BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
August 14, 2018
The following is a non-verbatim transcript
of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, August
14, 2018, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE
COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD,
FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman
John Horan (District 2)
Vice
Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner
Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)
Clerk of the Court and Comptroller Grant
Maloy
County
Manager Nicole Guillet
County
Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerk Terri Porter
Commissioner Dallari introduced Sidney
Brookman, the granddaughter of a retired employee who had worked at the County
for many years, Diane Merkt. He stated
she is active duty military and had been stationed in Syria and Kuwait for the
last seven months and that she celebrated her 21st birthday during
that time.
Pastor Jim Lynch, East Coast Believers
Church, Oviedo, gave the invocation. Ms.
Brookman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
The
Business Spotlight video for O2B Kids was presented.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1 – 2018-0863
Motion
by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve a
Proclamation recognizing Sergeant Bobby J. Draughon,
United States Army, as the August 2018 Veteran of the Month.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
Sergeant Draughon
addressed the Board to express his appreciation.
-------
Commissioner Constantine advised that the City of Altamonte
Springs became another city in Seminole County designated as a Purple Heart
City. The City Administration asked him
to extend their thanks to Ed Burford, Veterans
Services Officer, for all his hard work and effort. Mr. Burford
addressed the Board to say thank you. He
noted that the City of Oviedo has indicated they will become a Purple Heart
City on November 5. He noted the City of
Sanford and the School Board also want to be recognized as Purple Heart
entities.
Sheriff Dennis Lemma addressed the Board to congratulate Sgt. Draughon. He thanked
him for his service to his country, and his efforts and generosity toward the
members of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office.
-------
Agenda Item #2 – 2018-0877
Sheriff Lemma was in attendance to accept a
Resolution in support of designating a segment of Maitland Boulevard as Deputy
Matt Miller Memorial Boulevard.
Sheriff Lemma stated that Deputy Miller
spent his entire adult life protecting the community. He noted they were assigned to the same unit
to serve in the United States Marine Corps.
He talked about Deputy Miller and his time at the Sheriff’s Office. He then publicly thanked and recognized State
Representative Bob Cortes and stated he has been a great friend to law
enforcement for decades. He explained
that Representative Cortes had told him that he wanted to do everything he
could to ensure that the legacy of this hero is always remembered. Sheriff Lemma explained why Representative
Cortes was unable to attend the presentation today.
Sheriff Lemma introduced Lt. Pete Brenenstuhl who was Deputy Matt Miller’s lieutenant when
the tragic accident occurred. Lt. Brenenstuhl addressed the Board and spoke about Deputy
Miller’s 24-year career at the Sheriff’s Office. He stated that the deputy was a firm believer
and dedicated to the concept of traffic safety, so it is only appropriate that
a roadway be named after him due to his lifetime efforts to keep the roadways
safe. The Lieutenant noted Deputy Miller
is survived by his wife, brother, and younger sister, and the fellow members of
the traffic units and expressed their appreciation for recognizing Deputy
Miller.
Commissioner Constantine noted this was
part of SB 382 which designated a number of different streets throughout
Florida.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to
approve appropriate Resolution #2018-R-105 supporting the honorary designation
of a memorial marker to be placed on Maitland Boulevard, between Magnolia Homes
Road and SR 434, as “Deputy Matt Miller Memorial Boulevard.”
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Agenda Item #3 – 2018-0874
Motion
by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve appropriate
Resolution #2018-R-106 recognizing the many contributions of Harold “Harry” W.
Barley to MetroPlan and the citizens of Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
Harry Barley, retiring Executive Director
of MetroPlan Orlando, addressed the Board and spoke about his time at MetroPlan
and the long-standing relationships he’s had with the members of the
Commission, the County Manager, County Attorney, and staff. He said he leaves a very talented staff and
he is grateful that board made an excellent choice in choosing his successor,
Gary Huttmann.
He concluded by saying it has been an honor and pleasure to serve the
citizens of Central Florida and thanked the Board for their partnership.
-------
Agenda Item #4 – 2018-0876
Patrick McCormack, outgoing President of
the Florida Association of County Attorneys (FACA), addressed the Board and stated
he asked to come and present the award to County Attorney Bryant
Applegate. He noted they had presented
it at the FACA seminar at the end of June, but he wanted an opportunity to
address this Commission and their constituents.
He explained the outgoing president gets to give an award for any
purpose under the County Attorney topic.
This is in recognition and in keeping with the theme of service and
courage in the face of very serious challenges.
He stated with Mr. Applegate struggling through these challenges with
his family and his office staff, and stepping up in the face of those
challenges to serve the Board of County Commissioners and Seminole County, it was
really an inspiration for the County Attorneys’ offices around the state. He added it reflects well on the County
Manager and this Board because they ultimately set the standard and the expectation
for performance, professionalism, and grit in stepping up to challenges and getting
through, because there is a public service job to get through and it has to be
done. He also recognized by name the
staff in the County Attorney’s Office and stated that as a team, they had to
step up during this very difficult time period.
Mr. McCormack presented the 2018 Florida
Association of County Attorneys President’s Award to the Seminole County
Attorney A. Bryant Applegate. Mr.
Applegate thanked Mr. McCormack and expressed that this award is really to his
office staff. He talked about the health
crises that he and his family endured and how his office stepped up to the
plate. He opined he has one of the best
County Attorney offices in the state of Florida and thanked his wife, Lynn, who
has been at his side through it all. He
added his father was a bricklayer and taught him what hard work and dedication
were all about and noted he also served his country in Patton’s Third Army. Mr. Applegate thanked the Commission saying
they should be proud of what they have accomplished in this county. He added he has been blessed with all kinds
of recoveries and thanked them for all the support he has received over the
last year and a half. Chairman Horan
spoke about the respect and deference Mr. Applegate receives statewide and
thanked Mr. McCormack and the County Attorney’s team.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
County
Manager Nicole Guillet advised there are two additions to the Consent Agenda;
Items 5A and 18A are both related to the Medical Examiner contract with
District 5. Also there is an addition to
the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, #22A, the Settlement Agreement with
Serco. Commissioner Carey added for the
benefit of the public, the Meals on Wheels funding allocation has been
corrected (Item #6).
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition to the Consent Agenda items and public input was closed.
-------
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to authorize and approve the following:
Community Services
Business Office
5. Approve
participation in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program in which FDLE has set aside $122,750
for use by all units of government within Seminole County; authorize the
Chairman to execute the Certificate of Participation naming Olivette Carter as
the coordinator for the countywide application(s); and authorize the Chairman
to execute any supporting documentation as may be required for the
application(s). (2018-0878)
5A. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Interlocal Agreement between Citrus County, Hernando County, Lake County,
Marion County, Seminole County, and Sumter County for cost-share of Medical
Examiner Services and related matters in the amount of $1,125,546. (2018-0903)
Community Assistance Division
6. Approve the recommended funding allocations to the Seminole County
Bar Associations/Legal Aid Society ($21,870), Boys & Girls Clubs ($49,208),
Midway Safe Harbor ($18,225), IMPOWER ($33,732), Meals on Wheels ($135,000), SafeHouse ($76,500), Catholic Charities ($36,509), Kids
House ($81,000), Recovery House ($43,740), Rescue Outreach Mission ($58,320),
Christian Sharing Center ($67,500), Early Learning Coalition ($180,000), and
True Health ($45,000), for Community Services Agency (CSA) Partnership Grant
funds in the total amount of $846,604 for FY 2018/19; and authorize the Chairman to execute the CSA
Agency Agreements upon agency execution. (2018-0879)
Development Services
Planning & Development Division
7. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute two (2) Satisfaction of Liens in the
amounts $4,050 and $3,150 totaling $7,200 for Code Enforcement Board Case #15-11–CEB,
at 401 Basewood Lane, Altamonte Springs, Tax Parcel #07-121-30-503-0000-0400,
owned by Shilo Eason III. (2018-0813)
8. Authorize the Chairman to execute a
Satisfaction of Pool Abatement Lien in the amount of $1,244.27 associated with
the property located at 2705 Teak Place, Lake Mary, filed against Wells Fargo
Financial System FL Inc. (2018-0857)
9. Approve the plat for the Rivard
Estates subdivision containing two (2) lots on 2.32 acres zoned A-1
(Agriculture), located on the south side of Vihlen Road,
east of Crown Colony Way; Rossell and Ola Walker,
Applicants. (2018-0824)
10. Approve the plat for
the Dark Horse Farm subdivision containing one (1) lot on 20.18 acres zoned A-5
(Rural Zoning Classification/Rural Subdivision), located on the south side of CR 426, one-fourth mile southwest
of Pine Hill Boulevard; Jennifer Cannon, Applicant. (2018-0880)
11. Approve the plat for the Riverbend at Cameron
Heights subdivision containing 176 lots on 58.46 acres zoned PD (Planned
Development), located on Cameron
Avenue, approximately one-fourth mile north of SR 46 and west of SR 415; D.R
Horton, Applicant. (2018-0881)
Public Works
Engineering Division
12. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-107 and
authorize the Chairman to execute a Subordination of County Utility Interests
with FDOT (State of Florida Department of Transportation), subordinating
utility interests and rights for property in conjunction with improvements to SR
429, the Wekiva Parkway Project. (2018-0853)
13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
an acceptance of a Public Purpose Quitclaim Deed and a Florida Department of
Transportation/Seminole County Bill of Sale relating to an historic bridge for
the Lake Monroe-Wayside Drive Park. (2018-0814)
14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
an Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Lake Mary
relating to administration of the County's share of funds under the One-Cent
Local Government Infrastructure Surtax for Transportation Improvement Projects
in the amount of $2,650,000. (2018-0864)
Resource Management
Budget & Fiscal Management
Division
15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
a Grant Agreement with the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management,
in acceptance of $990,000 for Hurricane Shelter Retrofit Projects; and appropriate
Resolution #2018-R-108 implementing the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-072
through the Public Safety Grant Fund in the amount of $990,000 to establish
funding for School Shelter Retrofit Projects. (2018-0861)
16. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2018-R-109 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR)
#18-073 through the 2001 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund in the amount of
$190,140 for the construction of the Bear Lake Drainage Improvement Project. (2018-0856)
17. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution 2018-R-110 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR)
#18-075 in the amount of $28,420 through the General Fund to appropriate grant
funding for the purchase of Albert Sensors Network Monitoring hardware and software
including installation, and one year of maintenance and monitoring services. (2018-0882)
18. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2018-R-111 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR)
#18-076 through the General Fund in the amount of $69,374 for reimbursement of
Hurricane Irma expenditures to the Sports Complex operating budget. (2018-0870)
18A. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2018-R-104 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR)
#18-078 through the General Fund Reserves in the amount of $188,952; and an
Agreement for Payment of Startup Costs for Medical Examiner Services with
Medicus Forensics, P.A. (2018-0899)
Purchasing & Contracts
Division
19. Approve Amendment #2 to Work Order #1 (Grace
Lake and Myrtle Lake Watershed Management Model Upgrade and Flood Reduction
Alternative Development) under PS-0121-15/RTB, Subdivision Rehabilitation
Program Consultant Services Agreement, with Singhofen
& Associates, Inc., Orlando, in the amount of $23,384.17; and authorize the
Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Work Order Amendment. (2018-0851)
20. Approve Work Order #4 (Final Design and Post
Design Services for Lake Howell Lane Bridge Replacement) under PS-9983-15/RTB,
Master Services Agreement (MSA) for Structural Engineering Consultant Services
to Atkins North America, Inc., Orlando, in the amount of $248,319.71; and
authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Work Order. (2018-0846)
21. Approve the ranking list, authorize staff to
negotiate rates in accordance with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the
Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing
& Contracts Division to execute one (1) Master Services Agreement (MSA) for
PS-1920-18/RTB, CEI Services for New Oxford Road Widening and U.S. 17-92 at
Five Points Project; Estimated Term Usage of $1,048,375. (2018-0860)
22. Award IFB-603158-18/TLR, Term Contract for
Solid Waste and Recycling Services to WCA of Florida, LLC, Orange City, for the
estimated annual amount of $61,211.30; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts
Division to execute the Agreement. (2018-0827)
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
22A. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a
proposed Settlement Agreement with Serco, Inc. for $91,522.18 in full
settlement of all claims for damages of any kind, arising from or related to
the Fleet Management and Maintenance Services Agreement, RFP-601340-12/BJC. (2018-0892)
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT
AGENDA
Clerk
& Comptroller’s Office
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the following:
23. Approve
Expenditure Approval Lists dated July 9, 16 and 23, 2018; and Payroll Approval
Lists dated July 12 and 26, 2018. (2018-0867)
Districts 1, 2,
3, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
The
Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptroller’s
“Received and Filed”:
1. Florida Public Service
Commission Order #PSC-2018-0318-PCO-EI approving Florida Power & Light
Company’s Mid-Course Corrections and Associated Tariffs; Docket #20180007-EI,
Issued June 22, 2018.
2. Florida Public Service
Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0324-CO-EI approving revisions to
lighting service contract; Duke Energy Florida, LLC; Docket #20180089-EI,
Issued June 26, 2018.
3. Florida Public Service
Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0347-CO-EQ approving renewable energy
tariff and standard offer contract; Florida Power & Light Company; Docket
#20180083-EQ, Issued July 13, 2018.
4. Florida Public Service
Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0348-CO-EI approving change in rate
used to capitalize allowance for funds used during construction; Florida Power
& Light Company, Docket #20180038-EI, Issued July 16, 2018.
5. Florida Public Service
Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0352-CO-EQ approving amended Standard
Offer Contract, Schedule COG-2; Duke Energy Florida, LLC; Docket #20180073-EQ,
Issued July 19, 2018.
6. Engagement Letter dated
July 24, 2018 from the County Attorney’s Office to Broad and Cassel, LLP for
legal opinions and litigation services as/when assigned.
7. Seminole County Port
Authority (SCOPA) Budget for FY 2018/19.
8. Educational System
Impact Fee Vesting Certificate #18-01800011 for Hideaway Cove.
9. Infrastructure in
Right-of-Way Maintenance Agreement for Bay Meadows Road with Bay Meadow Farms
at Longwood Homeowners Association, Inc.
10. Developers Commitment Agreement #17-20500043,
Home 2 Suites & Holiday Inn Express PD, Michael Spears and James Grodecki,
CO TRS FL NAV INV LLC.
11. Addendum #3 to the Cameron Heights PD related
to Tract G (Village G) Development Order (which represents a revision to D.O.
#04-23000009 issued May 10, 2005); and Amendment #2 to Developers Commitment
Agreement #18-20500007; American Land Investments of Cameron Avenue, LLC.
12. Addendum #1 to Developers Commitment Agreement
#18-20500024, East Lake Drive PD Minor Amendment, Strong Intergroup
Corporation.
13. Development Orders #18-30000041, 1061 Halsey
Avenue, Nabot LLC; #18-30000042, 7453 Betty Street,
Danelle and Michael Dannhardt; #18-30000043, 1370
Windy Ridge Court, Martin Dortants; #18-30000044, 401
Sandy Hill Drive, Deborah LeGrand; #18-30000045, 1360 Chessington
Circle, Kerry and Stacy Bobo; #18-30000046, 1285 Seminole Avenue, Son Driven
Inv., LLC; #18-30000048, 149 Hattaway Drive, John Zincone and Jeannette Rosales-Zincone;
and #18-30000049, 1244 Erik Court, Thomas and Danielle Mirisola.
14. Denial Development Orders #18-30000039, 1420
Roosevelt Avenue, H&M Realty INV., LLC; and #18-30000047, 83 Sweetbriar
Branch, Jeffrey and Patricia Gerlitz.
15. Bill of Sale accepting the water and sewer
system for the project known as Clifton Park Phase 2.
16. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and
wastewater services with Annabell Property, LLC for
the project known as Estates at Savannah Park Lot 3.
17. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and
wastewater services with M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC for the project known as
Hideaway Cove.
18. Warranty Deed with Concept Development, Inc.
(Grantor) for Oviedo Commercial right-of-way dedication.
19. Performance Bond #CMS0330160 (Road, Streets,
Drainage) in the amount of $84,512.40 and Final Plat for the project known as
Parkdale Place; Park Square Enterprises, LLC.
20. Performance Bond #1067984 (Road, Streets,
Drainage) in the amount of $257,542.50 for the project known as Towns at White
Cedar; M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC.
21. Maintenance Bond #60126197 (Water and Sewer
Facilities) in the amount of $24,976.13 and Rider for the project known as
Clifton Park Phase 2; Beazer Homes, LLC.
22. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Suncoast
Athletics Sports Group, Inc. for the 2018 Florida State All Star Games.
23. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Perfect
Game USA, Inc. for the 2018 Super25 National Championship 14U/17U.
24. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Florida
Half Century Amateur Softball Association, Inc. for the July 50s Senior
Softball Tournament.
25. Parks Contracts for Services with Matthew
Clark, Robert Markos, McKinley Tinny, Susan Dodd, and Matthew Gregory.
26. Tennis Developmental Instructor Agreements
with Matthew Gregory, and Assistant Tennis Pro Agreement with Daniel Hall.
27. Unauthorized Commitment Approval Memorandum
dated July 23, 2018 from Fire Department requesting permission to process an
order for refurbishment of a reserve rescue in the amount of $48,630 to become
a new dive unit.
28. Work Order #35 to PS-0009-15 with Pegasus
Engineering, Inc.
29. Work Order #9 to PS-0157-15 with S2L, Inc.
30. Change Order #1 to Work Order #14 to
CC-0559-15 with Central Florida Environmental Corp.
31. Change Order #1 to Work Order #2 to
RFP-1294-17 with Pat Lynch Construction.
32. Change Order #1 to Work Order #3 to
RFP-1294-17 with Blackstreet Enterprises.
33. Work Order #7 to RFP-1294-17 with M&J
Enterprises International, Inc.
34. Closeout to CC-1369-17 with Dager Construction.
35. Work Order #3 to CC-1391-17 with P&S
Paving, Inc.
36. Closeout to CC-1420-17 with Carr & Collier, Inc.
37. Change Order #3 to CC-1453-17 with BSE
Construction Group.
38. Closeout to CC-1453-17 with Blackstreet Enterprises.
39. Change Order #1 to CC-1498-17 with Carr and Collier, Inc.
40. PS-1566-17 Master Services Agreement for SCADA
with Carollo Engineers, Inc.; Ranking List approved
by the BCC on May 22, 2018.
41. Amendment #1 to Work Order #78 to PS-8148-12
with Keith & Schnars, P.A.
42. Work Order #27 to PS-8286-13 with Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
43. Amendment #8 to Work Order #1 to RFP-8721-13
with VHB Miller Sellen.
44. Closeout to Work Order #12 to CC-9184-13 with
Driveways, Inc.
