BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
August 11, 2020
The following is a non-verbatim
transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held virtually, made
permissible pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Orders, at 9:30 a.m., on
Tuesday, August 11, 2020, via Communications Media Technology (CMT) through the
SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at
SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of
meeting of said Board.
Attending
remotely:
Chairman Jay
Zembower (District 2)
Vice Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner
Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner
Amy Lockhart (District 4)
Commissioner Brenda
Carey (District 5)
Deputy County Manager Joe Abel
County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerks Kyla Farrell and
Chariti Colon
OPENING CEREMONIES
Commissioner
Constantine led the Pledge of Allegiance.
EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT UPDATE
Alan Harris, Office of Emergency Management, addressed
the Board to report on the emergency management response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
CARES
ACT FUNDING UPDATE
Deputy County Manager Joe Abel presented the CARES Act
Funding Update (received and filed). In
regard to U.S. Department of Treasury Criteria, Mr. Abel advised one of the
biggest challenges has been making sure they have clear definitions of
“necessary” and “reasonable” expenditures and clear expectations of what can
and can’t be funded. As stated on slide
13 of the presentation, Mr. Abel advised staff is seeking approval to move
forward with SCPS’s request for $2,847,250.
The ask for action really is to allow the County to move forward with a subrecipient
agreement with the School Board that will be reimbursable. If they give approval today, the School Board
would be able to take similar action this evening at their meeting for approval
of the subrecipient agreement.
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve the request
from the School Board as well as the request by Mr. Abel.
Under discussion, Commissioner Carey commented that many
of the electronic billboards are under agreement; if there is a need to run
messaging on them, the County can do that at no charge. She suggested that Mr. Abel should reach out
to all of the people who have electronic billboards, especially the ones the
County has that messaging ability with. Mr.
Abel responded they absolutely will, and Mr. Harris has already utilized the
billboards for some of the COVID-19 stuff early on.
Commissioner Lockhart stated she has items that she would
like to talk about that were a part of the presentation, but not related to the
School District funding, although she is certainly in support of that and happy
to do that. Chairman Zembower replied he
would like to get the School Board thing done and then they can come back to
Commissioner Lockhart’s items.
Chairman Zembower asked the County Attorney if the Board
needs to take action on this or just provide
direction. County Attorney Bryant
Applegate stated they need to take action on
this. He explained, in his view,
anything related to CARES and CARES funding, due to the timing, is considered
to be an emergency and needs Board action.
Also, in an abundance of caution, he asked that the meeting be
advertised as a work session/meeting so it gives a little more discretion.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Lockhart talked about virtual meetings and
in-person meetings. She advised the
School Board has offered the use of their facility. Their chambers is
significantly larger than the County’s, and typically the BCC and School Board
meetings don’t overlap. They are happy
to work with County staff if there is a need from this organization to utilize
their facility. Commissioner Lockhart
stated she understands the desire to make sure that all of the things they are
doing is fitting into a nice, little, neat box because nobody wants to get
their hands slapped. While she certainly
doesn’t want staff to do anything that would be an inappropriate use of funds,
she is also okay with being minimally compliant. Instead of continuing to compare themselves
with other organizations around the state and analyze what other people are
doing, the Commissioner thinks they need to be leaders. They know they have good judgement. They know which expenditures are due to
COVID-19.
Commissioner Lockhart stated, in regard to the Seminole
Cares website, it would be great if they could put a link to that website on
the SeminoleCountyFL.gov website. She
pointed out when you Google Seminole County Cares, it goes to the
SeminoleCountyFL.gov website and SeminoleCares.com doesn’t pop up in Google. Commissioner Lockhart discussed how CARES
funding is a huge opportunity for the homeless population and the precariously
housed citizens in Seminole County. She
asked Mr. Abel to call Martha Are, Executive Director at Homeless Services
Network of Central Florida, and hear what her specific suggestions are.
Commissioner Carey stated she thinks for the public’s
benefit and clarification, they need to have more than just a link that says
“Cares” on their website and discussed why.
Mr. Abel replied they will continue to work on that. They try to have it as prominently and in as
many different places as they can. He
knows staff is working on directly reaching out to their mailing list of
businesses and working through the Chambers and other groups to get the word
out so that the business folks know where to go from word of mouth as well as
trying to search on the website. He
assured the Commissioner that staff will continue to work on that and make it a
little more prevalent. Commissioner
Carey explained staff should be able to get a list from the Tax Office of every
business that has a business license in the county, and Mr. Abel replied they
do. Commissioner Carey noted she has a
business license and hasn’t received anything from anybody. She reiterated they need to make sure they’re
getting the message out to businesses and making it easy to find.
Mr. Applegate stated he agrees with Commissioner Lockhart
that they want to be as flexible as possible.
He noted he’d like to think this County is a leader and discussed the
many ways the County is leading the way.
