July 25, not one that the residents have been invited to. She added that community means the residents because they are affected by this. Jean Jreij, Director for Public Works, stated that last time, when the Board directed staff to look at an alternative to put the trail on the road, they went and looked at it and compared it to the alternative, which is on the east side. The impact is very great. There are a lot of trees and they would be wiped out. He stated they do have a map and he believes the Commissioners were shown on the map how much would be impacted. Mr. Jreij advised they went to DOT and talked to them. If the County reduces the width of the trail from 12 to 8 feet, that would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Carey stated as she recalls they have five feet out there now and they were asking to do six and DOT came back at eight. Mr. Jreij stated the minimum would be eight feet to be considered. He added that the location of that eight feet will be closer to the road and not beyond what the existing sidewalk currently is. He advised that is what they looked at and that is what they will be presenting on April 24.

Mr. Jreij informed Ms. Freeman that he would be glad to meet with her and go over it. Ms. Freeman replied she would like data, printed data, of what the County analyzed and studied and the price that they have because that is what they were promised last time. Chairman Horan suggested that staff get together with Ms. Freeman and make sure that whatever information she needs she can get before the hearing and in enough time before the hearing to look at it, review it, and analyze it. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Jreij if the agenda packet has cost analysis. Mr. Jreij responded no, they don't have formal cost analysis because they did not go that far because the impact was a lot greater than what would be on that property. He stated they do have a map that shows all of those impacts. To run the cost, they would have to look at the drainage and the retention pond which would be largely impacted. Chairman Horan stated with regard to the various alternatives and knowing what the impediments are and knowing what the expertise is with the County staff, he wondered whether there was some way to come up with at least an order of magnitude as to how much more the other alternatives would cost. Mr. Jreij stated they already presented the other alternatives last time. Ms. Guillet informed Mr. Jreij that the Chairman is talking about the on‑road bike lane. She advised that they will try to come up with some kind of estimate.

Chairman Horan pointed out if they are telling the public that the reason they are picking this alternative is not only because it is in the best interest and is the best location but also that it costs the least, they must be making that decision based upon some kind of data, some kind of analysis indicating the number of trees that would have to be taken out, et cetera. He stated it does not seem that would be that difficult. Commissioner Constantine stated he is not suggesting that the outcome would have been any different than the presentation they are going to make next week but he really thought back in July the Board said to the community that they were going to have a community meeting with them. Chairman Horan asked the County Manager what the commitment was with regard to the community meeting. Ms. Guillet stated she will go back and look at the tape. She does not recall that they said they would have a community meeting. They had already had community meetings. Commissioner Carey advised they had had community meetings. Ms. Freeman disagreed and stated this was at the Commission meeting. The Board promised them that they would have a meeting. Chairman Horan stated he knows there was a community meeting on this. Ms. Freeman stated there were two meetings. Commissioner Dallari stated that was before the BCC had their meeting. Commissioner Constantine advised at that meeting the Board said they would have another. Ms. Guillet advised staff will double check that. Chairman Horan advised staff will check to see what the commitment was because if they made a commitment, they want to make sure they meet it. Commissioner Carey stated if a commitment was made, then they should have a community meeting and move the date if they have to.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.


Maryann Barry's name was announced and it was determined that she was not in attendance. Speaker Request Form was received and filed.


There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m., this same date.