45. Amendment #1 to Work Order #2 to PS-9464-14
with GAI Consultants, Inc.
46. Second Amendment to IFB-602239-15 with Herc Rentals Inc.
47. IFB-603176-18 Term Contract with Fausnight Stripe and Line, Inc.
48. Bids as follows:
IFB-603158-18 from Waste Management
Inc. of Florida; Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.; WCA of Florida, LLC; Advanced
Disposal Services Solid Waste Southeast, Inc.; DisposAll,
Inc.; Waste Connections of Florida;
BID-603212-18 from Hydra-Stop LLC;
Team Industrial Services, Inc.; TWC Services, Inc. (Notice of No Bid – not in
their scope of work);
RFP-603187-18 from Friends of the
Library; Library Systems and Services; and
BID-603222-18
from Lab Products, Inc.
Sheriff’s
Office
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the
following:
24. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute the Certifications and Assurances form
for the Grant Application to the U.S. Department of Justice for the Edward
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for FY 2018; and authorize the Sheriff to
sign future documents related to the grant for the submission process. (2018-0862)
Districts 1, 2,
3, and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF
BRIEFINGS
Agenda Item #25 – 2017-0419
The Budget
Transfer Status Report was presented for informational purposes only. Commissioner Carey indicated the Board used
to see this report at the second meeting of the month or at least once a
quarter. Chairman Horan asked how often
they see them. County Manager Nicole
Guillet advised they are several months behind now but they will get back on
schedule; there have been a lot of changes in the office. Commissioner Dallari said to get back on
track, he is requesting that the appropriate staff brief the Board
individually.
DISTRICT
REPORTS
District
5
Commissioner Carey reported there has been a lot of news lately about the SunPass accounts. They received word that FDOT will be processing all of those transactions to the Central Florida Expressway Authority by the end of this week so that on Monday they can start fresh. The CFEA board has made the determination that they will not be processing them all at once. They will process them over a period of time so they don’t hit some of their larger customers all at one time, and they will be working directly with them to make sure there are no negative impacts with those transactions. Also, they have opened the first reload lane where people can just drive up and reload their E-Pass accounts at SR 408 and Conway. They have since opened two more; one is at Forest Lake and SR 429 and the other is at John Young Parkway and SR 417. She advised they have been a great success.
Commissioner Carey stated they also have a great partnership with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. They will be rolling out a project called Visit Tollpass, a pilot project they will be running from September through December. It will be a placard that will be used for vacationing families for toll transactions. They can pay for a placard that will be like a transponder and they will be billed when they turn it in. If they don’t turn it in, there will be an additional $10 fee and they will get a bill after their holiday is over.
-------
Commissioner Carey noted at the Sanford Airport Authority meeting this week, they had some continuing great news. July of this year broke all-time records for passenger service.
-------
Commissioner Carey advised there will be a ribbon cutting at Seminole High School this week to celebrate the Seminole High School Career Building and Aviation program. There is a partnership with the school to help encourage kids to get into aviation. She reminded Allegiant has opened a training facility here and as the airport continues to grow, it is important that they try to encourage children to enter that as a career choice.
-------
On January 26, 2019 they will be celebrating Aviation Day, and Commissioner Carey said she would encourage everybody to put that on their calendars.
-------
Commissioner Carey advised that also at the CFEA meeting, there was some discussion about a national air show that is looking to come to their airport in 2020. She opined it takes a long time to plan an event like this, and they are talking about having a night show over the lakefront in Sanford. It would be a multiday event and attract hundreds of thousands of people to the community which is a great economic opportunity.
District
1
Commissioner Dallari reported there was a community meeting last week to update the residents along I-4 about the Grace Lake basin. He thought staff and the consultant did a very good job. He believes they need more information out there because the longer they stayed, people continued to ask more and more questions, and he wants to encourage the citizens to reach out to not just the Board but to County staff if they have any questions or concerns. He knows that Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, and his team are talking to the St. Johns River Water Management District to try and figure out what can be done prior to a storm. He indicated one of the questions that came about is they wanted to have some dialogue with Emergency Management and he wants to make sure that the citizens understand how all that works. He requested there be some outreach from Alan Harris’ group regarding that. He said he thinks they still need to have another community meeting out there once more information does come about.
-------
Commissioner Dallari questioned the status of the Oxford Road workshop because he does not see it on his calendar. Ms. Guillet responded that the Board had decided that a workshop was not necessary. Staff and the Applicant were going to get together to work out some of the outstanding details and they did that last week. Commissioner Dallari stated he just wants to make sure that project is not stagnant because it has been taking years. Ms. Guillet advised it has to go to the Planning Commission in September and the Board will see it after that.
District
3
Commissioner Constantine noted that the LYNX board met on July 26 and he wanted to report that one of the changes that has been made is a recommendation by that board to have an in-house attorney. The current situation will stay in effect over the next year but they are putting together essentially an RFP on that particular position. It would come back to the board and suggest just exactly what that in-house attorney would do. In the past there have been some issues with procurement and other things and they wanted to put in an in-house attorney that would be looking out on those particular things.
-------
Commissioner Constantine reported this past weekend, the Indian Culture Society of Orlando had their Independence Day celebration. He was honored to be able to speak at that event. It was at Crane’s Roost and there were well over 2,000 people that attended. He believes today is the 71st anniversary of India’s independence, which was back in 1947.
-------
Commissioner Constantine advised from August 16 through the 18, the Florida Regional Planning Council Association and the Florida League of Cities will be having a mutual meeting.
-------
On Monday evening, August 20, Commissioner Constantine’s charity, Charity Challenge, will be giving out checks. He will provide a list and the amount of those charities. He noted 61 different charities will be getting over $200,000.
-------
Commissioner Constantine announced that on August 25 the Zoo will hold a major fundraiser called A Wild Affair, and he will be going and suggested that each of them find a way to be there.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORT
Chairman Horan stated in regard to the logistics of handling Commissioner Henley’s retirement, he proposes that he will take over his liaison responsibilities on the Tourist Development Board. He was also on Risk Management and the Value Adjustment Board, and the Chairman said he will take those over also until November 19. With regard to constituent service, when constituent inquiries come through Commissioner Henley’s Office, his aide will funnel them through the Chairman, and depending upon what the constituent need is, he will either handle it himself or forward it to the appropriate Commissioner’s Office to handle.
-------
Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to appoint Grey Wilson to an unexpired term on the Parks and Preservation Advisory Board; and appropriate Resolution #2018-R-113 in appreciation to Matthew Criswell for his service on that board.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Horan stated in regard to the homelessness issue that some interesting information has come through. They know what they have accomplished through the homelessness initiative in terms of how many people they have housed and how many are chronically homeless, etc. They now have some anecdotal information as to how they have attacked and accomplished success in the homelessness area in Seminole County. On any given night in Seminole County, unlike 2012 and 2013 when they were really struggling for placement and services, there are literally dozens of empty beds at Pathways to Care, Rescue Mission, Recovery House, etc. He opined they have put a significant dent into the homelessness problem in this county, and it is primarily because of the great work of the Community Services Department and the wonderful work that has been done by their business community through the Strategy Action Board. He added that it is a tremendous success.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports
were received and filed:
1.
Petition
to oppose the major expansion of Wekiva Island signed by: Ann Rusk; Jim Rusk; Kelly Buccieri;
D. Pedrosa; Paige Dixon; Dwayne Campbell; Desiree Carter; Solange Beckford;
Michael Mullen; Michael Riche; Brent Heaton; Darlene Vanderlaan;
Clarence Mark, Jr.; Teresa Resetar; Jacquelyn Hefeli;
Jackeline Rodrigez; Dawn Long; Juan Saldarriaga; Barbara Saldarriaga;
Angela Pennock; Jessica Purtz; Terry Engels; Michael
Wertz; Caitlin Wertz; Bridget Braun; Yadira Santiago; Chase Arthur; Saira Alli; Roselyn Romero; Kevin
Manning; Amanda Click; Cathy Case; Joseph Derr; Gray
Hudson; Michele Hudson; Chris Marino, and Catalin Bradu.
2.
Letter
dated July 20, 2018, from James Stansbury, Chief, Bureau of Community Planning
& Growth, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to Chairman Horan re:
completed review of proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Seminole County;
Amendment #18-2ESR.
3.
Letter
dated July 25, 2018, from Larry Volenec, FPL Regional
Manager, to Chairman Horan re: hurricane preparedness.
4.
Letter
dated July 26, 2018, from Chairman Horan to Russ Pagano re: appreciation for
his service on the Seminole County Industrial Development Authority.
5.
Letter
dated July 26, 2018, from Chairman Horan to Cole Copertino
re: his appointment to the Seminole County Industrial Development Authority for
an unexpired term ending January 1, 2019.
6.
Letter
dated August 2, 2018, from Chairman Horan to Glen Casel,
President & CEO, Community Based Care of Central Florida, Inc., re: support
of the application to the Florida Department of Children and Families to
continue providing child welfare lead agency services in Orange, Osceola, and
Seminole counties.
7.
Notice
dated August 10, 2018 from the City of Oviedo for a Public Hearing re: a PUD
Zoning Map Amendment, changing the zoning district from PUD to PUD, with a
modified plan of development for 22.93 acres located north of Red Bug Lake
Road, west of Oviedo Mall Boulevard, and east of Dovera
Drive.
8.
Letter
dated August 6, 2018, from Traci Houchin, Clerk for
the City of Sanford, with a Notice for a Public Hearing re: annexing property
described as 0.25 acre between West 5th Street and St. Johns Parkway and
between Airport Boulevard West and West Bevier Road; Ordinance #2018-4471.