Mr. Applegate advised his ultimate responsibility is making sure the
County doesn’t spend $82M and then in January, have an auditor say that $15M of
that was not appropriate and have to dig into the budget for it.
Chairman Zembower stated they brought Ernst & Young
in to facilitate and administer the program.
He asked if there is some contractual protection for the County with
their review and decision making during the process. He also asked what they are doing to
crossmatch individuals in the community, such as individuals who want to apply
for the Small Business Grant and Individual Grant; basically, is there any
vetting process in any of the other programs to ensure they’re not giving the
same entity or person multiple piles of money before they’ve helped as many as
they possibly can. Mr. Applegate
answered he will provide the Board with copies of the standard indemnification
that they have with Ernst & Young, but the ultimate responsibility about
the big decisions on where that money goes is going to be on the County. Mr. Abel added the intent is to do exactly
what has been suggested in trying to make sure that they’re reaching out as far
and wide as possible to be able to get as many businesses and individuals
through this process.
Commissioner Lockhart stated when they talk about the
business application versus the personal application, something that has been
brought to her attention by a couple of property owners who are landlords is
that they, as landlords, can really only benefit from this CARES funding if
their tenants apply for the rental assistance.
She wondered if there’s a possibility where landlords could apply as
business owners for assistance as opposed to going through their tenant. Mr. Abel replied he will have to get the
answer; but from a point of reasoning, if the landlord has established
themselves as a business entity, they should be able to go through the business
portal. Chairman Zembower suggested maybe
there could be a way to do it by proxy; the landlord on behalf of the tenant
with some kind of mutual agreement that the landlord is getting paid but acting
as an agent for the tenant if they have a tenant who is otherwise not motivated
to do it. He added maybe they should
have that discussion between staff and Legal to see how they could do that.
Mr. Applegate stated in addition to the indemnification
clause, section 8 of the Ernst & Young contract requires the consultant to
be accurate and do what they’re supposed to do.
In fact, the County’s review of and approval and acceptance of payment
required on the agreement does not operate as a wavier of any rights under the
agreement or a cause of action out of the performance of the agreement. He feels very comfortable that they are
covered.
With regard to public participation, no one spoke
in regard to the School Board funding, and public input was closed.
CONSENT
AGENDA
With regard to public participation, no one spoke
to the Consent Agenda, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded
by Commissioner Carey, to approve the following:
Office of Emergency Management
4. Approve and authorize the Chairman to
execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The School Board of Seminole
County and Seminole County for Emergency Sheltering. (2020-XXXX)
Resource Management
Purchasing and Contracts
5. Approve the
Revised Agreement for RFP-603847-20/BJC – Prescription Drug Savings Program
(PDSP), to Prescription Care Management (PCM), LLC, Reno, NV; and authorize the
Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (2020-2186)
Districts 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
WORK SESSIONS
Item #1 – 2020-2183
Power Corridor Trail
Feasibility Study (Follow-up from 2-11-20)
Jason McCray,
P.E., ETM England Thims & Miller
Jason McCray,
P.E., ETM England Thims & Miller, addressed the
Board and reviewed the Trail Feasibility Study Between SR 434 and Cross
Seminole Trail presentation (received and filed). Mr. McCray recommended Alignment 3 (adjacent
to US 17/92). The recommendation is
based on the results of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation that
included the following key factors:
stakeholder and public feedback, wetland/floodplain impacts,
right-of-way acquisition, pedestrian crossings of roadways, overall cost of
project, and drainage impacts/permitting.
Chairman Carey
stated, in looking at the alignments, she thinks Alignment 3 is probably a good
one and explained why. Commissioner
Dallari stated Alignment 5 gets a lower rating because of the
wetland/floodplain impact, but that is addressed by the boardwalk so he thinks
that is really a cost issue. He wants to
understand how that alignment scored a 5 in the wetlands/floodplain category if
they’re putting a boardwalk over it. Mr.
McCray answered it received a 5 for several reasons. Regardless if they put a boardwalk over the
floodplain and the wetlands, it would require an individual permit and not be
exempt. Another reason for the ranking
is because it requires a bridge to cross it to minimize the impacts, and thus
the cost to the wetland and floodplain impacts was greater than all the
others. Those were the main two causes
for the ranking. Commissioner Dallari
asked Mr. McCray to address safety on US 17/92.
Mr. McCray stated as shown on the existing typical section, the current
section does provide a 7-foot buffered bike lane, so the traveling public will
be 7 feet from the edge of the curb.
They did look at trail safety by looking at the paved shoulder and where
the traveling public would be within the paved area as well as providing an offset
to the trail to provide a positive safety offset for the trail users. Commissioner Dallari stated FDOT has been
spending a lot of time on that road because of the issues with the wetlands. He asked if all of those issues have been
addressed in the typical section, and Mr. McCray answered yes. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Dallari, Mr.
McCray discussed trail experience.
