BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

June 28, 2022

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, June 28, 2022, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.

Present:

Chairman Bob Dallari (District 1)

Vice Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)

Commissioner Amy Lockhart (District 4)

Commissioner Andria Herr (District 5)

Interim County Manager Bryant Applegate

Acting County Attorney Paul Chipok

Clerk of Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy

Deputy Clerks Terri Porter and Chariti Guevara

Absent:

Commissioner Jay Zembower (District 2)

OPENING CEREMONIES

Reverend John Pierce, Jr., Ethnos360, Sanford gave the invocation. Commissioner Herr led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS

Agenda Item #1 – 2022-3511

Juneteenth Day 2022

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to adopt a Proclamation proclaiming Sergeant First Class Eddie Futcher, Jr., United States Army, as Seminole County’s June Veteran of the Month.

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

Agenda Item #2 – 2022-3504

Parks & Recreation Month

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to adopt a Proclamation proclaiming the month of July 2022 as Parks and Recreation Month in Seminole County.

Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE

Richard Durr, Leisure Services Director, and Michael Wirsing, Parks and Recreation Division Manager, accepted the Proclamation along with other staff members from Leisure Services. He introduced Michael Wirsing who advised that if anyone wanted copies of the posters of parks that he displayed today (copies received and filed), to contact him. All Commissioners present expressed their appreciation.

Agenda Item #3 – 2022-3520

Community Health Initiative-ARPA Funds

Allison Thall, Community Services Director, addressed the Board to present the Community Health Initiative (included in the agenda memorandum). She explained they will share how they intend to spend and invest the $2 million of the American Recovery Plan Act Funds that they have received back into the community to address the identified physical and mental health needs of residents for the purpose of improving the overall health throughout the community.

Kelly Welch, Community Health Program Manager, addressed the Board to present the remainder of the PowerPoint presentation. She wrapped up by requesting the Board approve their recommendation so they can move forward with posting the funding opportunities and implementing the Community Health Initiative strategies.

Commissioner Herr commented that one of the things that consistently happens with regard to health improvement opportunities is the mixing up of two words: one is “access” and the second one that is often left out of the conversation that she would advocate for is “awareness.” Based on her experience in this field, awareness is a huge gap in terms of cancer screenings. The County has a lot of people that are not underinsured who are not taking advantage of existing programs. She opined that awareness is as important as access because it actually strikes a larger portion of the population.

Commissioner Lockhart expressed her appreciation and stated to see them bring this together with an entire team in a collaborative way with so many different agencies is very encouraging. They have so many providers and people that want to reach out and provide services for the community, and to get them all working together, rowing in the same direction, will be a tremendous accomplishment.

Chairman Dallari noted he thinks there needs to be coordination with other agencies to reduce redundancy but not strength. Ms. Welch added she has probably had 30 meetings since she started this in mid-March with their community partners, so collaboration is the name of the game and they will continue to do that.

Commissioner Herr mentioned that she asked the team to distribute the original presentation (received and filed) that was prepared, but in the interest of time, the presentation today was an abbreviated version. She asked that it be distributed to the entire team at the County because it was so well done and worthy of sharing.

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the $1.8 million Community Health Initiative ARPA Spending Plan as presented.

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

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

--------

Chief Matt Kinley, Seminole County Fire Department, presented a video in connection with the Community Paramedicine Program. Chief Kinley addressed the Board stating that the Board had requested an update on the Community Paramedicine Program, and they wanted to wait until they had some tangible results to share with the Board. This is part of the Community Health Program through the Board’s Strategic Initiatives. They are working with the Department of Health, the State, and other funding sources to be able to bring some money in. They will be launching a Beta Program with one of their local hospital partners to help them keep readmissions from happening and show that there is a cost savings for them. A key part of this is getting the hospital system involved so they can help fund those programs. He noted it is a win-win on both sides. He distributed flyers in connection with the program (received and filed).

Commissioner Herr stated it is an amazing program and they have gone from zero to one hundred in a very short period of time, and she congratulated the Fire Chief. She offered that the major health insurers have a lot to gain by this program as well, so if he wants facilitation and introductions, she would be glad to help him with that. For their insured population, any losses go back to the carriers, so they may be potential partners similar to the hospitals. Chief Kinley said he would call her today.

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

Agenda Item #4 – 2022-3517

County Investment Advisor Report

Scott McIntyre, Hilltop Securities, presented the Investment Advisor’s Report (received and filed).

With regard to public participation, no one spoke and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the implementation of the purchase recommendations of the Board’s Financial Advisor based upon the report submitted today and recommend the Clerk implement said Board recommendations.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Grant Maloy, Clerk of Court and Comptroller, commented he agrees it is a good idea to starting locking in for longer terms.

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

CONSENT AGENDA

Interim County Manager Bryant Applegate advised there is one add-on to the agenda, Item #37, which is a letter of extension for an additional eight weeks to the previous termination letter for the Recovery House lease.

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve the following:

County Manager’s Office

Business Office

5. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Subrecipient Agreement with The Lifeboat Project Inc. relating to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding in the amount of $187,500. (2022-3518)

6. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Subrecipient Agreement with Boys and Girls Club of Central Florida relating to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding in the amount of $75,358. (2022-3535)

Addressing

7. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-76 naming an unnamed right-of-way to Terra Lane. (2022-3484)

Economic Development

8. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Data Sharing Agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) to allow the County to receive and utilize the business data collected by the State on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for a period of three years from the date of execution. (2022-3507)

Office of Emergency Management

9. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for emergency sheltering between Seminole County and Northland Church. (2022-3521)

Community Services

Business Office

10. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Homeless Services Network of Central Florida (HSN) DCF Emergency Solutions Grant Funding Agreement (ESG-CV) FY 2022/23 in the amount of $104,016 to be used for Rapid Re-Housing for homeless families with minor children in Seminole County. (2022-3515)

Community Assistance

11. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-77 amending the Seminole County Administrative Code, Section 4.6, Committee on Aging. (2022-3514)

Community Development

12. Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Progr5am (NSP) Snapshot/Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013-R-61, and the HOME Program Activity Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2015-R-51, for the month of May 2022. (2022-3508)

Development Services

Planning and Development

13. Authorize release of Maintenance Bond #30091156 for roads, curbs, and drainage, in the amount of $60,621.22 for Town Park Commons; Piedmont Town Park Land LLC, Applicant. (2022-3499)

14. Authorize release of Maintenance Bond #SUR0056942 for streets, curbs, and storm drains, in the amount of $6,421.53 for HCME Corporate Office; Jon M. Hall Company LLC, Applicant. (2022-3488)

15. Authorize release of Maintenance Bond #30091156 for right-of-way utilization of MLK Commerce Park, in the amount of $10,322.53; Blue Scope Steel North America, Inc., Applicant. (2022-3500)

16. Authorize release of a Cash Performance Bond for road improvements in the amount of $20,781.57 for Top Dog Car Wash; CFCW Red Bug LLC, Applicant. (2022-3505)

Public Works

Engineering

17. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-78 accepting a Locally Funded Agreement in the amount of $195,874 with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (FDOT), and a Three-Party Escrow Agreement, for the design and construction of the Merritt Street Quiet Zone Improvements Project; and Resolution #2022-R-79 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-054 in the amount of $217,874 from the 1991 Infrastructure Sales Tax Reserves. (2022-3485)

18. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement related to Parcel No. 3 for 4.47 +/- acres of land between Benchmark Contract Management II, Inc. and Seminole County for acquisition of property needed for the Midway Drainage Improvement Project for #1,051,500; Parcel #33-19-31-300-019A-0000. (2022-3492)

19. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute two (2) Warranty Deeds as to Parcel 104, and Parcels 106 and 706, of the Oxford Road Improvement Project in connection with the Seminole County vs. AutoZone, Inc. et al. Eminent Domain Case. (2022-3519)

Resource Management

Budget and Fiscal Management

20. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-80 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-051 through the Emergency Rental Assistance Fund in the amount of $6,763,843.08 to appropriate additional funding allocation for the U.S. Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Program 2(ERAP2). (2022-3490)

21. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Grant Agreement with the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management, in acceptance of $966,129.75 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for the Phase II construction project for the Mullet Lake drainage project; and appropriate Resolution #2022-R-81 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-052 through the Hazard Mitigation Fund; and authorize the County Manager and his designee(s) to approve the grant documents and any further contract amendments for this grant. (2022-3487)

22. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-82 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-056 in the amount of $102,194 from General Fund Reserves for trails landscape maintenance. (General Fund Reserves are currently budgeted at $41 million.) (2022-3498)

23. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-83 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-057 in the amount of $49,538 from General Fund Reserves to cover costs related to the Closeout of FEMA reimbursements. (2022-3501)

Purchasing and Contracts

24. Award RFP-604360-22, Term Contracts (6) for OEM Temporary Staff during Emergency Activation, to (1) 22^nd Century Technologies, Inc., McLean, VA; (2) All’s Well, Inc. dba All’s Well Health Care Services, Glendale, CA; (3) Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc. dba AppleOne Employment Services, Glendale, CA; (4) Krucial Staffing, LLC, Overland Park, KS; (5) Sunshine Enterprise USA LLC, Maitland; and (6) Technostaff LLC dba HonorVet Technologies, Fairfield, NJ; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreements. (2022-3486)

25. Approve Change Order #1 under CC-3757-21, Sanlando Sidewalk Phase 2, with Condor Construction Corp. of Orlando, in the amount of $79,570.79; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Change Order. (2022-3489)

26. Approve Amendment #9 to M-2599-19, Architectural and Engineering Servies for Seminole County Fire Station #11, with C.T. Hsu & Associates P.A. of Orlando, in the amount of $14,008.88; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (2022-3491)

27. Award CC-4148-22, Wymore Road Improvements Project, to Hubbard Construction Co. of Winter Park, in the amount of $10,586,127.72; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement; approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2022-R-84 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #22-058 in the amount of $7,702,399 from 1^st and 2^nd Gen Reserves and the City of Altamonte Springs. (2022-3512)

37. Not in sequential order.

Approve and authorize the Interim County Manager to execute the Letter of Extension to the previous Termination Letter to Recovery House Lease. (2022-3429)

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Clerk & Comptroller’s Office

28. Approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated May 31 and June 7, 2022; Payroll Approval List dated May 26 and June 9, 2022; and BCC Official Minutes dated April 26, 2022. (2022-3506)

With regard to public participation, no one spoke in support or opposition to any Consent Items, and public input was closed.

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

Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and Filed” Documents

COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS

Agenda Item #29 – 2022-3067

Proposed Land Development Code Revisions

Rebecca Hammock, Development Services Director, addressed the Board and displayed the Land Development Code Update presentation. She introduced Mary Moskowitz, Planning and Development Division Manager.

Ms. Hammock reminded they have been working on updates to the Land Development Code and they did have a work session in April when they reviewed a complete draft of the changes. Based upon that work session, they are wanting further policy direction from the Board before they move forward with the actual text changes.

Minimum Size for PDs

Ms. Hammock indicated the first question that came about after different community meetings as well as their stakeholder interviews they had regarding the updates to the Land Development Code was a minimum size for planned developments. At the last work session, they had discussed the recommendation from their consultant, which was a minimum of 15 acres. However, there seemed to be some concern about that large of a requirement. They went back and did some research at the Board’s request and looked at different jurisdictions to see what the proposal was within Central Florida. The original recommendation for the larger size for the PD was to help meet the intent of a planned development and for proposed projects, not to just use it as a way to circumvent the code or their existing zoning and land use.

Ms. Hammock talked about the slides showing comparisons with other jurisdictions along with one illustrating the existing situation in Seminole County regarding the planned development zoning. Ms. Moskowitz addressed the Board regarding a bar graph showing the number of PDs and the acreage. She noted that roughly one-third of the PDs are between zero and five acres.

The direction requested is whether Seminole County should establish a minimum size for PDs. Ms. Hammock questioned whether they should differentiate between residential and non-residential and should there perhaps be just a minimum size for residential planned developments versus mixed-use versus a commercial or industrial planned development. She noted it seems to make more sense for the non-residential planned developments to perhaps have a smaller requirement for the acres, and for residential, of course, a lot of times there are open space requirements, so they may need a larger acreage size.

Ms. Hammock stated they also did not include cluster subdivisions, but it has come up through feedback from the community after they reviewed this agenda item. There are some areas within the Comprehensive Plan that allow you to cluster residential subdivisions but maintain the overall density. So the community has expressed to them, and staff has agreed, that it may be a good idea to require a minimum acreage size for cluster subdivisions. She explained these roll into this because normally when you do a cluster subdivision like in the East Lake Sylvan Transitional Area, you are required to do a planned development, and they allow two and one-half dwelling units per acre versus the one dwelling unit per acre that is normally allowed within the Wekiva River Protection Area. So that is usually done under a planned development, but currently there is no minimum acreage size for that, and that has come up as a concern from the community.

Ms. Hammock clarified that the two questions are whether they want to have a minimum acreage size for cluster subdivisions, and do they want to have a minimum acreage size for planned developments, both non-residential and residential. Board discussion ensued.

Ms. Hammock summarized their comments stating there would be no minimum PD acreage requirement in the urban core. In the suburban areas outside of the urban core, she would suggest maybe a minimum of one acre for non-residential and then for residential, she asked if the Board wants it to say more than five acres.

Commissioner Herr said she knows that when they put these PDs on five acres, the community that results from that is not typically what they want. She does not necessarily know the solution, but she does know that the current environment is not actually producing the outcome that she thinks the community, long-term, wants or deserves. Her initial instinct is to say that it has got to be bigger than five acres, but that may have an outcome in planning that creates a different dynamic; she is not trying to create a new problem. And when you look at the next issue that was laid out, they are interrelated and fixing that may solve some of this.

Ms. Hammock said the way they had originally written the proposed language for the minimum requirement is it wouldn’t apply to any future land use designation that requires PD zoning, just in case someone does have a parcel that does not meet the minimum acreage requirement when they are forced to do a PD by the Comprehensive Plan, so there should be flexibility there. She said they can bring back the cluster provision at their next work session to talk more about that a little more in depth because she thinks they are interrelated, but separate.