9.
Letter
dated August 6, 2018, from Traci Houchin, Clerk for
the City of Sanford, with a Notice for a Public Hearing re: annexing property
described as 7.98 acres between SR 46 and Moores
Station Road and between East Lake Mary Boulevard and West Cameron Avenue;
Ordinance #2018-4472.
-------
Chairman
Horan announced they have a work session scheduled and they will start at 10:55
a.m.
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:43 a.m., reconvening
at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the
exception of Deputy Clerk Terri Porter who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Jane
Spencer, who were present at the Opening Session.
PROOFS
OF PUBLICATION
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize the filing
of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into
the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Horan referred to his appointment to the Parks and
Preservation Advisory Committee that he made at the morning session and advised
he would like to correct the record. He
stated he appointed Grey Wilson to take Matt Criswell’s place and referred to
Mr. Wilson as Grey Miller. The Chairman
clarified that he is appointing Grey Wilson to the Parks and Preservation Advisory
Committee.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
SEMINOLE COUNTY
PORT
AUTHORITY BUDGET
PRESENTATION
Agenda Item #26 – 2018-0883
Proof of publication
calling for a public hearing to consider the approval of the Seminole County
Port Authority Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Budget as presented to the Board of County
Commissioners, received and filed.
Andrew
Van Gaale, Port Authority Administrator, addressed
the Board and introduced Cliff Miller, the incoming Chairman of the Seminole
County Port Authority. Mr. Van Gaale stated he is here today to present the Fiscal Year
2018/2019 budget for the Port. He
reported that they had a stellar year and continued to run efficiently and cost
effectively. They are looking at a
profit margin of about 35% for the year.
Mr. Van Gaale announced he does have $700,000
out of the current budget year that will be brought to the Board in
October.
Mr.
Van Gaale reviewed the FY 2018/2018 budget, which is
contained in the Agenda Memorandum. He
pointed out that the total budget is $4,643,110, which breaks down to budgeted
operational revenue projected to be $1,984,114 and operational expenditures
predicted to be $1,747,875. That leaves
them with a projected profit of $235,000 for the following year. Out of that budget, they do have another $700,000
budgeted and committed for the Seminole County General Fund for September of
2019. He talked about the funds in the
budget for continued capital improvements.
Commissioner
Dallari asked Mr. Van Gaale to talk about the
stormwater projects and whether they are on mark and projected correctly. Mr. Van Gaale
stated the projects and the engineers’ estimates are right on the money. He advised they got hung up from the
hurricane last year, which delayed the project.
They have a little cleanup and are just moving into Phase 2. It is about a $900,000 project and is right
on the engineers' estimates. With that,
that will complete all of the stormwater.
He stated the bidding is tough. A
lot of companies are out there and not interested; so they are getting two to
three qualified bidders. They are taking
some risks on new companies, which have proven to be an interesting ride.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the Seminole County Port Authority
Fiscal year 2018/2019 Budget as presented to the Board of County Commissioners,
as described in the proof of publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
CHARTER
OAKS/TAMARAK WALL RECONSTRUCTION MSBU CLOSURE
and
LAKE
MYRTLE RESTORATION MSBU CLOSURE
Agenda Items #27 and #28 – 2018-0885 and 2018-0886
Proof of publication
calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance amending Chapter 160 by
deleting Article XVIII of Part 7, Charter Oaks/Tamarak
Reconstruction Municipal Services Benefit Unit, as the purpose of the MSBU has
been fulfilled and all assessments levied for funding the capital improvement
(Wall Construction) within the unit have been collected and proof of
publication calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance amending
Chapter 160 by deleting Article XXIV of Part 7, Lake Myrtle Restoration
Municipal Services Benefit Unit, as the purpose of the MSBU has been fulfilled,
received and filed.
Joe
Saucer, MSBU Project Coordinator, addressed the Board to present the requests
as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.
Ms. Saucer stated the MSBU Program coordinates funding for
community-based improvements such as wall construction and lake restoration
through special assessments districts referred to as Municipal Service Benefit
Units (MSBU). After the purpose of an
MSBU has been fulfilled and all related assessment liens are satisfied, an amendment
to Chapter 160 of the Seminole County Code is required to document the closed
status of the MSBU.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine,
seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance #2018-23 amending Chapter
160 by deleting Article XVIII of Part 7, Charter Oaks/Tamarak
Reconstruction Municipal Services Benefit Unit, as described in the proof of
publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari,
seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt Ordinance #2018-24 amending Chapter
160 by deleting Article XXIV of Part 7, Lake Myrtle Restoration Municipal
Services Benefit Unit, as described in the proof of publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
2018 NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL
Agenda
Item #29 – 2018-0887
Proof of publication
calling for a public hearing to consider adopting the 2018 Non-Ad Valorem
Assessment Roll with Certification provided to the Seminole County Tax Collector,
received and filed.
Sarah
Benoit, MSBU Program, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in
the Agenda Memorandum. Ms. Benoit stated
the 2018 Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Roll that is being presented today is a
consolidation of annual billable rate assessments and capital installment
billings associated with all MSBUs. The
variable assessment rates assigned for 2018 were authorized by the Board by
resolution on June 12, 2018. As required
by Florida Statute, a notice of proposed assessment was mailed to the owners of
all properties included in the 2018 assessment roll. The final roll is due to the Tax Collector by
September 15 and will include minor updates to accommodate property record
changes initiated by the Property Appraiser and residential solid waste service
option changes.
Sharon
Carveth, 3214 Tall Tree Lane, addressed the Board and
stated that she has never complained about the increased cost for garbage
collection or when the County went to twice a week pickup even though she likes
twice a month pickup. Ms. Carveth noted that she has lived in her house for 26 years
and never had a problem except perhaps in the summer when a relief driver could
not find her home. Since last October,
she has called Solid Waste at least once a week and sometimes twice a week
because they have missed picking up her garbage or missed picking up her
recycling.
Ms.
Carveth stated that she does not know what the
penalty is when they repeatedly miss a collection but she suggested that when
the County renegotiates these contracts that the penalties are not enough to
get Waste Pro to fix the problem.
Chairman Horan determined that Ms. Carveth
lives in District 5. Commissioner Carey
advised that they have staff present who can speak with Ms. Carveth. Ms. Carveth stated
that she and the staff are on a first-name basis. Chairman Horan pointed out that Ms. Carveth has now had wide-spread advertisement as to what
her issue is and he is sure she will get direct attention now. Ms. Carveth
reiterated that she has spoken to staff and they do not know what the problem
is but the problem started last October.
Ms. Guillet advised they will “move it up the chain.” Commissioner Carey took down Ms. Carveth’s address and let her know that a direct call will
go to the vice president of Waste Pro to ensure they don’t miss Ms. Carveth’s garbage pickup.
Commissioner Dallari suggested that if staff is having an issue with
this, they should let the Commissioners know so they can address it in the
contract.
David
Bradley, 1136 Clinging Vine Place, addressed the Board and explained that in
his HOA they still use mercury lights and wondered if the purpose of this item
is to upgrade to LED or whether it is just maintenance. Chairman Horan stated that he believes Mr.
Bradley is in his district and he advised Mr. Bradley that he will address it
with County staff and get back to him personally. Ms. Guillet noted that Mr. Bradley may not be
in an MSBU. Chairman Horan indicated to
Mr. Bradley that he may not be in the MSBU and Commissioner Carey suggested
that he talk to Kathy Moore.
Kathleen
Chiaro, 1866 Long Pond Drive, addressed the Board and
stated she noticed on the mailing that it said “does your solid waste
collection meet your needs.” For her,
the answer is no. Her neighbor came with
her but she is not going to speak. Ms. Chiaro explained that a year or so ago Option Number 1 was
changed and one pickup a week for garbage and one for
recycle was eliminated. It is now two
times a week and one recycle. Ms. Chiaro talked about why for her and many in her subdivision
there is not a need for twice-a-week pickup for garbage. She wondered if they would consider putting
back Option Number 1, one collection a week for garbage and one for recycle,
and have less on their taxes if they have been widowed or single or just a
couple that doesn't have that much generation of garbage.
Chairman Horan thanked
Ms. Chiaro for her comments. He explained that in setting the rates, they
are spread across the county and they are trying to get the best deal for
everyone in the county. The Chairman advised
they will certainly address this issue on Option 1 because she is not the only
one who has brought that to their attention.
Susan Miller Evans,
3420 Holliday Avenue, addressed the Board and stated that she is here today to
talk about the MSBU program. She
received Option 1, which she pays for annually.
She explained that she is entering a complaint today that the waste
management collection is returning collected garbage to the residential
address. They are returning food,
papers, and glass. She has spoken to law
enforcement officials about this, and she would like better service and an
investigation done as to who is doing this.
Chairman Horan confirmed Ms. Evans’ address and indicated she is in
District 3.
Commissioner
Constantine asked Ms. Evans specifically who is doing what. Ms. Evans stated they are collecting the
garbage and she believes they are going through it and then selectively
returning old food. When they collect
the recycle bin for glass, they have brought the glass back. The Chairman asked if they are returning it
to Ms. Evans’ curb. Ms. Evans replied
that she does not care to comment right now.
Commissioner Carey suggested that Johnny Edwards talk with Ms.