Commissioner Dallari asked how they would connect the elementary school
with Alignment 3, and Mr. McCray answered the elementary school is already
connected because there are 5-foot sidewalks on both sides.
With regard
to public participation, no one in the audience spoke, and public input was closed.
Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, addressed the Board
and stated staff is requesting the Board accept the recommendation of the
consultant for Alignment 3 so staff can move forward to the next step, which is
design. He noted another project at US
17/92 which would connect with the recommended alignment. Commissioner Carey asked if Mr. Jreij was
referring to the pedestrian bridge over US 17/92, and Mr. Jreij answered
yes.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey to approve staff’s and the consultant’s recommendation
for Alignment 3.
Under discussion, in regard to Mr. Jreij’s
statement, Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Jreij what
the cost is to connect this trail to the trail bridge with a ramp. Mr. Jreij answered that project has been on
the schedule for a while because they were waiting until US 17/92 was
completed. In the past, it called for
stairs; but when they tried to design the stairs, they found it wouldn’t work
so they changed it to a ramp. It is
under design now, and the construction cost is under $500,000 and also on the MetroPlan list for funding.
Mr. Applegate suggested, since CARES Act is more of an emergency matter
with timing, they just get a consensus if this is not time sensitive. Then Mr. Jreij can prepare a consent agenda
item for the next meeting for approval of the final plan. There
was consensus of the Board to move forward with Alignment 3 and staff’s
recommendation. Commissioner Dallari
added he would like the cost of the additional ramp added so they understand
the full cost of the project.
Commissioner Lockhart asked if the stairs, now ramp, were already
planned regardless of the trail alignment, and Mr. Jreij answered yes. He explained it is a separate project that is
already in design, and final design should be done in a few months. Chairman Zembower asked if Mr. Jreij will
identify that other project for Commissioner Dallari so he clearly understands
and distribute that for the rest of the Commission, and Mr. Jreij said he
would.
Chairman Zembower confirmed they have unanimous consent to accept the
recommendation of the consultant.
Item #2 – 2020-2127
Speed Cushion Update
Charles Wetzel, County
Traffic Engineer
Charles Wetzel, County Traffic
Engineer, and Mark Bevis, Traffic Studies Supervisor, addressed the Board and presented
the Seminole County Traffic Speed Cushion Update presentation (received and
filed).
Commissioner
Lockhart stated she’s mostly looking at this from the perspective from the
residents who clearly reached out because they feel like they have a need. What she heard is that staff hasn’t vetted
the list yet to determine if any of the requests would meet the criteria that
Mr. Wetzel is proposing. She asked how
staff is determining the criteria. Mr.
Wetzel answered the proposed criteria is based on other agencies’ experiences
and programs and typical traffic engineering practices. Commissioner Lockhart referenced the Speed
Cushion Requests List (received and filed) and stated several of the requests
are associated with the Sheriff’s Office.
She would hate to establish criteria before knowing how many of the
people that are requesting speed humps in the area meet the criteria that staff
is establishing. Discussion ensued. Chairman Zembower stated there has been past
complaints, and speed humps were never approved by a previous Commission. This Board has asked staff to study these as
a calming device for traffic. If the
Board approves it, then it could be a calming device for calming traffic used
somewhere. Commissioner Lockhart replied
she was thinking they would start with the 99 residents who have already called
and asked for them. They don’t want to
go around the county and put in speed tables “willy nilly.” Chairman Zembower stated staff isn’t saying
they’re going to put them anywhere at this point; they’re simply saying there
are engineering aspects of the roadway that can be utilized to do traffic
calming, but speed humps are one that are not in their current toolbox that
could be deployed if requested. Staff is
asking if the Board wants to consider speed humps as a tool in their toolbox to
be deployed if such is desired. Mr. Abel
confirmed Chairman Zembower’s statement.
Commissioner Lockhart reiterated she does not want to put a program in
place that doesn’t meet the needs of the people who are currently requesting
the program. She wants to do this in
response to the citizens who had a perceived or real need. She is interested in having the tool in their
toolbox, but she doesn’t see the need of putting it in there if it’s not really
going to help anybody.
Commissioner
Carey wondered out of the 99 requests, how many were for the same road. She stated she isn’t interested in trying to
put any kind of program in place when they have a shortfall of funding in the
current budget year and probably looking at a shortfall in funding for next year. She doesn’t even know how they would fund
this program. They did the pilot
program, and that seemed to be working.
If they are going to implement a program, they should look at all
options of what works and what’s most cost-effective because it isn’t going to
be a one-size-fits-all. However, without
any funding, she doesn’t know why they are even having a conversation about
this.
Commissioner
Constantine stated he feels this is a very positive opportunity to have a tool
in the toolbox. In talking to HOAs
around the county, he would like to give them the option of wanting to do it
and do it as staff recommends it; and it could also be an option when new
development comes in. Commissioner Carey
stated it sounds like Commissioner Constantine is recommending to put it in
their toolbox for an MSBU funding opportunity.