Commissioner Lockhart questioned with the five-acre residential PDs, if someone has a future land use of low density residential and they decide to come in and develop straight zoned without any planned development, there have been unhappy neighbors because there was no requirement for a wall, for example. Some of the things they wind up working into the development orders in planned developments then are no longer a tool in the toolbox when someone does come in with straight zoning. She wants to be careful that they do not look at PD as enemy and straight zoning as friend, and then with an outcome of a straight zoned, 4.9-acre parcel, low-density residential, people are upset because they did not get the protections or buffers they thought they would have gotten. So with these five-acre PDs, at least there are buffer requirements and things they can add in that they would not get with straight zoning. She said they should be careful that they do not create another issue or that they are super clear with the community that is asking for that what the end result could be.

Chairman Dallari asked Ms. Hammock if she could come back with some examples of what Commissioner Lockhart just stated.

Ms. Hammock replied anecdotally, the trend within the last several years for planned development, and the reason why they have had the number of requests that they have had, is the trend is to go to much smaller lots than their straight zoning districts allow. So even though someone has low-density residential future land use and does not intend to exceed four dwelling units per acre, they request planned development because they want to develop 50-foot lots. The residential zoning districts that are allowed within low-density residential do not allow a 50-foot lot, so many times a developer will come in and ask for a PD for that purpose.

Chairman Dallari asked, as Commissioner Constantine was speaking about earlier, if they did allow a PD, could they have additional requirements for that. Ms. Hammock replied yes, and in the proposed draft language, they are adding additional language to the PD section of the code. She noted that is a good point because they are enhancing the PD section of the code, and so do they, in fact, need to have a minimum acreage requirement.

Commissioner Constantine reiterated that he felt that when PDs were coming in they were all one-sided. By putting additional requirements on those, he thinks it does create flexibility and opportunities. He said he does believe that in the protected areas they do need to have a minimum amount of acreage for PDs.

Ms. Hammock stated they have another work session scheduled for August, so they could bring back the clustering, the PD section of the code, as well as this conversation, and bring them back all at once and compare them at the same time and maybe that would help frame the conversation a little bit better.

Open Space Criteria – Floodplains and Wetlands

Ms. Hammock stated this topic came up as part of their community meetings with the public; there was concern about the amount of floodplains and wetlands that can count towards open space. Currently the Land Development Code allows “floodplains, wetlands, and lakes together or separately be limited to 50% of total open space for any development.” The public has expressed they feel that 50% is too high of an allowance and they would like to see that percentage be smaller. So the question is should the percentage of floodplains and wetlands that can count towards open space be reduced.

Ms. Hammock advised they did some research on this and most other jurisdictions do allow the 50%. Volusia County does not permit wetlands to count towards open space. Commissioner Constantine opined that wetlands are wetlands, and they are extremely important to the ecosystem, and they need other land around them to protect them. He thinks they have been overly generous to the point they are actually harming their own ecosystem by allowing that. Wetlands should not be considered as an amenity or additional open space.

Commissioner Lockhart noted there are classifications of wetlands because there are different grades of wetlands. They are not all pristine; she pointed to the “road to nowhere” over at Five Points. She thinks they do need to have some distinction in their conversation about that. Commissioner Constantine agreed but said a lot of the wetlands that are degraded are because of what has already happened to them by development in the area. Commissioner Lockhart stated she does think there is some benefit to including wetlands and lakes in open space, certainly in communities where you can go out and walk on a boardwalk or use a boat, that is an amenity. Whether it should be 50% or not is debatable, but she is not sure what the magic number is and is there a sliding scale based on the quality and how it is intended to be used. If it is just going to be there and the community does not have access to it, it is not an amenity. But if it is something that will actually increase and improve the quality of the life of the people who are living there, then why wouldn’t it be an amenity.

Commissioner Herr opined for her it is not about the amenity, it is about what buildable land is left after you do the math. She said she is surprised by Volusia County’s number because she spends a lot of time over there and she looks at what they build, and they have densities equal to Seminole’s although they have a better buffer system. You cannot tell the apartment complexes are behind the tree buffers. So again, going from 50 to 0 seems excessive, and she thinks that would create a different negative dynamic they are not aware of, and then be put in a situation where they are making exceptions. From her perspective, if they think 50% is not the right number, then they slide it, they do not move entirely to zero.

Chairman Dallari mentioned he thinks it is important to think about the quality of the wetlands and is it truly being amenitized or not; can the public really use it, because there are wetlands that cannot be used. Ms. Hammock agreed stating their code actually requires if you are not going to impact wetlands and mitigate for them, they are required to go into a conservation easement. So there are certain things you can do that have minimum impact. As Commissioner Herr stated, it is not necessarily about being amenitized; it could just be a viewshed, it could just be the preservation of open space and not actually be a common usable open space.

Commissioner Herr noted the community input she has heard is they do not want it amenitized, and Chairman Dallari agreed. Commissioner Herr added that putting an amenity in the wetland is also objectionable, and Commissioner Constantine agreed. Commissioner Lockhart commented that as a County they have amenitized wetlands all over the place and they talk about how great it is because people want to come and walk through the wetlands and appreciate them and learn about them. They have summer camps for kids in wetlands because they are important for people to learn about them; it does not mean you are hurting them.

Commissioner Constantine said he thinks there is a difference between rivers, lakes, streams and what they are talking about here, wetlands. A wetland is an ecosystem all to itself that needs to be protected. He does agree that there are various dynamics within a wetland; some of them are not as important as some others. Again, he thinks they are looking for the sweet spot here. A river, lake, stream that is amenitized is wonderful and there are potential opportunities for that in conservation land. Wetlands themselves need to be, as much as possible, left alone. He said he was not suggesting zero because there are degrees of wetlands, but there could be a sliding scale as was suggested based on the importance of the wetland.

Commissioner Lockhart noted that that section of the code combines them all together, so if they are going to delineate a difference, and if they want to, they could treat wetlands differently and the classifications of wetlands. So, they would need to get them out of the code that refers to them as “floodplains, wetlands, and lakes.” If they want to talk about them separately, then they should not be in the code together.

Commissioner Herr said then when they start to talk about the “importance” of that wetland, would there be classifications that are adhered to by engineering standards, environmentalist standards, and would that be an entirely separate code they would write. If they are going to go down that path, they would have to identify the measurement standard and they would have to stick to that measurement standard, because they do not want to be in the exception business.

Ms. Hammock asked if there is consensus for staff to create a separate requirement for wetlands and floodplains and then come back with a recommendation. Chairman Dallari stated there is consensus.

Wetland Buffers

Ms. Moskowitz indicated they do have two criteria for the buffers. For areas that are outside the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Econ River Protection Area, they require a 15-foot minimum and a 25-foot average wetland buffer. Those buffers increase in the protected areas to a 25-foot minimum and 50-foot average. These are hydrologically important areas, which is why they want to maintain those buffers. For staff, it literally becomes a calculus problem when trying to figure out what that average is.

Ms. Moskowitz advised they did look at other communities, and Pinellas County actually has a program where they require what they call the Enhanced Buffer Program. So between 25 and 50 feet, it is the enhanced; and then between 15 and 25 feet would then become the standard buffer.

Commissioner Constantine believes the recommendation makes sense. He noted he lives on a lake and asked if those are from the high-water mark. Ms. Moskowitz replied it is from the wetland boundary, so whatever that boundary is determined to be.