Evans. He can hear her complaint and he
can deal with it and she will not have to do it in public. Upon inquiry by Ms. Evans as to Mr. Edwards'
position with the County, Chairman Horan advised that he is the Division
Manager with Environmental Services.
With
regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or
in opposition and public input was closed.
Speaker
Request Forms and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine,
seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve and authorize the Chairman to
execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-112 adopting the 2018 Non-Ad Valorem
Assessment Roll with certification provided to the Seminole County Tax
Collector, as described in the proof of publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
CELERY AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE/
Archie and Debbie Smith
Agenda Item #30 – 2018-0572
Continuation of a
public hearing from March 27, April 10, May 22, June 12, and June 26, 2018, to
consider a request to approve a Resolution vacating and abandoning a remnant
piece of the public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road
Plat Book 1, page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for
property located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and East SR 415, Sanford,
as described in the proof of publication; Archie and Debbie Smith.
Angie Kealhofer, Planning & Development
Division, addressed the Board and advised the Applicant has requested a
continuance to the October 9, 2018, BCC meeting.
With regard to public participation, no one
spoke in support or in opposition to a continuance, and public input was
closed.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to continue
to October 9, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the
request to approve a Resolution vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the
public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1,
page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property
located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and East SR 415, Sanford, as
described in the proof of publication; Archie and Debbie Smith, Applicants.
Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5
voted AYE.
GRANDEVILLE AT
WESTSTATE APARTMENTS
EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
VESTING
DENIAL APPEAL/Matthew Gourlay
Agenda
Item #31 – 2018-0740
Continuation of public hearing from July 24, 2018, to consider
an appeal of the denial of Educational System Impact Fee Vesting for the Grandeville at Weststate
Apartments development located on the north side of West SR 426, one-quarter
mile east of SR 417, as described in the proof of publication; Matthew Gourlay.
Rebecca Hammock, Planning and Development Division Manager,
addressed the Board and advised that the Applicant is requesting a continuance
until the August 28, 2018, BCC meeting so the item can be heard concurrently
with the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone.
Kami
Corbett, Representative for the Seminole County School System, addressed the
Board and stated they do object to the continuance. They see no reason why this appeal of the
denial of the vesting certificate needs to be tied with the Future Land Use Map
Amendment. She explained that County
staff made a determination at the time period when the applications were
required to be submitted, which was back in April. The Applicant filed a timely appeal. Ms. Corbett stated they see no reason to keep
continuing this because effectively what continuing this does is continue out
the timeframe that they have to vest because the Seminole County Code says they
get 18 months from the date of the agreement.
She noted this is the second continuance and reiterated that the School
Board objects to this continuance and suggested the Board uphold their staff’s
recommendation.
Joseph Ranaldi, Executive Director of Operations with the School Board,
addressed the Board and pointed out that at this point they just seem to be
continuing and continuing. Mr. Ranaldi explained that from the standpoint of their
budgeting process and from the standpoint of doing the forecasting, they need
to know and have a level of certainty as to what the collection is going to be
for the impact fees. He stated that at
this point, they do not understand the rationale behind the continuance and
would like to see the continuance not be approved.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience
spoke in support or in opposition to a continuance and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Dallari explained that in the past they have always
allowed any applicant to have two continuances.
They have always done that and he sees no reason why not to do it.
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to continue to
August 28, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the appeal of
Educational System Impact Fee Vesting for the Grandeville
at Weststate Apartments development located on the
north side of West SR 426, one-quarter mile east of SR 417, as described in the
proof of publication, Matthew Gourlay, Appellant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
CAMERON
HEIGHTS VILLAGE H PD
MAJOR
AMENDMENT/Theodore Takvorian
Agenda
Item #32 – 2018-0029
Proof of publication calling for a
public hearing to consider a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD
(Planned Development) for approximately 4.38 acres, located on the west side of
East Lake Mary Boulevard, approximately 700 feet north of East State Road 46,
Theodore Takvorian, received and filed.
Matt Davidson, Planning and Development
Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda
Memorandum. Mr. Davidson explained that
the Applicant is requesting a Major Amendment to the Cameron Heights Planned
Development (PD) in order to permit access to East Lake Mary Boulevard (SR
415), which was originally prohibited in the Development Order from 2005. The Applicant has submitted the proposed
access location to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and has received
preliminary approval. Public Works has
also reviewed the proposed access location and has no objection.
Mr.
Davidson advised that the subject site is located in Village H of the Cameron
Heights PD that permits commercial uses listed in the C-1 Retail Commercial
district. The Applicant is not proposing
any changes to the Development Order other than allowing for access from
Village H to East Lake Mary Boulevard.
Mr. Davidson reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval. The proposed PD
amendment is compatible with the surrounding trend of development in the area
and is consistent with both the allowable use and intensity provisions of the
previously approved Planned Development Future Land Use designation. Staff is also recommending approval.
Momtaz Barq,
Terra Max Engineering, addressed the Board and stated they have gone through
the staff report and agree with the findings and recommendations and are
available to answer any questions.
With regard to public participation, no one
in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance
#2018-25 enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned
Development) and approve the associated Development Order (Addendum #4 to the
Cameron Heights PD) and Master Development Plan for approximately 4.38 acres,
located on the west side of East Lake Mary Boulevard, approximately 700 feet
north of East State Road 46, as described in the proof of publication, Theodore
Takvorian.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
ORANGE AND
MARKHAM LOTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SMALL SCALE
FUTURE
LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONE/Michael Elias
Agenda
Item #33 – 2018-0020
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a
Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned
Development (PD), and a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned
Development) for a two-lot single-family residential subdivision on 1.6 acres,
located at the southwest corner of Markham Road and Orange Boulevard, Michael Elias,
received and filed.
Joy Giles, Planning and Development Division, addressed the
Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. Ms. Giles explained that the item came before
the Board on June 26, 2018, and was denied with a vote of two in favor and two
in opposition of the request. On July
24, 2018, a motion was passed to allow this item to come back to the Board for
a rehearing on the next available public hearing agenda.
Ms. Giles stated the Applicant proposes to develop the subject
property as a single-family residential subdivision of two lots with a maximum
density of 1.4 units per net buildable acre.
She reported that the subject property is within the Wekiva River
Protection Area (WRPA) and the East Lake Sylvan Transitional Area. The Applicant has demonstrated compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan Policy FLU 12.2 by limiting the impervious surface
area to a maximum of 7,500 square feet per lot.
Ms. Giles advised that the proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 30
of the Land Development Code as well as being compatible with the surrounding
trend of development in the area and noted that staff is recommending approval.
Katrina Shadix, 1421 Brigham Loop, addressed the Board and stated
that she was approached several months ago by a concerned citizen who was very
much against this zoning change. She
talked about how this area is used as a corridor for bears. Ms. Shadix stated
when she spoke at the League of Women Voters’ debate, this rezoning was one of
the top concerns of the people in the audience.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience
spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
Commissioner Constantine confirmed with Ms. Giles that the
Applicant is present. The Commissioner
advised that at the last meeting he voted against this because he felt that
they could build one unit on the property; that it was in the Wekiva Protection
Area; and that the plan was to do it with septic tanks instead of water and
sewer. He felt that was a formula for
the County to have to go back and spend taxpayer’s money to fix it in the long
run. Commissioner Constantine asked
whether they explored that opportunity and wondered why, if they can’t do sewer
and have to use septic, they would not just allow one unit instead of two. Ms. Giles replied that Policy SAN 1.1 allows
for septic to be on the site because of the distance of the force main. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Giles
that they are going to connect to Seminole County water; that the only issue
was the sewer because of the distance, size, and the requirement of a force
main; and that whether they have either one or two lots, they will have a
septic tank.
Commissioner Constantine stated he does not see this as a major
problem per se but he believes they are setting a continuing precedent that
they are allowing septic tanks in the Wekiva Protection Area, which he thinks
in the long run is a formula for disaster.
They should do everything they can to stop that as soon as they possibly
can. He noted that one to two units is
not going to make a huge difference in the world; but again, the problem is
that they continually do this and it adds up over and over again. He is against in principle the fact that they
are now adding another unit and putting in septic tanks.
Commissioner Dallari requested that they hear from the
Applicant. Larry Poliner,
RCE Consultants and representing the Applicant, addressed the Board to state he
is the engineer of record and offered to answer any questions the Board might
have. Chairman Horan stated he thinks
the question is the practicality of the connection for one or two lines. Mr. Poliner stated
the connection point is pretty far away and is a very high pressure pipe. It is not conducive to that type of
development for just two lots. He
reported they have already spoken to Environmental Services and they agree.
Commissioner Carey stated she had discussions with Johnny
Edwards and the Utility Department and the recommendation from staff is that
they connect to water and they have the two septic tanks. This is within the bear management area and
is also an odd lot. It is one of the
last pieces. It backs up to Heathrow,
which is four units per acre. Heathrow
has spoken in support on behalf of this project. There are four units per acre already
approved across the street. Commissioner
Carey pointed out that in all of the larger
subdivisions where water and sewer were readily available, the County has
required them to connect to water and sewer.
This just happens to be an odd lot on the corner. She added that to the east of this property
is 12 units per acre and this project is asking for two lots on 1.6 acres. She believes it is acceptable and does have a
staff recommendation and a unanimous recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Dallari noted Mr. Poliner
spoke about pressure and that it is not feasible to connect to the system and
asked him to explain. Mr. Poliner explained that in regard to connecting to that,
anything is possible if the funds are there.