She pointed out different communities want these for different
reasons: speed, cut-through traffic,
etc. If they want to add it to the MSBU
program, she would be fine with that; but until they have a funding source, she
would be reluctant to try to develop this.
Commissioner Dallari discussed principal arterial roads, specifically
two that he has seen with existing speed tables (Lake Howell Road and Tangerine
Avenue.)
Chairman Zembower
advised he can support speed bumps or speed humps if done properly in an MSBU
program, but he’d like to hear from the County Attorney from a liability
standpoint where the County stands on vehicle damage even if it is an
MSBU. Mr. Applegate explained they would
have to show that the speed bump was either negligently installed or didn’t
meet criteria that caused the damage.
Normally, if a car is damaged by a speed bump, it’s because it’s going
too fast; therefore, the owner of the vehicle would be liable and not the
County. Chairman Zembower talked about
cars that are so low, they wouldn’t have to be going too fast to incur damage
and asked again who would be responsible for that damage. Mr. Applegate repeated they would have to
prove they were negligently installed or didn’t meet the criteria.
Commissioner
Lockhart asked if it is correct that if you are going the speed limit, you
should glide over speed bumps without issues because they are not meant to make
you have to come to a complete stop, they’re meant to allow you to continue to
travel the speed limit. Mr. Wetzel
answered that is the intent. He added
they are calling them speed cushions which are different from speed humps in
that they have a gap so emergency vehicles and ambulances can move through them
without having to go over them; but in a perfect world, if you drive the speed
limit, you should be comfortable going over these. Commissioner Lockhart advised she thinks an
MSBU is an option for funding, but she wouldn’t want to limit this program only
to an MSBU. She thinks there would be
some scenarios in the future where the Board may feel compelled to participate
in some funding depending on the circumstances.
When they have neighborhoods that for years and years have seen people
speeding down the road, she doesn’t see how they cannot at least have this as a
permissible opportunity for them. She
doesn’t want to go through the hassle of creating a program that doesn’t really
fulfill the need. She is for putting it
in the toolbox and being flexible about what the funding source may be, and she
would hate to see staff not go down this path just because they are in a tough
budget time right at this moment.
Chairman Zembower
said it sounds like they want staff to bring this back to the Board as an
agenda item with funding options.
Commissioner Constantine replied maybe not funding options as much as a
part of a program where an opportunity exists.
He believes there may be times where the County would share in the cost
or do the whole cost; it’s not something that he wants to say is exclusively an
MSBU. They need to have an opportunity
in the toolbox to pick and choose if they see something that is necessarily
needed.
Commissioner
Carey stated the MSBU ordinance has specific things in there that you can use
MSBU funding for. If they want to make
this program available through MSBU, they need to just add it to the list of
things that they could do. She noted
having tools available is great, but she thinks there are some things they need
to add to the MSBU ordinance and have it presented for the various different
types of options whether it’s asphalt, rubber cushions, etc.; and then let the
communities decide what they’re willing to pay for.
With regard to
public participation, no one in the audience spoke, and public input was
closed.
Chairman Zembower
asked if staff believes they have the direction that is needed from the
Commission to proceed. Mr. Wetzel
answered he believes so. He is looking
to come back to the Board with an agenda item including an MSBU option for all
traffic calming devices. Chairman
Zembower clarified they want to see the MSBU as an option if the Board doesn’t
decide to fund it.
-------
Chairman Zembower
recessed the meeting at 11:42 a.m., reconvening at 12:00
p.m. reconvening at 12:00
p.m., with all
Commissioners and all other Officials, with the
exception of Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Chariti
Colon, who were present at the Opening Session.
WORK SESSIONS CONT’D
Item #3 – 2020-2128
Land Development Code (Session 2)
Eliza Juliano, Canin Associates, Inc.
Rebecca Hammock, Development Services Director
Eliza Juliano,
Canin Associates, Inc., presented and reviewed a PowerPoint entitled Seminole
County Land Development Code Update Work Session #2 (received and filed).
Kennels, Missing Uses, Lake
Setbacks, Arbor Regulations, and PD Approach
Commissioner Lockhart requested
clarification if the arbor regulations are going to be applied equally to
existing residences and single-family homes or if it only applies to new
development. Ms. Juliano
advised Greg Witherspoon, Canin Associates Landscape Architect, was available
if needed. She then explained this is
really focused on new developments and/or significant renovations. State law does not allow the County to regulate
single-family properties. Commissioner
Lockhart stated, although she would not want to regulate, she thought she had
read that state law now allowed local government to do so with the designation
of a certified arborist. Upon request
for clarification, Ms. Juliano explained, to her
understanding, the County cannot require evidence of a certified arborist sign
off before the tree is removed, but they can ask for it after the tree is
removed. They cannot require the tree be
replaced and they cannot require a permit be filed before removing the tree,
but there has to be a certified arborist or landscape architect sign off. Ms. Juliano advised
there is a County Attorney opinion on file, but there are some very specific
limits on what can be done.