Tree Removal for Solar Facilities

Ms. Hammock stated their next question is regarding solar facilities. This is part of the new proposed Code and the allowance of large-scale, solar facilities as a special exception within some zoning districts. A concern from the public came about at some of the community meetings regarding the Land Development Code changes regarding tree removal. The question is should large scale removal of trees to allow solar farms be discouraged or prohibited. The current proposed language says discouraged. She pointed out that would be subject to site plan approval, and currently site plans do require that you retain 25% of the existing trees that are six-inch DBH or greater, so there is some tree preservation built into the process now.

Commissioner Herr opined that at this point in the development of solar, she would support them prohibiting it. She thinks at some time in the future when solar is more efficient in terms of its capacity and capture rate, it is different. But right now, they would be giving up a whole lot for what may happen. Commissioner Constantine concurred but stated there are a lot of areas that are absent of trees where they could put solar farms. He thinks to prohibit it right now is a good thing.

Commissioner Lockhart questioned whether they have a definition of scale of what a solar facility is. Ms. Moskowitz responded they have three different categories of solar facilities depending upon the acreage. Commissioner Lockhart explained the reason for her question; they have a situation where someone wanted to come in and retrofit an existing facility where large-scale removal of trees took place. She asked if this section would apply to that type of solar facility and Ms. Moskowitz replied no. Commissioner Lockhart said then so this would not fix that, and she would also like to fix that for the future, if possible, but this is only for large-scale, solar facilities. Ms. Hammock explained that yes, it would be like a big solar farm.

Ms. Hammock cited the example of the office on International Parkway where they put up the parking canopies, shades, and then put solar on top of them. They have that in a different category in the proposed language, which they would be permitted based on that proposed language, but they would have to do tree replacement, but it is at a much lesser extent than for normal development.

Commissioner Herr stated that Commissioner Lockhart’s question was whether they are going to fix that. Ms. Hammock then asked do they not want to allow the retrofit to allow for solar. Commissioner Lockhart noted she thinks there were other opportunities there, the roof was not explored, the retention pond area, there were other things but instead they went right to trees because it was the path of least resistance, although it didn’t turn out to be for them. When they discourage something or ask someone “as best as possible,” with those caveats they don’t really have any teeth. She thinks they are going to have more things like this where people are coming in and trying to retrofit, and absent some good meaty requirements, they would have to explore something before taking down trees.

Ms. Hammock said if they want to take a deeper dive into the solar, they can bring that back at the next work session too and that way they can go through the requirements in more detail.

Chairman Dallari noted the State has preempted them several times when it comes to solar and asked about what have they preempted them on this. Ms. Hammock relied that is especially true with allowing it in the residential areas. They cannot prohibit solar in residential areas, but they can regulate it like having ground-mounted and in terms of setbacks and the location on the lot.

Commissioner Constantine commented that he thinks they want flexibility to make sure they are doing everything they can when people come in for the retrofits that they are protecting the resource, and the resource is the trees. So that is what they are asking for. Commissioner Herr added the reality of the matter with those buildings is it is very costly to maintain those trees out over the parking lot, so they are never going to get an ROI if you have to maintain the trees and put the solar on the roof. So unless they regulate, it is just not going to happen.

Tree Preservation of 25% Trees on Commercial, Industrial and HIPTI Sites

Ms. Hammock noted currently their site plan regulations require that no more than 75% of the existing trees that are six-inch DBH or larger can be removed from a site. Unless the Planning Division Manager makes a determination that the proposed development would be severely restricted; however, they do not have a definition of “severely restricted” so it is ultimately left up to the discretion of the manager and it is subjective. They did have discussion regarding this requirement with the community including the Development Advisory Board, and there was mention that it could be an issue on properties that have Commercial, Industrial and HIPTI (High Intensity Planned Development Target Industry) Future Land Use.

An aerial photo (included in the agenda backup) was displayed. Ms. Hammock explained this is an example of a property with non-residential future land use. It recently came through the Development Review Committee where the trees that are located on the site are in the middle of the site where the proposed building would go, and ultimately, they made a determination that the development would be severely restricted and you could not develop here because of the location of the trees.

Ms. Hammock said then the question is whether tree preservation requirements in Chapter 40 for Commercial, Industrial and HIPTI sites be reduced or removed, or should “severely restricted” be defined, or should the code remain as written.

Chairman Dallari stated in this mind, this is a special case because they are trying to put as much development in a location to provide a specialty type of development, and when they do that, they are actually putting back more landscaping that is decided in their landscaping plans. Ms. Hammock said they would be required to submit a landscaping plan that has minimum required buffers, but in addition to that, you are normally required to do tree mitigation, tree replacement. Chairman Dallari stated that is the point he is getting to; you cannot build HIPTI if they are going to be preserving all of those trees because then it does become HIPTI. Ms. Hammock replied yes; it could make it difficult; it may lead to site constraints and you may not get the intensity.

Ms. Hammock added they also have the issue where there are some planned developments that exist in HIPTI along International Parkway that were approved that have a certain master plan associated with them, but then when they come in to develop that master plan, they are going to have a hard time meeting that Chapter 40 requirement of the 25% tree-save requirement which is a conflict.

Commissioner Herr indicated she honestly thinks that this is an issue because of some of the “potential indiscretions” of the past, and certainly along International Parkway. They all know there are apartment complexes that were put up that are just brutal to look at. She gets complaints about them still to this day. And had that not happened, the Master Plan across the street would not be a problem. Again, she is concerned that they are trading one problem for another problem, but she does struggle with the notion, particularly in multifamily, that there is a better way to do it than just stripping every tree out of there, zero buffer, and putting up crape myrtle trees, because that is what it feels like to the community. And it takes years for them to overcome that view of that development. She thinks it is in a buffering opportunity and not necessarily the trees that are in the middle of the property. She also appreciates the fact that some of them are just going to get damaged in the process, and that creates another little wiggle opportunity because it got damaged in the process. Now they are having to be out managing whether it got damaged in the process. She and Ms. Hammock have literally been on sites in boots figuring out whether stuff got damaged in the process, and she does not want to be in that position with whatever code that they write.

Chairman Dallari explained what he was talking about was Target Industry for HIPTI, not converting it to multifamily. Ms. Hammock advised they have parcels along International Parkway that changed their future land use designation from HIPTI to Planned Development and developed as a 100% multifamily, but then they also have cases where you retain the HIPTI Future Land Use, but they are doing a mixed development that does include multifamily, office, hotel, and other target industry uses. And what they have seen historically is that the residential portion will be developed first.

Commissioner Lockhart expressed she agrees with HIPTI being unique, the whole concept is that it is high intensity, so she thinks this is just a clash of absolutes. They absolutely want to have Industrial develop and use the best space and where it is appropriate; they absolutely want to have HIPTI develop, and they want to save the trees. Something has to give at some point in order for the projects to be developed appropriately. She does think “severely restricted” should somehow be defined. Ms. Hammock said they will need to research and see what they can come up with, and they can come back with proposed language. Commissioner Lockhart noted at the same time they need to incentivize the preservation of the trees that are specimen trees. She believes there are creative ways to do it as Commissioner Herr stated. When you look at Colonial Town Park Publix parting lot, they have gorgeous specimen trees that were saved in the development of that shopping area, so it can be done.