He added because of the distance, because of the friction losses in the
pipes, and because of the cost to overcome the pressure in the existing pipe,
the lift station would be quite large and quite expensive for just two
lots. Commissioner Constantine
reiterated why he is opposed to this request and Commissioner Carey reiterated
why she thinks this request is reasonable.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance
#2018-26 enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Suburban
Estates to Planned Development, and adopt Ordinance #2018-27 enacting a Rezone
from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) for 1.6 acres, located at
the southwest corner of Markham Road and Orange Boulevard, as described in the
proof of publication, Michael Elias, Applicant; Development Order.
Districts 1, 2, and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Constantine voted NAY.
-------
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 1:18 p.m., reconvening it
at 1:26 p.m.
RIVER CROSS
TEXT AMENDEMTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO AMEND
THE URBAN/RURAL BOUNDARY;
LARGE SCALE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT
AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONE; AND
CHARTER
RURAL BOUNDARY LINE AMENDMENT/Christopher Dorworth
Agenda
Item #34 – 2018-0031
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider
Text Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the Urban/Rural Boundary to
remove 669.4 acres from the East Rural Area; Large Scale Future Land Use Map
Amendment from Rural-5 to Planned Development and a Rezone from A-5 (Rural
Zoning) to PD (Planned Development) and consider removal of the 669.4 acres
from the rural area of the County Charter for a mixed-use development
consisting of 600 single-family residential lots, 270 townhome lots, 500
multifamily units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial uses on
approximately 669.4 acres, located west of CR 419, east of the Econlockhatchee River, and north of the Orange
County/Seminole County line, Christopher Dorworth,
received and filed.
Danette V. Lamb, Court Reporter with Orange Legal, was present.
Chairman Horan briefly discussed the protocol and the procedure
for today’s hearing. Commissioners
Carey, Dallari, and Constantine submitted their ex parte communications (copy
received and filed) into the record.
Commissioner Dallari mentioned that his ex parte communication is on a
jump drive that his staff put together and he will be giving that to the Clerk. Chairman Horan stated he did not take any
personal ex parte communications other than with the Applicant and with
staff. He has had over 100 phone calls,
which have been handled by his assistant, and that is his public disclosure
regarding ex parte contact on this.
Paul Chipok, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the
Board and stated that as legal counsel, he wanted to give the Board an overview
of the process that they will be following today. Mr. Chipok began
the presentation (copy received and filed); and with regard
to Actions Required, he explained there are four considerations that are
on the table. They are the Comprehensive
Plan Rural Boundary Line Amendment, the Charter Rural Boundary Line Amendment,
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment, and the PD Rezoning. Of those four items, the Board will need to
take action on two items tonight. They
are the Comprehensive Plan Rural Boundary Line Amendment and the Comprehensive
Future Land Use Amendment. Mr. Chipok explained that under Chapter 163, a transmittal
hearing is required and then it goes up to the State, the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity. State agencies
would have a chance to comment on the application and would send the comments
back. The Board would then hold an
adoption hearing.
Mr. Chipok displayed the River Cross Transmittal Hearing
Process slide and stated that amendments to Comprehensive Plans are legislative
decisions. He reviewed the Transmittal
Hearing Process regarding denials and pointed out that if the Board chooses not
to transmit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, that is a legislative
decision. An appeal of that denial would
be to the Circuit Court as a de novo hearing under the "fairly debatable
test." If the Board chooses to
approve the transmittal, it would go to the Department of Economic Opportunity
and then their comments would be received back and the Board would hold a
second public hearing to consider adoption after receipt of those
comments. At the adoption hearing, the
two options would be to approve the project or deny the project. If the project was approved, any aggrieved
party would have the opportunity to file a petition for a formal hearing with
the Division of Administrative Hearings.
If the project is denied, it is a legislative decision and appealable to
Circuit Court. Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Dallari, Mr. Chipok explained a de novo
hearing is brand new and the Court would be taking evidence and testimony
itself and it would not just be based on the record of this hearing.
Mr. Chipok stated that legislative action is the formulation of
a general rule of policy. He pointed out
that the decisions on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are reviewed on a
Fairly Debatable Standard of Review and then described that standard. Mr. Chipok informed
the Board that they must base their decisions on competent substantial evidence
and displayed and reviewed the items on the Types of Evidence Deemed to be
Competent Substantial Evidence slide.
With regard to some questions for the Board to consider, he reviewed the
Fundamental Questions in a Legislative Proceeding slide.
Mr. Chipok talked about the differences between the
Comprehensive Plan Urban/Rural Boundary and the 2004 Charter Amendment Boundary
and displayed and reviewed three slides.
He advised that the 2004 Charter Amendment specifically said that the
Board of County Commissioners must approve all changes to the Future Land Use
designations of all rural lands regardless of whether some or all of the rural
lands are located within the municipality.
He explained that if it is in the rural boundary area, the BCC has
control over the land use. He noted that
in the Comprehensive Plan there are specific standards for changing the
Urban/Rural Boundary. The Board may
change the Charter Boundary at their discretion and whenever, in the opinion of
the Board, such change is necessary.
Mr. Chipok concluded by stating the Commissioners are here to
look at the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and determine whether to transmit
them to the State for further review. If
approved, it will come back for an adoption hearing. If denied, that would be the end of the
Board's legislative action and the Comprehensive Plan and the whole package is
deemed to be denied. Mr. Chipok further explained that if the Board denies
transmittal tonight, the Applicant has also requested a specific ordinance to
amend the Rural Charter Boundary Line.
If the Board denies transmittal, they should take up that application
and ordinance and either vote it up or vote it down based on whether the
Commissioners believe such change is necessary at this point in time. The effect of such change, should the Board
approve it, is that it removes that property from the rural boundary line and
puts it in the urban boundary. Then upon
an annexation, a city would have complete control over that property and the
BCC would no longer have control over that area anymore.
Bill
Wharton, Principle Planner with the Planning and Development Division,
addressed the Board to continue the presentation. Mr. Wharton referred to the Applicant Request
slide and reviewed the information regarding the request. He displayed two maps illustrating that the
subject property is located in the East Rural Area of the county and is
assigned a Rural‑5 Future Land Use designation and a Zoning
Classification of A‑5. He then
listed what is allowed in the Rural‑5 Future Land Use designation and
what uses are permitted on lands included in the A‑5 Rural Zoning
District and are located in the rural area of the county where the services are
minimal or nonexistent.
Mr. Wharton
stated that the Applicant is requesting amendments to the text and exhibits in
the Comprehensive Plan to remove the subject property from the East Rural Area
and include it in the Urban Service Area.
The proposed text amendments also include an amendment to the Future
Land Use Element legal description for the rural area. He noted that the proposed development abuts
the Econlockhatchee River on the western side of the
property and the surrounding Future Land Use on the north and east side of the
property is Rural‑5. The west side
is Preservation Managed Lands and the abutting property to the south side is in
Orange County and has a Future Land Use of Rural 1‑10, which is one
residential unit for 10 acres.
The River
Cross Proposed Master Development Plan was displayed. Mr. Wharton advised that the Applicant's
River Cross project proposes a range of densities from 2 dwelling units to a
maximum of 13 dwelling units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6 for
the proposed commercial and office uses.
The project proposes building heights ranging from 35 feet for single‑family
residential to 75 feet for mixed‑use commercial and office. Mr. Wharton explained that the Applicant's
narrative states that 15% of the residential units within the proposed project
will be developed as affordable housing and that the proposed development would
provide a 21st Century employment district through the development of an
innovation district; however the proposed development order and master plan
have no provisions or commitments to ensure the development of affordable
units, nor do the documents specify what income level would be served. The development order and master building
plan do not include requirements of target industries or high tech employment
uses to be built concurrently with the residential uses to ensure and maintain
employment opportunities for a true mixed-use development as stated in the
project narrative. The subject property
contains 311 acres of floodplains, 275 acres of wetlands, and six wildlife
species that are listed as threatened or species of special concern.
The River
Cross Concept Plan map was displayed.
Mr. Wharton stated that the PD Development Order proposes to provide a
minimum of 25% open space and green space on the subject property. The proposed Development Order also states
that the development shall reserve a minimum of 100 acres for permanent
conservation that will be dedicated to the St. Johns River Water Management
District. The subject property is
located within the Econlockhatchee River Corridor
Protection zone and would be required to comply with all development
regulations mandated by the protection zone.
Mr. Wharton
displayed a River Cross map, which depicted the subject property being located
outside of Seminole County's existing utility area, and noted that the
development densities and intensities as requested by the Applicant would
require connection to central water and sewer.
He explained that as part of the requested Urban/Rural Boundary
Amendment, data and analysis is required by the Future Land Use Element
standards for amending the Urban/Rural Boundary to demonstrate the availability
of facilities and services and the orderly, efficient, and cost effective
provision of service. Such analysis, as
outlined in the staff report, was not provided with the application. Mr. Wharton stated that supplying potable
water and sanitary sewer utilities to the site would require crossing the Econlockhatchee River.
Policy FLU 1.10 of the Comprehensive Plan states there shall be no
additional crossing by road, rail, or utility corridors unless three conditions
are met. These conditions are that there
is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed crossing as determined
by the County; that all possible measures to minimize harm to the resources of
the Econlockhatchee River Basin will be implemented;
and that the crossing supports an activity that is clearly in the public
interest as determined by the County.
Mr. Wharton advised that the Application does not demonstrate that these
three conditions have been met.