Rebecca Hammock, Development
Services Director, clarified the Code currently exempts single-family
residential lots that are less than five acres from arbor regulations. Once a subdivision is developed and the lots
are sold, the property owner is then exempt from the arbor regulations and are
not required to obtain a permit to remove trees from their property. Commissioner Lockhart stated she wanted to
make sure that she understood that staff's and the consultant's recommendation
was not that they were going to now start requiring a form from the arborist if
people wanted to take out a tree on their personal property. Ms. Hammock explained the way that it is
written, it would be in a circumstance if somebody, like a neighbor, questioned
the fact that a tree was taken down and if the County could then go afterwards
and request some documentation from an arborist or landscape architect
demonstrating that that tree was diseased or dying and could be removed. If the property is under five acres, they
would tell the neighbor the property is exempt from the arbor regulations. But if they were on a lot larger than five
acres, then that is where the state law would come into play.
Chairman Zembower
illustrated a scenario where years ago a subdivision was approved with a
certain amount of barrier between the surrounding properties, a certain caliper-sized
tree or X number of trees, and now it has not been maintained or they have
decided they don't want that barrier anymore.
Then the development next door will call reminding that when the other
development was approved years ago it was approved that the barrier had to
remain between the two developments. The
Chairman inquired if this change will help with that issue. Ms. Juliano
responded their recommendation would be to require sign off from a certified
arborist or landscape architect for trees of a certain size. The Chairman noted, in some requests from the
community to maintain certain types of buffer between an incoming new
development versus what exists, in the development order they have put language
in there that says the existing must be maintained, and if that existing is
damaged, they must replant reasonably what was there.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with
Ms. Hammock if someone lives in a subdivision where the lots are an acre and
they want to take a tree out of their backyard, they do not have to get a
permit according to the state law. The
Commissioner inquired if the ones in buffer areas and the setback zones are
protected because they are in the HOA documents to be maintained. Ms. Hammock responded normally buffers that
are part of new subdivision plans are within a tract, and those usually are
under the ownership and maintenance of a homeowners
association. In addition, the County
requires opacity ratings for those buffers.
If trees do die and someone notices that the buffer is no longer a
healthy, opaque buffer, they could bring it to the County's attention that the
buffer is not meeting the requirements of the approved landscape plan; and the
County could then review it and could require new landscaping to be installed. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Hammock
that would be at the expense of the homeowners
association. Chairman Zembower stated they have to look at it closely to make
sure they are not violating state statute but also for the occasions where
there is a subdivision with an HOA that no longer exists for whatever
reason. Commissioner Carey added new
developments now have mandatory HOAs.
With old subdivisions where the HOAs are voluntary, they will fall under
a different set of rules than the new ones.
Commissioner Carey stated many pet
daycares also offer grooming and boarding.
She thinks they need to be careful when addressing kennels that they are
not putting pet daycares in a category where they are not convenient or in
close proximity to where people work and live.
Maybe sound requirements and construction or setbacks from the boundary
of the properties and things like that are important because those are
convenience type.
Commissioner Carey noted in the
example on the PDs, there are tree plantings between the back of the curb and
the sidewalk. She commented that
planting oak trees or other large root invasive trees between the back of the
curb and the sidewalk is not a good idea.
They will eventually bust up the sidewalk or the curb, or the tree will
begin to die because it was not intended to be in that kind of a space. She wants to make sure that when they are
writing codes that they require proper placement of the species as well. Chairman Zembower
suggested that's where a staff arborist would be a benefit. Commissioner Carey added a landscape
architect should also be able to provide that information.
Commissioner Lockhart stated she
read the Florida statute in regards to kennels.
When it talks about the noise from animals, whether they be dogs or some
other type of animal, it is exempt if it is part of a bona fide farming
operation, not just if it exists on a piece of ag property. The issues they seem to be having are not
with farms. She inquired if that had
been looked at, and Ms. Hammock responded staff has looked at this before. She would have to get direction from the
County Attorney's Office because they had been advised previously that as long
as it is zoned agricultural that any animal was exempt from the noise
ordinance. That is why they were looking
for a way around that to regulate large numbers of domestic animals on
agricultural property. The intent was
not to exempt domesticated animals; it was for livestock animals. However, her understanding was that it was
any animals. If that is not correct,
they will have to go back and reevaluate that; but if that is the case, that
will solve the issue. Mr. Applegate
advised A-1 zoning does need clarification because courts look at that as
agricultural. There is an enforcement
problem with it. They don't get a lot of
complaints about barking dogs in agricultural zones. Then it becomes a question of the Sheriff and
Code Enforcement deciding whether or not they're going to cite the owner for
that.