Commissioner Constantine stated he thinks it has been said already, but again it is cause and effect. They are just tired of seeing clear cut properties and saying they have an open canvas and now they are going to build and saying all the trees were rotted or all the trees were small, this or that. Once they are gone, they are gone and they cannot correct that. He agrees that “severely restricted” needs to be defined and quite frankly, he thinks they need to try to protect at 25%, but if it is going to severely restrict and they have a definition, he thinks it can be lower. He agrees with what everyone has said about HIPTI; they are trying to get intense development there.

SB 1339 and Affordable Housing

Ms. Moskowitz advised that SB 1339 states that Commissioners may require affordable housing in areas zoned for Residential, Commercial or Industrial use. Currently, they do not list affordable housing as a permitted use in Commercial or Industrial zonings. Their question is whether they want to have affordable housing as a permitted use in Commercial and/or Industrial.

Commissioner Constantine states the answer is yes. Chairman Dallari commented that Industrial is very limited in this county right now and there would be people going after all the industrial space that is available. Commissioner Lockhart mentioned that she would like to see anyone go after affordable housing anywhere in this community. They have done a lot of things to incentivize affordable housing, and they cannot even get people to build it where it is supposed to go. She agrees they need to preserve Industrial for the use of industrial.

Commissioner Constantine said he sees flexibility there. He gave an example of when he traveled to Europe; in an industrial community in Rotterdam, they had affordable housing for employees right next to the company and it worked. He is not saying that would happen here but he thinks they should have that flexibility.

Commissioner Herr opined she thinks this says that you can take an industrial piece of land and put an apartment or housing complex in between whatever goes next to it, and she thinks that will put them in a significant bind. People will be coming in saying don’t put that next to them. She gets the commercial piece because that just creates urbanization but she is confused about how they would intermingle it into an industrial-use space. Ms. Moskowitz noted they do have different levels of industrial uses, so it may not be appropriate in M-2 but maybe in their Light Industrial.

Chairman Dallari expressed he would like to see more information. Ms. Moskowitz said they can do that and see what other jurisdictions have done. Ms. Hammock added if they were to implement that requirement, it would have to be certified affordable housing through their Community Services Department, and it would have to have a Restrictive Use Covenant to ensure it is not a market apartment complex.

Mr. Applegate pointed out that with Industrial, they need to be careful too because you could get into a lot of issues about environmental justice and it just opens up a lot of issues. He is not saying it cannot be done but it has to be done very carefully.

Ms. Moskowitz summarized that there seems to be consensus in connection with the Commercial, but they need to do more research on the Industrial. Commissioner Constantine clarified he thought of it as being integrated in a compound and was not looking at converting it. Ms. Hammock remarked that is another option, they could allow it if it is integrated into a proposed development in Light Industrial.

Backyard Chicken Program

Ms. Hammock said they currently have a Backyard Chicken Program that is in the County Code of Ordinances in Chapter 20 which does allow backyard chickens with certain requirements and limitations within all of their residential zoning classifications, other than multifamily. The program is not widely used, but they have heard there are people within the county with chickens but are not a part of the program. They do not have a number of code enforcement complaints. Since they are updating the Land Development Code and they have been directed at a previous meeting to do some updates to the Backyard Chicken Program, they thought this might be a good opportunity to not only do those updates, but possibly move the allowance of backyard chickens as a limited use within their single-family, residential zoning districts. They keep all the updated requirements within the Land Development Code, it would just become a limited use under those zoning districts, so they would not formally have to go through a program. Then if they do in fact get a code enforcement complaint, they would still have the regulations within the Land Development Code to enforce.

Ms. Hammock advised they could work with Ashley Moore and her team, Community Relations, to get more information out about the UF Extension, which she has heard great things about and it is a current requirement of the Backyard Chicken Program. Of course they would not be able to ensure, if they moved this into the Land Development Code, that people are actually taking the course. But she thinks if they put the information out there that it is available, and get the education out there, that people would take advantage of it. They would still keep the requirement of no roosters and a maximum amount of hens, but they are still working on that recommendation.

Kennel Definition

Ms. Hammock reminded this is something they talked about previously at a Land Development Code work session. This had come up by a gentleman who lived on agriculturally zoned property, and he had a neighbor who was part of a rescue and had built a kennel right at the property line. He had been complaining about the dogs barking and a lot of noise, but unfortunately, because it was on agriculturally zoned property, there was nothing the County could do because they exempt any type of noise, not just farm animal noise, on agriculturally zoned property.

Ms. Hammock advised their current definition of kennel is “a place where dogs and other small animals and house pets are kept, sheltered, boarded, bred, or groomed for compensation.” Kennels are required to have special exception approval in the A-1 zoning classification; however, if you are keeping a large number of animals on your property and you are not doing it for compensation, then that definition would not apply. The issue is that there is no limit on the number of animals being kept on residential and agriculturally zoned properties which can result in nuisances and hoarding. So there is no connection between their definition of kennel and the number of animals being kept on a property.

Ms. Hammock indicated the proposed draft of the Code defines Commercial Kennel as, “Any premises or structures of a business, breeder, or animal rescue organization used for housing, boarding, buying, selling, re-homing, or adopting of dogs and cats. This term will not include animal hospitals or grooming facilities unconnected with boarding.” When they looked at this proposed definition, they are thinking they should likely add back in the compensation part because it will be difficult to maybe differentiate between the different types of uses as well as they do not have a limit on the number of animals.

Ms. Hammock noted the Board did adopt a limit recently; however, if you exceed that limit, you can get the non-commercial kennel license from the County, which is not really a license, but it requires you to then get an annual inspection like a well-check for the animals that you have onsite. Animal Control would go out once a year to make sure they are being kept in good conditions, but of course, that is not a business license. It does not signify zoning compliance.

Ms. Hammock stated the question is whether they want to set a threshold in residential zoning classifications. In agricultural zoning classifications, you go from being a complimentary-accessory use to a residential home versus a commercial kennel. So does the Board wish to retain the word “compensation” in the definition and/or revise the definition of a kennel in the Land Development Code to include a threshold number of animals in the definition of a commercial kennel.

Commissioner Herr remarked she struggles with the word “compensation” in there because she thinks rescue organizations would argue that what they are getting is not compensation, it is a donation. Although she has rescued quite a few animals over the years and the numbers are big. You don’t rescue a dog inexpensively. She thinks then they would get into a debate as to whether or not it is compensation. She would not put the word back in there and she is in favor of limiting the number of animals generally under the control of one or a small number of humans, particularly in residential, and she would include agricultural in that.

Commissioner Constantine mentioned that a lot of the land is zoned agricultural only because it is land developed and when it is “comp planned” it will be something else, single-family. He asked whether it would make a difference if they changed it to Comp Plan as opposed to Zoning. Ms. Hammock responded that it would not; it is based on Florida Statutes.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine regarding the recommended threshold of the amount of animals for single-family homes up to one acre, Alan Harris, Emergency Management, addressed the Board to explain the proposed thresholds are based on what was discussed at the last Commission meeting when they changed the County Code 20, Animals and Fowl. These are the proposed changes that will come to the Board at a future meeting very soon. They did need to have the definition fine-tuned before it was brought to the Board.