Mr. Wharton
explained that the transportation analysis for the River Cross PD was prepared
but there are multiple outstanding issues as outlined in the staff report. In addition, the application did not
adequately address how the needed transportation improvements to support the
proposed development would be funded or constructed. He added that it does not appear that any
coordination has occurred with Orange County relating to this. The proposed River Cross Development Order
does not make any commitments with regard to the developer funding,
constructing, or conveying right‑of‑way for the extension of
McCulloch Road. The extension of McCulloch
Road would also require a demonstration of compliance with the same Future Land
Use Policy 1.10 to cross the Econlockhatchee
River. Without the additional
information, the report is incomplete and compliance with the County's
Comprehensive Plan policies related to transportation cannot be established.
Mr. Wharton
stated the proposed PD zoning designation and the associated Master Development
Plan have been evaluated for compatibility with the Land Development Code of
Seminole County in accordance with Chapter 30, Part 25. He reported that the application went through
one review cycle with the Development Review Committee (DRC) where staff
provided comments and questions on the application and the development itself. The Applicant chose not to resubmit to the
Development Review Committee and requested to be placed on the Planning and
Zoning Commission agenda. Because the
Applicant elected not to respond to the DRC comments, the application is
incomplete and the deficiencies in the application submittal preclude a
determination of consistency with the County's Land Development Code
requirements including Section 30.445, the Master Development Plan submittal
requirements, and in Section 30.442, the PD permitted uses.
Mr. Wharton
stated that in addition, the proposed PD zoning designation as submitted
appears incompatible with the surrounding area and the trend of development in
the area. He explained that the proposed
PD with a maximum density of 13 dwelling units per acre, an intensity of 0.60
Floor Area Ratio, and a maximum building height of 75 feet is incompatible with
the surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning designations of Rural-5 and A-5
zoning as well as with the adjacent Orange County Future Land Use designation
to the south of Rural 1-10. Mr. Wharton
advised that the A-5 Rural Zoning Classification permits rural residential uses
and agricultural operations; therefore, the proposed urban uses within the PD
could create conflict with the allowable agricultural uses on surrounding
properties. He stated that the PD
proposes buffers of only 25 feet and 50 feet, which are not sufficient to
create compatibility between land uses and provide a clear separation between
rural and urban uses; thus, the proposed project does not support the
objectives of the PD zoning designation because it does not provide adequate
buffering and transitions to maintain compatibility between the proposed PD and
surrounding uses.
Mr. Wharton
stated the County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element contains
Standards of Review for Comprehensive Plan Amendments as well as standards for
amending the Urban/Rural Boundary and they include demonstration of need,
location analysis, and consistency with goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff has determined
that the Standards of Review for both the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the
standards for amending the Urban/Rural Boundary have not been met as outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan’s summary information report attached as Exhibit 11
in the staff report.
Mr. Wharton
reported the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and
recommended the BCC deny transmittal of the Ordinance to State and Regional
review agencies. Staff finds the
application to be incomplete and the request to be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Code, and incompatible with the trend
of development in the area as detailed in the staff report. Staff recommends that the BCC deny this
request.
Rebecca
Hammock, Planning and Development Division Manager, addressed the Board to
continue the presentation. Ms. Hammock
displayed and reviewed the historical timeframe (from 1987 through 2008) of the
Rural Area‑Urban/Rural Boundary.
The 1987 Seminole County Future Land Use map was displayed. Ms. Hammock pointed out that the City of
Oviedo existed east of the Econ River prior to the 1991 establishment of the
East Rural Boundary and Chuluota existed with its Commercial and Low Density
Future Land Use designations. She then
indicated on the map where the subject property was located and advised that
the Future Land Uses were Conservation and Suburban Estates.
A map depicting the adjacent land uses around the subject
property was displayed. Ms. Hammock
referred to the subject property on the map and explained that to the north is
the River Woods five‑acre development, which is one dwelling unit per
five acres. To the west is LDR, which
has A‑1 zoning and is also a five‑acre development. She pointed out the location of the County's
Preserved Managed Wilderness Area on the map.
She indicated that to the south is Orange County Rural, which is one
dwelling unit per ten acres. Ms. Hammock
displayed the Existing Route to UCF map and advised that based on the improved
roads, as they are today UCF is approximately nine miles from the subject
property.
Ms. Hammock displayed the 1991 East Seminole County Rural Area
Plan slide and pointed out that in 1991 the BCC created the East Rural Area of
Seminole County, with the adoption of the 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive
Plan Update as a planning technique to protect the character of the area as
agricultural and rural residential. She
then reviewed the remaining bullet points listed on the slide. Ms. Hammock stated she thinks it is important
to highlight the two bolded items, which are (1) to ensure the cost‑effective
provision of public services and (2) to discourage urban sprawl and limit urban
uses to eliminate the need for significant investments in capital
improvements. This shows that the County
not only wanted to preserve the rural character of the area but it was also a
business decision on the part of the County.
Ms. Hammock stated that following the 2004 Charter Amendment,
the County commissioned a study that was called the 2006 Rural Character Plan. As part of that study, there were
recommendations regarding transitioning.
Part of that recommendation was the Rural Area Development Standards
which included the Rural Cluster Subdivision.
That was made up of the two components of open space and rural
residential uses. Ms. Hammock stated
that part of the recommendation was for a Cluster Subdivision Option, which was
one dwelling unit per three acres, or Option B, which was one dwelling unit per
one acre. At the time the transition
recommendations were made, in the Transportation Improvements, CR 419 was
slated to be widened but it has since been removed. She pointed out that ultimately the
consultant recommended buffering and the Rural Cluster Subdivision option as
transitions. No incentives were
advocated by the BCC to increase densities.
The audio of a portion of the June 13, 2006, BCC meeting was
played. Ms. Hammock summarized that the
audio was of the June 13, 2006, BCC meeting where the Rural Character Plan was
presented. The purpose of the clip was
to demonstrate that there was never any intent by the Board to increase density
as part of the transition recommendations.
It was always about buffering and the Rural Cluster Subdivision option. Ms. Hammock explained that following the
meeting on June 13, 2006, staff brought the finalized report back to the Board
on September 26, 2006. At that meeting,
staff stated that Transition Area 3, which was the transition area that the
subject property is included within, already transitions and recommended
buffers and the Rural Cluster Subdivision option that is already within the
Land Development Code. With the Cluster
Subdivision option, the lot size is one dwelling unit per one acre. That is the minimum lot size. It is still at the density of the underlying
Rural Future Land Use designation.
Ms. Hammock reported that following the 2006 Rural Charter Plan,
the County focused its planning policy on maximizing the development potential
in the urban area in order to protect the rural area by organizing a
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element in accordance with "How Shall
We Grow?" and strengthen the HIP‑TI Future Land Use
designation. The County created the
Mixed Development Future Land Use designation and the Centers and Corridors
overlay. The County also adopted the
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area in 2011. Ms. Hammock advised that all of these were
put in place in order to create compact land use patterns that discouraged
sprawl and to decrease automobile trips.
Discussion ensued with regard to the adoption of "How Shall We
Grow?"
Ms. Hammock reviewed the three items on the Applicant's Requests
slide and pointed out that if the first application fails the Standards of
Review, the next two applications are moot as you cannot amend the future land
use or the zoning if it does not meet the first standard to amend the
Urban/Rural Boundary. Ms. Hammock
explained the Standards of Review for Amending the Urban/Rural Boundary which
have to affirmatively be met are demonstration of need, location analysis of
amendments, and mandatory consistency with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and Regional plans.
With regard to the Standards of Review, Ms. Hammock highlighted
the information on the Lack of Suitable or Vacant Land in the Urban Area to
Provide Affordable Housing slide. She
pointed out that the Applicant has said that they meet this Standard of Review
because the County lacks affordable housing.
Ms. Hammock advised that is not the standard; the standard is whether
there is a lack of vacant land in the urban area to provide for affordable
housing. Staff has determined that this
Standard has not been affirmatively met.
Ms. Hammock highlighted the information on the Availability of
Facilities and Services and Orderly Efficient and Cost‑Effective
Provision of Service slide and advised this Standard has not been demonstrated
to be affirmatively met for the services of water and sewer, public safety
(fiscal impact to the County for Fire and Police) and transportation (Extension
of McCulloch Road). The outstanding
question is, what is the fiscal impact to the County for extending urban
services and facilities in an area not previously planned for urban services
and facilities.
Ms. Hammock reviewed the various items on the Project Review
Timeline and Meetings slides and then showed the Board some Examples of Project
Timelines for other projects to give them an idea of how long it takes to get
other large projects through the County process. With regard to Urban Sprawl, she explained
the County believes the application, as submitted, is urban sprawl in that it
is requiring an extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient
manner and fails to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.
Ms. Hammock reported that the Applicant states that the project
is in fact not urban sprawl because it proposes a mixed-use development and is
providing affordable housing; however, the proposed Development Order does not
provide a linkage between their residential uses and their nonresidential
uses. They are proposing the majority of
their residential uses within Phase 1 and their nonresidential uses within
Phase 2, but they do not have any requirement within the D.O. for the two to
develop concurrently or to have a ratio of nonresidential and residential
uses. Therefore, it is not truly a
mixed-use development. With regard to
the proposed affordable housing, Ms. Hammock stated the Applicant has in a
revised D.O. that they submitted for informational purposes said that they
would apply for federal funding for affordable housing and if they did not
obtain the funding, it would revert to market rate rental apartments. Ms. Hammock then introduced Melody Frederick to
discuss some affordable housing issues.