Mr. Applegate commented in the memo
that they pointed out the arbor law, there are several cases right now
throughout Florida challenging the law and its applicability in certain
circumstances. Before they ever get to
the point of adopting comprehensive regulations, they will have guidance from
the courts on what they can and cannot do.
With regard to public participation,
Allen Sutton, 122 Fair Way Ten Drive, voiced opposition to any proposed changes
to required green space for PDs and stated it seems like a lot of the changes
are meant to make it easier for developers to come in and build. Chairman Zembower
clarified with Ms. Juliano that Canin Associates was
not a builder or developer of homes.
Grey Wilson, 1125 Broadgate Lane, stated parks and recreation for
infills are much needed in the area. Dr.
Deborah Bauer, 423 Eagle Circle, voiced her concern and opposition about any
reduction of the minimum 25% open space in PD zoning. Katrina Shadix,
1133 Covington Street, also addressed any proposed reduction of open green
space and inquired if it is still a proposed recommendation. She is also opposed to removing trees to
build solar farms. Gabrielle Milch, 252
Coble Drive, spoke regarding shoreline issues and water quality.
No one else spoke and public input
was closed.
Commissioner Lockhart stated while
they see PDs ad nauseam and feel they are being overused, she personally
doesn't feel they are being used because they are asking for a variety of lot
sizes. The Commissioner requested that
someone explain why the recommendation of the mixed lot size is a solution to
reduce the number of PDs. Ms. Hammock
stated she agreed with the Commissioner and explained they have requests for
PDs a lot of times because the trend now is to go to 50-foot, 60-foot wide
lots. So unless
a developer was willing to do the mix of lot sizes as depicted in the
presentation, that would not resolve that issue. What the consultant is proposing is that that
be an additional option in the Code if a developer would like to develop in
that way instead of going through the PD process. Currently the market trend is they all want
to have one lot size unless the County makes them do otherwise. Commissioner Lockhart stated if developers
have the desire to make lot sizes of varying widths, they could do that
currently under PD. She believes
developers are bringing in the PD because they can become more creative with
their open space requirement.
Upon request of Chairman Zembower to comment on open space requirement, Ms. Hammock
explained the minimum open space requirement is 25% currently in PD. Staff is not recommending that be
reduced. There are comments in the white
paper that that 25% probably isn't utilized the best way it can be because it's
put in buffer tracks so it doesn't become common useable open space. The consultant also did make a
recommendation, as part of a proposed new zoning category for mixed use, that
if a new zoning category were created that they may not require that much open
space as the current PD zoning designation; but they are not proposing to
reduce that open space requirement in the Planned Development zoning
district.
Commissioner Carey stated,
historically, staff has encouraged the PD and it does create a nicer
development than a straight zoning development.
On the mixed-use issue, it is a use that will occur in infill urban
areas, so having more open space in high density urban areas doesn't make any
sense. It's counterproductive to the
high-density discussion. She thinks if
they want to look at how to fix some of the things, they look at how the
language is written on the PD about the 25% open space. They need to look at how they require things
to be used, not necessarily rewrite the code.
Mr. Applegate mentioned different
lot sizes is something that is encouraged around the country in affordable
housing because you cannot tell the difference between the affordable houses
and the expensive houses. They are going
to be talking about impact fee waivers and reduced water and sewer connection
fees possibly. That was a point they made
around the country that approving a development with different lot sizes with
the right landscaping is one of the solutions.
It's that piece of the puzzle that several pieces come together.
Commissioner Dallari
confirmed with Ms. Hammock that staff is not looking at reducing the open
space. The Commissioner would like to
know what actually constitutes mixed use.
Ms. Hammock responded that is something staff would like direction on
from the Board. There are Comp Plan
policies and there is a Future Land Use designation for mixed use. However, that has not been implemented in the
Land Development Code. Part of the
recommendations in the white paper is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by
also creating a mixed-use designation within the Land Development Code. Staff would like some direction on what type
of mixed land uses, whether it is a percentage based on square footage, based
on acreage, that type of thing; and that is something that needs to be
discussed. Commissioner Dallari stated as they look at these different types of
examples, he would like to see pictorial examples. Also, affordable housing always talks about
transit, but they don't define what transit is.
With transit, he would like to understand what the frequency is and what
the distance is from a project to the transit corridor that will allow it to be
assumed or agreed to have transit. Ms.
Hammock responded they do have some discussion of that in the Attainable
Housing Strategic Plan that staff will be bringing forward, and it does outline
those type of things. Commissioner Dallari stated he would also like to have some definitions
or examples of how solar would be implemented in the Land Development
Code.