Ms. Hammock stated the question that staff was looking for an answer to is that based on these proposed thresholds by the Animal Control Board, do they want to establish those as the thresholds to say, “If you exceed these thresholds, then you are a commercial kennel, and you may not be permitted within a certain zoning district, or you may be a special exception within a zoning district.” If they were to do that, then they may have somebody who has a rescue with a number of foster dogs within their home, and then if they exceed that threshold, it would not be a permitted use because they would need to be a commercial kennel. Chairman Dallari indicated he would like to think about this issue because of the part about fostering animals.

Commissioner Herr asked if there was an opportunity to write fostering into the mix. Ms. Hammock advised that was a thought that came up during their discussions. She thought if they establish the thresholds and then possibly if someone is a legitimate rescue/foster organization, that they could apply for the non-commercial kennel license from Animal Services to exceed that threshold and they would not have to be a commercial kennel, but they would be recognized separately. She added though that she doesn’t know if that brings up any kind of legal issues because someone might ask why a rescue organization can have ten dogs, but they can only have five. Commissioner Herr said the non-commercial kennel fits into this and she sees it as a step process. There is no limit for a non-commercial kennel and it just requires a once-a-year, announced check, which bothers her because you can clean up, because if you call ahead, they have time to clean up and then the other 364 days a year, the animals can be living it misery. This would not preclude someone from fostering. It just puts them back in the non-commercial kennel where they do announced visits.

Commissioner Lockhart said she did not realize it had to be an announced inspection, because in the Backyard Chicken Program, it is unannounced. Commissioner Herr noted maybe there is an opportunity there. Mr. Harris advised some of the parcels are locked and the individual has to come to the property which is why they make an appointment. They do not always announce; in some cases when they have had complaints, they will go unannounced. It has happened, but it does not happen a lot because they do not get a lot of complaints.

Commissioner Herr commented that the property owners do not have to let Animal Services staff in to see the area where animals are being kept under the current ordinances, and Mr. Harris agreed. So you can go unannounced and knock on the door, they don’t have to let you in, and they cannot revoke the kennel license.

Commissioner Lockhart stated not to minimize the stress and anxiety of the original individual who brought the problem with the noise and everything to their attention, she asked Mr. Harris how many complaints for this type of thing do they normally manage. Mr. Harris responded in a given year, 15 to 20, with 3 to 5 being a problem. Commissioner Lockhart noted they have more complaints than violations.

Ms. Hammock wondered if it is possible to make some kind of exclusion if you are a legitimate foster or rescue organization; if you are affiliated with an actual rescue organization. Paul Chipok, Acting County Manager, responded they can look at that and try to get better definitions. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Harris pointed out they have anywhere from 40 to 50 rescue organizations in Seminole County.

With regard to public participation, Joseph Humphreys addressed the Board to provide his comments about development, zoning, compatibility, the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan.

Michelle Dewey addressed the Board with her comments about buffers for floodplains, rivers, wetlands and ponds; protection of the aquafer, wildlife, the environment and people’s health; the removal of forests for solar panels and incentives for allowing them on roofs; affordable housing and public transportation; open space, water and land for future use; and climate change.

Cindy Haller addressed the Board to talk about the minimum acreage for planned development; wetlands, floodplains, retention ponds, open space and wetland mitigation; bigger buffers, tree retention and solar farms; and the Backyard Chicken Program.

Wafa Esposito addressed the Board to share her opinions about the Natural Resources Officer for wetlands; more buffers, Novel Parkway, tree funds and protecting trees; air quality; development and solar; and the lack of small shade trees on SR 46 that FDOT is not providing.

Deanna Houston addressed the Board and discussed Griffin Park and the protection of trees and land; larger buffers to be at least 100 feet; solar; chickens and animals; and affordable housing.

No one else spoke, and public input was closed. Public Comment Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Constantine stated in connection with public comment, he knows those speaking today have heard the presentations, and yes, they all love trees, they all want protected wetlands and buffers, they all want affordable housing, but they were talking about degrees and finding the sweet spot, and that is what they really should be talking about. He commented that the Board wants their input, but they really need input on specifics.

--------

Mr. Applegate reported they have established a core team for the Rosenwald project with staff. Steve Fussell, Office of Organizational Excellence, will be the project manager. He thanked Rebecca Hammock and Mary Moskowitz in Development Services who have already noticed the citizens and they are going to manage the expectations; it is top priority.

--------

On the search for a new County Manager, Mr. Applegate advised they have identified 27 national firms, and Diane Reed in Purchasing will be contacting each of them and they will be sending proposals to each and every one of them.

--------

Mr. Applegate stated on behalf of all the employees, he wanted to thank the Board for their actions last week on the Compensation Study and the 4% increase. They have been receiving tremendous comments from staff.

COUNTY ATTORNEY BRIEFING

Mr. Chipok stated for the record that they had a labor negotiations Shade meeting this morning to discuss the Firefighters Unit B Contract Proposal. Those in attendance included himself along with Tricia Johnson, Deputy County Manager; Bryant Applegate, Interim County Manager; Fire Chief Matt Kinley; and Commissioners Dallari, Herr, Constantine and Lockhart. That matter will be coming back before the full Board in a public hearing setting for voting on the contract at some point in the future.

In dealing with the ARPA contracts and the municipalities, Mr. Chipok reported there was a bit of a hiccup in that they had interlocal agreements with some of the municipalities for the funding of certain countywide programs, and the request was for the County to include language in the agreements between the County and non-profits that the non-profits would use competitive procurement requirements for purchases of goods and services as required in each respective agreement. That was generally agreed to; however, that particular requirement did not get into 17 non-profit agreements that had been executed. So they are going to amend those 17 agreements and are looking for authorization for the Interim County Manager to sign those amended agreements on the Board’s behalf for that limited purpose.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve and authorize the Interim County Manager to execute 17 amended ARPA agreements with added language in connection with competitive procurement requirements for purchases of goods and services.

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

Commissioner Herr noted someone will probably have to help those non-profits with understanding what that all means. Mr. Chipok stated he understood.

-------

Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 12:15 p.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Clerk of Court Grant Maloy, Interim County Manager Bryant Applegate who was replaced by Deputy County Manager Tricia Johnson, and Deputy Clerk Terri Porter who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Chariti Guevara, who were present at the Opening Session.

PROOFS OF PUBLICATION

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, 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, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

PUBLIC HEARINGS QUASI-JUDICIAL

No ex parte was submitted for today’s public hearings.

Item #30 – 2022-3392

Brick Road Right-of-Way Vacate

Paul & Diane Watson, Applicants

Joy Giles, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She advised that staff recommends approval. Paul Watson, Applicant, addressed the Board and stated he agreed with staff’s recommendation.

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

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2022-R-85 vacating and abandoning an uncut portion of public right-of-way known as Brick Road, lying between the east right-of-way line of Grant Line Road and the south right-of-way line of Wayside Drive, in Section 29, Township 19 south, Range 30 east of Seminole County, Florida; Paul & Diane Watson, Applicants; as described in the proof of publication.

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

Item #31 – 2022-0012

SDC Contractors’ Equipment Storage Yard Rezone

Southern Development Corporation, Inc., Applicant

Doug Robinson, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. He advised that staff recommends approval. It was determined the Applicant was not present.

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

Motion by Chairman Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2022-21 enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-3 (General Commercial and Wholesale) for approximately 1.26 acres, located on the (north) side of Connection Point, approximately ¼ mile west of S.R. 426; Southern Development Corporation, Inc.; as described in the proof of publication.