Chairman Zembower
inquired what staff needed in the way of direction. Ms. Hammock responded staff needs
clarification from the County Attorney's Office on the kennel issues. If the Florida statute does not apply to the
single-family residential, A-1 zoned property, then that issue has been
resolved. However, if the County Attorney's
Office comes back and says the noise ordinance would not be able to regulate
any A-1 zoned property, regardless if it was bona fide agricultural use or farm
use, then they would need direction. The
workaround they were hoping to do was to revise the kennel definition since a
kennel is required to have a special exception in A-1; and if they revise the
kennel definition, it could apply to more circumstances. Right now it states
it has to be for compensation, but there are instances where people are part of
a rescue group and they have a number of animals on their properties and
they're being housed outside or on the property line and they're barking. If they're zoned A-1, currently nothing can
be done through Code Enforcement. But if
they broaden the definition of a kennel, then they might be able to say there
is a special exception requirement. Then
the noise can be regulated through the special exception through a sound
attenuation and buffers and setbacks and things like that. However, staff will probably need
clarification from the legal aspect before getting direction on that.
Commissioner Constantine clarified
this is an ongoing process and not something that is going to end next week or
even next month. He emphasized nothing
will be done until they have additional meetings with citizens and are having
open public meetings where people can actually respond to these things.
Chairman Zembower
suggested as they get to Phase 4 in the process when the Board makes decisions,
by then they should have plenty of public input, all the options that each
Commissioner has asked for, and legal can vet them to make sure they are
legally viable. This is not something
that is going to happen overnight. The
Chairman inquired if staff had an idea when they we would be in Phase 4. Ms. Hammock responded the original timeline
was 18 months to be able to bring forward an ordinance that would amend the
Land Development Code. However, that has
been pushed back due to COVID. Ms. Juliano added they do not have a date certain at this
point. They are probably two to three
months behind due to COVID; and depending on the Commission direction on public
input, that could change further.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Jeff Hopper, Planning and
Development Division, presented and reviewed a PowerPoint entitled Accessory
Dwelling Units (received and filed).
Commissioner Lockhart inquired how
they arrived at the 35% number for the correlation between the main house and
the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Hopper
explained the intent was to emphasize that the accessory is something secondary
and incidental. It ensures that there is
a proportion between the main structure and the accessory unit so the accessory
does not become something bigger than the main house. Commissioner Lockhart expressed her concern
that if they are not going to allow a variance to the size but they are saying
that 35% is the hard, fast number for whatever reason and they don't have a
rationale for it except it seemed like a good number, she's not comfortable
with either not having the ability to get a variance or having a better
rationale for the 35%. She inquired if
the Board picked the 35% or staff picked it.
Ms. Hammock responded in the code currently in the rural area under the
A-3, A-5, and A-10, the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit is 35%. They are proposing with the new regulations
35% or a maximum of 1,000 square feet because they are trying to emphasize that
this is to be an accessory to the primary structure since they are putting a
policy in the Comprehensive Plan that an accessory dwelling unit will have a de
minimis impact and won't count towards density and also in terms of looking at
impact fees. If they are going to reduce
impact fee rates or waive impact fee rates, they want to make sure that the
dwelling does not end up being so large that it has equal impacts to the
standard single-family residential house.
Upon inquiry of Commissioner Lockhart, Ms. Hammock explained if a larger
home's 35% came out to over 1,000 square feet, then they would be limited to
the 1,000 square feet. Commissioner
Lockhart asked if there is any reason why they would not allow for a variance
if someone has an exceptionally large home.
It makes her nervous whenever they tell citizens that they can't apply
for a variance for something, even if it is the ability for staff to look at
it. There is always an outlying
exception. Chairman Zembower
added it needs to be administered under the equal treatment guidelines of the
provisions. Ms. Hammock stated that can
be looked at to see if there's language that could be put in that could allow
some sort of minimal variance in certain circumstances. They are trying to make an argument that
accessory dwelling units have a de minimus impact and
aren't going to impact level of service, so they are trying to prevent
approving another single-family house on a lot.
Commissioner Dallari
requested a definition of architecturally compatible, and Ms. Hammock explained
it is similar in look to the primary structure.
The Commissioner asked who is going to be the judge of that, and Ms.
Hammock responded staff. If the Board
isn't comfortable with that regulation, it can be taken out. Commissioner Dallari
expressed he would like to have it more defined.
Commissioner Dallari
inquired if it can be switched to where the existing structure becomes the
accessory dwelling unit and the new structure becomes a larger primary
residence. Ms. Hammock advised they have
allowed that in the rural area as long as they meet setbacks and placement on
the lot. The Commissioner stated that
needs to be defined so people know what the possibilities are.
With regard to public participation,
no one spoke in support or opposition and public input was closed.
Chairman Zembower
inquired if staff felt confident they had direction, and Ms. Hammock responded
yes. They will look at the variance
issue, the architectural compatibility, and then provide clarification on
whether an existing primary structure could become the accessory dwelling unit
and vice versa. She stated they are also
looking for direction on whether the Board would like staff to bring this back
at the next available BCC meeting. Right
now it is tentatively scheduled for the September
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and then the later meeting for BCC in
September. The Chairman inquired of the
Board if they believed they need to workshop the accessory dwelling unit item
any further or just have staff supply the information the Board has requested
and then bring it back at a future meeting.
There was consensus of the Board to move forward. Commissioner Lockhart added she is also still
looking for information having to do with impact fee reduction or
elimination. The Chairman requested
staff send their work product to each of the Commission offices for review in
advance of an agenda item coming forward and inquired if that was okay with the
Board. No objections were voiced.
Ms. Hammock stated on the impact
issue, if they do move forward with the ordinances and they get adopted, what
is in place right now in terms of impact fees are if somebody decided to apply
and permit an accessory dwelling unit immediately following the adoption of the
ordinances, they would be subject to the standard single-family residential
rates. However, staff is working with
the consultants on the mobility fee, the water and sewer connection fee, the
fire, and the libraries on separate impact fee rates for accessory dwelling
units so those are in process. Chairman Zembower reminded the Board has said they are not
necessarily interested in impact fees for accessory dwelling units. However, they probably have to look at
something in the reverse if the existing structure becomes the accessory
dwelling unit and a larger primary structure is built. To be fair to the rest of the citizens of the
county, they should be looking at that and how that would work. Ms. Hammock stated what is being proposed
wouldn't allow that scenario. If someone
has a 6,000 square foot house and they wanted that to become the accessory
dwelling unit and were going to build a new structure that would be the primary
structure, that primary structure would now have to be 35% larger than the
existing structure. It would not meet
the de minimus standard. The Chairman stated as long as that's been
covered to be fair to everybody, he's good with it.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Mr. Applegate stated he sent an email out last week. David Leavitt has filed an amended
complaint. Lynn Porter-Carlton is
following what some other jurisdiction are doing. Mr. Applegate opined the amended complaint
that was filed is almost the same as the original one with relying on the new
order that came out since the original complaint was filed, and they obviously
plan to file a motion to dismiss on that.
It is his understanding that the Alachua County decision is the first one
to go up to an appellate court and is in the First DCA now. He is expecting the First DCA to affirm the
lower court's decision on that.
-------
Mr.
Applegate stated he sent several memos and John Stokes' letter to all of the
Commissioners in the last few days. One
thing he took from the evaluation was to be more responsive and to anticipate
questions that come up. They should
start seeing more of those and they will be short. Answering questions came up the last time
they talked about these issues about water and sewer connection fees and impact
fees, so he wanted to get those out to them.
-------
Mr. Applegate advised all
the Commissioners have received a letter in their offices. The best way to interpret the letter is it is
threatening a federal lawsuit. He will
be briefing all of the Commissioners sometime today on the letter and would ask
that they not comment on it.
-------
On
the ordinance procedure, Mr. Applegate advised he has spoken with Mr. Abel and
they are going to tweak the procedure.
Before an ordinance ever leaves the County Attorney's Office, he is
going to be assured that staff has talked to each Commissioner individually
about what the intent of the ordinance is, what they're trying to do, get the
Commissioners' comments individually so that the lawyer working on it has some
idea of what is wanted. This will also
give the Board a heads-up that an ordinance is coming so they aren't at a
meeting seeing it and not knowing what it is.
A public hearing for an ordinance should be the time for the public to
come in and comment and for the Board to make any needed tweaks on it and
discuss it in an open forum.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
Mr.
Abel inquired what the pleasure of the Board is for the meeting on the 25th of
this month, whether they want it virtual, a combination, or possibly held at
the School Board. Chairman Zembower responded he is fine talking to the School
Board. He would also like to see the
measurements of the BCC chambers and whether that is within the CDC
guidelines. He would like to get back to
in person sooner rather than later. He
inquired what challenges there will be if they move things over to the School
Board's facility. The Chairman requested
that Mr. Abel let each Commissioner know that as soon as possible. Mr. Abel advised he will try to get all of those
ideas vetted out by the end of this week.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA
Katrina Shadix, 1133 Covington Street, spoke in regards to the City
of Oviedo asking for certain areas to be cut out of the Seminole County bear
management area. She strongly advises against
cutting out any areas. Just because the
council members are not seeing the bears sighting posts on the social media in
no way means bears aren't in those areas.
-------
Commissioner Lockhart
stated she would like to allow folks who are calling in to make presentations
to the Board to be able to have access to the video because they may have a
picture or something they want to show as an example. She inquired where they are on that ability. Clint Patterson, ITS manager, advised they
brought people in today so people could share video and nobody turned the video
on.
-------
Chairman Zembower stated the Board has previously received a copy of
the Board policies and procedure that they have been talking about for some
time now. He requests that everyone
responds to the County Manager and County Attorney on any questions, changes,
suggestions, or ideas so they can get consensus on the policies and procedures
by the October meeting.
-------
Listing of Speakers and Final Registrants received and filed.
-------
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman
declared the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:_____________________________Clerk___________________________Chairman
kf/cc