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

Item #32 – 2022-3389

Townsite of North Chuluota Unnamed Right-of-Way Vacate

Kimberly Hall Fisher, Applicant

Ms. Giles presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She advised that staff recommends approval. Kim Fisher, Applicant, addressed the Board and stated she agreed with staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Constantine stated it was his understanding this property was going to be used for affordable housing. Ms. Giles responded there is a current application for a rezone that will be coming to the Board next month.

With regard to public participation, Tom Glover spoke in opposition. No one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.

Public Comment Form received and filed.

Motion by Chairman Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2022-R-86 vacating and abandoning an uncut portion of an unnamed right-of-way, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Pages 54 through 58, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; Kimberly Hall Fisher, Applicant; as described in the proof of publication.

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

Item #33 – 2022-3452

S. Elder Road Right-of-Way Vacate

Carter & Suzanne Rucker, Applicants

Mr. Robinson advised staff is requesting a continuance to the July 26, 2022, meeting in order to finalize the associated easement documents.

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

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to continue to July 26, 2022, the request to adopt a Resolution vacating S. Elder Road right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 86, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, subject to the execution of the required easements for drainage, utilities and public access; Carter & Suzanne Rucker, Applicants; as described in the proof of publication.

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS LEGISLATIVE

Item #34 – 2022-3564

Ordinance Amending Seminole County

Code Chapter 20, Animal and Fowl

Alan Harris, Office of Emergency Management Chief Administrator, addressed the Board and explained this Item is related to Item #35, which is actually a consent agenda item but was scheduled to be heard in conjunction with this request. Mr. Harris presented the requests for this Item and Item #35 as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

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

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to adopt Ordinance #2022-22 adopting changes to Seminole County Code Chapter 20 (Animal and Fowl) to include removal of the Animal License/Tag Program; as described in the proof of publication.

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

Item #35 – 2022-3565

Resolution Amending Seminole County Administrative

Code Chapter 20.5, Animal Services Program

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

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2022-R-87 adopting changes to Seminole County Administrative Code Chapter 20.5 (Animal Services Program) to include removal of the Animal License/Tag fees; no proof of publication required.

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

Item #36 – 2022-3428

Land Development Code Amendment

Airport Protection Zoning Land Development Regulations

Jeff Hopper, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and advised staff is requesting a continuance to July 26, 2022, in order to bring an updated draft code based on a more recent version of the model ordinance.

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

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to continue to July 26, 2022, the request to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the Seminole County Land Development Code to enact Airport Land Development Regulations consistent with Florida Statutes Section 333.03; as described in the proof of publication.

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

COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT

(1) Envision Seminole Update

Tricia Johnson, Deputy County Manager, stated at the last meeting, the Board requested additional information regarding the Envision Seminole 2045 Outreach Plan which will be presented by Rebecca Hammock, Development Services Director, and Ashley Moore, Community Relations Officer.

Ms. Hammock and Ms. Moore presented and reviewed the Envision Seminole 2045 Outreach PowerPoint (received and filed) and the Envision Seminole 2045 Outreach Communication Stats handout (received and filed).

Ms. Hammock advised the question posed to the Board is what is the goal number of respondents they would like staff to try to reach based on the non-statistical opinion survey versus the statistical. Given time parameters and budget, it may be difficult to do the phone survey, but they could try to reach that 1,000 number of respondents.

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

There was Board discussion and it was determined that 1,000 respondents was appropriate. There was additional review and discussion of the possible opportunities to notify residents of the survey.

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to approve $1,500 for the paper utility bill stuffers and $6,000 for the social media ads, community meetings, expanding the speaker bureau as large as possible, the employee drawing, and the free billboards if they can get them.

Chairman Dallari confirmed with Commissioner Herr the motion was for a total dollar figure of $7,500.

Commissioner Constantine inquired if it was possible to advertise the survey with the electronic utility bills, and Ms. Moore responded they could and there should not be any additional associated cost. Commissioner Constantine stated that should be added as well. Ms. Moore added they will reach out to the cities as well.

Chairman Dallari inquired if Ms. Moore had these funds available in her existing budget. Ms. Moore responded no. Chairman Dallari inquired where the money would come from. Ms. Johnson responded staff will work with the budget office because the Community Relations budget does not include dollars for any type of outreach of this nature. Chairman Dallari asked if there was any additional money in the EARs program that could be earmarked for this. Ms. Hammock responded there may be additional money from other projects that is left over from this current budget year that they can look at and see if there is $7,500. Ms. Johnson said they will work with the budget office.

Commissioner Lockhart suggested requesting that each of the individual chambers send an email to their members pertaining to just this. Ms. Johnson explained the majority of those type of advertisements come through the County’s membership so it’s an additional cost to have a separate email. Commissioner Herr stated if they printed out cards with the QR code, the chamber would hand them out at every meeting, and the Commissioners could also ask that under other sponsorships that they may all have.

Commissioner Lockhart commented both Seminole State College and Seminole County Public Schools would probably send emails. Ms. Moore responded they are always great partners and staff will reach out to them.

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

(2) Midway Drainage Project

Ms. Johnson requested authorization from the Board for the Chairman to sign an extension, if needed, for Parcel #34-19-31-300-001A-0000 for the Midway Drainage Project.

Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize the Chairman to sign an extension, if needed, for Parcel #34-19-31-300-001A-0000 for the Midway Drainage Project.

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

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

No report.

DISTRICT REPORTS

District 4

Commissioner Lockhart reported she recently attended a Central Florida Commission on Homelessness meeting. She distributed a handout to the Board entitled CFCH Leadership Council June 22, 2022 (received and filed). Every year, volunteers do a point-in-time count for homelessness by going out in the field to physically count the unsheltered homeless population. For the first time this year, they used the Hyperion App which allowed them to geocode where contact with each homeless person occurred, as reflected on page 15 of the handout. She also advised the affordability period for many housing units will be expiring soon, so they should be aware of that.

The Commissioner announced Commissioner Constantine will be installed as the incoming president of the Florida Association of Counties this weekend at the FAC conference in Orlando, and she expressed her congratulations.

District 3

Commissioner Constantine reported on past events he has attended and upcoming events he will be attending.

District 5

Commissioner Herr reported at the Port Authority meeting, it was mentioned they are working on the site permit for their new building, which will bring in more revenue to the organization. It was reported that it was in the permitting process for a while. The Commissioner requested staff look into that and make sure they are shepherding that along

The Commissioner met with the Bookertown Community Association and toured the building the Association owns which sits on property that is owned by SCPS. The building is in deplorable condition. The Association requested she report that the Association had met and agreed they are willing to relinquish ownership and responsibility for the building at some point to have that become an extension of the park that the County runs.

District 1/CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Motion by Chairman Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to appoint Dawn Garrison to replace Nicole Preston on the Committee on Aging effective June 28, 2022, and expiring December 31, 2022.

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

-------

The Chairman advised there will be a SunRail transition update at the July BCC meeting.

COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS

1. Letter to Chairman Dallari dated June 22, 2022, from Marah Clark, Environmental Administrator, Bureau of Scientific Evaluation and Technical Assistance, regarding the approval of Ms. Theressa Jones as the Director of Seminole County Mosquito Control as a response to a letter from Chairman Dallari dated April 22, 2022, asking for the recommendation for approval. Copied on the letter are staff members from the FDA and Consumer Services - Cherie Trimble, Environmental Manager; Neil Richmond, Chief; George Hayslip, Program Planning Coordinator; Rachel Matthews, Government Analyst; and Shannon Wetzel, Interim Division Manager, Seminole County Watershed Management.

2. Letter to Chairman Dallari dated June 17, 2022, from the City of Sanford Office of the Clerk, Cathy LoTempio, Deputy City Clerk, regarding the Notice of Ordinance number 2022-4702, reading the ordinance and annexing property generally described as 9.54 acres between CSX Railroad and West 1st and River Landing Drive and Rand Yard Road.

3. Letter to Chairman Dallari dated June 17, 2022, from the City of Sanford Office of the Clerk, Cathy LoTempio, Deputy City Clerk, regarding the Notice of Ordinance number 2022-4703, reading the ordinance and annexing property generally described as 27.30 acres between SR 46 and Brown Road and Richmond Avenue and Cameron Avenue.

4. Notice from the City of Lake Mary received June 24, 2022, regarding Ordinance number 1666 relating to voluntary annexation from Mr. Zachary Huebner, applicant, to the City of Lake Mary’s jurisdictional boundaries and is approximately 1.50 acres located at 561 N. Country Club Road.

District 4 (Continued)

Commissioner Lockhart stated at a recent BCC meeting, there was conversation about the Contracting Licensing Board, and she thought the Board was looking for feedback from the County Manager and County Attorney of how that board is convened, when it is convened, and why it hasn't been convened. She is bringing that up just as a reminder. Ms. Hammock explained they have not researched all of the items listed. However, they have sent out a letter to all the members of the Contracting Licensing Board outlining what their duties are and the section of the Code, and they were told they would be convening in the future so they could all meet. There haven't been any meetings because none of the building officials have brought forward any issues at this time.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not related to the agenda)

(1) Irvin Simpson

Mr. Simpson addressed the Board and stated he thinks they sent a mixed message at the last meeting on the Rosenwald start date. He mentioned there was a three- to five-year start date. He clarified that he didn't create that date; that date came up during the meeting in April. Since the last meeting, he was interviewed by Channel 13 because they were concerned about that date also, so the Rosenwald project is a lot bigger than just the community because a lot of people are watching it. Through that Channel 13 interview, he was contacted by Jerry Klinger, President of the Jewish American Society for Historical Preservation. Mr. Klinger is interested in creating the Jewish Rosenwald National Historic Park in East Altamonte or somewhere in the district. Mr. Simpson expressed that was pretty huge to let him know that the work he is doing is appreciated and getting out more. If somebody is interested in doing more to make this Rosenwald project come alive, he thinks that is huge. Mr. Klinger also stated in his email they don't need the funding. They just need the people to the tell the story. He advised he would forward that email to Commissioner Lockhart. He also reported the bathrooms are coming along. He does not know the completion date, but they look like they are almost done.

Commissioner Herr inquired if there was confusion around what is starting. She thinks what they were talking about is the process starting, and what Mr. Simpson may be referencing is the building starting, the moving of dirt, which are entirely different things. And she think that's the confusion. The process has to start well before the first blade of grass gets plucked. Maybe they need to just provide clarity around that. Commissioner Lockhart advised Mr. Applegate has put together a team of people from the County's side to work specifically on communications and setting expectation. They are going to take on the responsibility of communicating with as many community members directly as they can. There are postcards that are going out. This is going to be a long-term project, and they need to make sure moving forward that they are building trust, not questioning. Ms. Johnson advised the postcards would be going out by the end of the week. She stated Mr. Applegate has asked Steve Fussell, Office of Organizational Excellence, to project manage this. However, his role is to bring the team together, but he is not the mouthpiece for the project. She does not know who that is at this point, but she will follow up with the Board on that.

(2) Richard Creedon

Mr. Creedon addressed the Board and spoke in support of the acquisition and preservation of more nature lands within Seminole County. On July 26th, the Board will be asked to support putting a natural lands purchase referendum on November's ballot. As a point of historical record, none of the three previous bond referendums in 1990, 2000, or 2006 were put on the ballot as a result of gathering voter signature petitions. All three were put on the ballot by the BCC because the Commissioners thought that they would be good for the county. No new precedent would be set if the Board agrees to place this referendum on the ballot without signature petitions. The 1990 and 2000 initiatives respectfully were all about acquiring more of the rapidly disappearing natural lands for future generations to enjoy. There is sufficient time between July 26th and November to inform the citizens about the importance of the referendum. That window of opportunity is very similar or even greater than in the previous three referendums. The beauty of this proposal is that it is a win-win for the Commission if it goes on the ballot. If it passes, money will be available without having to ask for a tax increase. If it loses, the Board can say they gave the citizens a choice whether they wanted to acquire more natural lands. Although they would greatly value the Board's active support to pass the referendum, it is not required. They are only asking for a chance for Seminole County residents to vote yes or no.

(3) Christine Watkins

Ms. Watkins, addressed the Board and stated she is the President of South Seminole Community for Progress. She displayed, reviewed, and submitted various maps and documents related to Winwood into the record (received and filed).

Ms. Watkins advised a couple of meetings ago, a presenter stated that Winwood does not exist which is contrary to factual research. Ms. Watkins provided a history of Winwood. On July 12, 1886, Altamonte Springs was in Orange County. November 1922 to 1923, Winwood Park maps were filed and then a replat of Winwood Park occurred. Going back to 1922 and 1923, there were 40% blacks and 60% whites living in Altamonte Springs. In November 1951, Winwood was legally split from the City of Altamonte Springs as a result of the case of the State of Florida, Richard w. Ervin, Attorney General, on behalf of Condor Merritt and 80-plus residents versus the Town of Altamonte Springs. The contention was they were paying equal taxes but not getting services.

A strategic planning document from 1987 references the Winwood Park Target Area. The Winwood Park area of Seminole County was surveyed in February 1987 to determine land uses, etc. The Winwood Park Target area is defined by Magnolia Street to the north, Lake Howell Road to the east, State Road 436 to the south, and Sanford Road to the west, as depicted on Map W-2. However, these are just the target areas. Magnolia Street is not in Winwood. The exact location of Winwood Park became a point of contention. Ms. Watkins explained she went to the Property Appraiser's Office with the legal document, which contained the description of those properties that were impacted in terms of being part of the legal document, and they showed her where Winwood exists.

(4) David Bacon

Mr. Bacon addressed the Board and advised he came today because he saw a notice in the paper about the Ordinance involving animals and fowl. He is lifetime member of the Central Florida Pigeon Fanciers Association and also in the American Racing Pigeon Union Hall of fame. He has been involved in the pigeon fancy hobby since he was a kid back in 1948. Mr. Bacon has been involved in the rules and regulations so people can enjoy the hobbies. Seminole County is unique in that they do not have pigeons in the Ordinance that covers animals and fowls, which is rare. Mr. Bacon reviewed and submitted documents relating to pigeon fancy (received and filed). Mr. Bacon advised if the County ever gets involved with the law involving having the pigeon hobby in people's backyard, he volunteers his time to help.

Public comment forms received and filed.

--------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST:_____________________________Clerk___________________________Chairman

tp/cg