Melody Frederick, Compliance Officer for the Community Services
Department, addressed the Board and began her portion of the presentation. Ms. Frederick explained that as it relates to
this particular development, one of the parts of the Standards of Review that
is required is that the Applicant has to demonstrate there is a lack of
suitable or vacant land in the urban area to provide affordable housing. She then displayed a map depicting all of the
tax credit projects that are funded through the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation and talked about how these developments are widely scattered
throughout Seminole County. The tax
credit process and the funding is one of the largest sources of funding for
affordable housing development. The
funds are given through a competitive process to the states, and developers
apply annually to receive these funds.
Ms. Frederick stated that even when reviewing for tax credit funding,
there are certain standards that are also looked at as well through that
process. The project is looked at
primarily for the population that is served, how many units they provide as
well as the proximity to services, to transportation centers and
employment.
Ms. Frederick reiterated that the units are scattered throughout
the county and not concentrated in a single area. She directed the Board’s attention to the map
and pointed out a blue box, which is Census Tract 205. She explained that in Seminole County there
is a single Census tract where there is a very high concentration of people in
poverty and a very high concentration of persons of either ethnic or racial
minorities. She stated it is centered in
Census Tract 205 in the Sanford area. In
terms of a tax credit project, Ms. Frederick explained that the Florida Housing
Finance Corporation will not approve a new development there because there are
several tax credit projects already clustered in that area for new development
and they do not want to further exasperate the conditions there. She noted what they will approve is redevelopment
and if a project came into that section, it would be strictly for redevelopment
to take care of what is already existing.
In the initial report from the Applicant, there were some comments about
concentrating poverty and things of that nature. She stated she wanted to bring to the
attention of the Board that the tax credit projects are scattered throughout
the county.
The Current FHFC Properties and Funding Source list was
displayed. Ms. Frederick stated this is
a listing of some of the tax credit projects that have been funded and approved
and supported by Seminole County. She
emphasized these are just a small sample and are not all of the apartments that
have been developed and that it doesn't speak to their homeownership
programs. These are developments that
are 7,500 units or greater; so when examining it compared to this proposal,
this was the closest that she could generate.
There are roughly 4,802 units that have been developed over the years
with the most current being the Pointe at Merritt Street. Ms. Frederick advised that there are very
specific standards that are looked at in order to receive funding from the tax
credit process and it is always important to locate the housing near employment
centers and traffic and transit areas because people with lower incomes tend to
have a need to be able to get to work and transportation can be an issue.
The Areas of Access and Opportunities for Affordable Housing map
was displayed. Ms. Frederick stated that
in addition to supporting tax credit projects, Seminole County also
participated in a series of regional affordable housing workshops in
partnership with Orange County, Osceola County, the City of Orlando, and the
City of Kissimmee. The Planning staff
along with the staff from Community Services participated in a series of these
workshops for an extended period of time just to look at affordable housing
from a regional context. The group also
commissioned a study from the Shimberg Center of
Affordable Housing to create a model to look at regionally where affordable
housing would be best suited to be located.
Using this model, it was very important to pay attention to where the
housing was in relation to transportation and transit centers.
Ms. Frederick indicated a location on the map and explained that
regionally they can see that the housing is typically located in areas where
infrastructure already exists. It is
near transportation and employment centers.
They are still working through that process and there are some final reports
that are coming out that the staff will bring to the Board about this. The point is the affordable housing is
located near services and near transportation because it is a significant need. She referred to the map and pointed out that
the transportation centers are more in the urban portion of the county.
The Housing + Transportation map was displayed. Ms. Frederick explained that there is a
paradigm shift happening with affordable housing. Traditionally, affordable housing was looked
at as the cost of housing to not be more than 40% of a household income but in
reality, there are more costs that a household has. A lot of times, transportation and the cost
of getting to and from work and getting to wherever you need to be can far
exceed housing costs. If someone is in a
higher income, they can make the tradeoff and it is not that much of an
impact. For people who have limited
means, a lot of times the transportation costs can sometimes far exceed their
housing costs or when they are combined together, it takes up a significant
amount of their income.
Ms. Frederick reported that there is a Housing and
Transportation Affordability Availability Index that shows for Seminole County
where areas are where either the housing costs are high or the transportation
costs are high or both. Ms. Frederick
indicated the location of the subject property on the map. She explained that the index gives a rule of
thumb that to have a good score, the housing costs and transportation costs
should not exceed 45% to 50% percent of someone's income. At the location of the subject property, they
are looking at between 78% and 87% of any household income in this area that
could be diverted to both transportation and housing costs; and that is because
of the distance away from transit, bus services, and things of that
nature. That could cause a significant
strain for households that have a limited income source. Ms. Frederick explained that in keeping with
the way affordable housing is being developed and what they are looking at
regionally, you should also consider transportation costs in addition to
housing because a person would need to have extremely reliable transportation
just to be able to get to and from work or home or to any other appointments.
Ms. Frederick stated that the tax credit programs focus mainly
on the most vulnerable populations that exist, which are the elderly, the
disabled, and lower income families.
When all of that is taken into consideration, it gives a very telling
picture. It is also important to note
that during that entire process, neither the Applicant nor their representative
ever contacted Community Services to sit down and talk through these affordable
housing issues. She suggested that had
some of that occurred, they would have been able to touch base with them and
given them a little bit more direction and talk about all of the ways that
Seminole County does support affordable housing for funding and other
programs.
Chairman Horan mentioned an affordable housing project that is
being developed by Wendover Properties in the City of Sanford that the County
is involved with. He stated he wanted to
put on the record that the Board has always encouraged within the cities the
development of affordable housing. Ms.
Frederick stated that Seminole County has been very supportive of affordable
housing. They are one of the few who
actually puts in grant dollars to provide the local contribution toward tax
credit projects. She noted that in her
past work in other places, there were not very many local governments that
actually put forth any money towards that.
Johnny Edwards, Manager of the Utilities Engineering Division
for the Environmental Services Department, addressed the Board to continue with
his portion of the presentation. Mr.
Edwards reviewed the information on the Overview of Current Conditions
slide. He stated this shows that there
is adequate capacity in the southeast region with respect to potable water and
sanitary sewer. He displayed the Potable
Water Service Area map and noted that the orange area at the bottom is the
southeast region and extends eastward to but not across the Econlockhatchee
River. He pointed out the proposed
development on the map. The Existing
Potable Water Location map was displayed and Mr. Edwards
indicated that the water mains are on McCulloch and Old Lockwood; so there
would need to be a one‑mile extension to the east and across the Econ
River to serve the proposed development.
Mr. Edwards displayed the Sanitary Sewer Services Area and stated
the service area is largely the same; the south area extends to the east to but
not across the Econlockhatchee River. The Existing Sanitary Sewer Location map was
displayed and Mr. Edwards explained that the tie‑in would be a little
different; it is up in the Carillon subdivision where they have a master pump
station. That would be the most likely
tie‑in for the force main and would be approximately 1.85 miles from the
proposed development. With regard to
Existing Reclaimed Water Service Area, Mr. Edwards reported that the service
area does extend further to the east where there are potential agricultural
uses for reclaimed water. With respect
to existing mains, they are just like the potable water installed along
McCulloch and Old Lockwood approximately one mile west of the proposed
development.
Mr. Edwards reviewed the Meetings and Communications slide. He pointed out that the April 13, 2018,
Letter of Availability stated there was available capacity but until they get
far enough along in the review process, they cannot guarantee that
capacity. Those are normally made
through executing agreements and reserving capacity. Once they get far enough along in the
process, those agreements can be discussed.
He explained that in late April there was the pre-application meeting
with the DRC and there were comments made by the Applicant that essentially
took that letter as a guarantee of service that the County had obligated itself
to serve water and potable to the proposed development. In May, a clarification letter was sent which
basically explained that that was not the case.
He talked about an email that said based on comments made at the DRC,
the County wanted to explain that it has a Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) issued
by the St. Johns River Water Management District that currently does not
include the proposed development, that it is beyond the County's service area,
and that they are not permitted by the State of Florida to serve water to this
proposed development at this time without modifying that permit.
Chairman Horan stated as he understands the State's Consumptive
Use Permit that as a county they have to have it and that it is based upon
their needs in those particular areas where they are encouraging development,
in other words the urban areas. Mr.
Edwards stated it is based on projections of growth and development and water
demand within their urban areas. He
added that they have standards that apply to their service areas within the
urban boundary.
Chairman Horan stated he was trying to put together how this
would affect policies that the County already has in place and are in place
specifically so they don't end up short on their water consumptive use in the
areas where they are trying to encourage development because they already have
the services there. Mr. Edwards
explained that what the Consumptive Use Permit would suggest is that if they
are providing water somewhere else, they may not have enough water for the
areas where it was originally planned.
Commissioner Carey referred to their capital improvement programs and
noted they adopt those and look at them five years rolling. She asked Mr. Edwards if it is correct that
all of the plans they have and the investments they have made have all been in
the urban area and Mr. Edwards agreed.
Commissioner Carey added that they don't have any plans that she is
aware of to go out into the rural area.
Mr. Edwards agreed that is correct.
He stated they look at their service areas and that is why they have
maps of potential growth and development within their service areas that are
all inside the urban boundary.
Mr. Edwards explained that they also wanted to point out to the
Applicant that the County's Comprehensive Plan has requirements with respect to
potable water and sanitary sewer and that the County's letter was not a
guarantee of services. He displayed the
DRC Review Comments for the pre‑application and advised that they were
fairly general and remained at kind of a higher level. They get into more detail at the Future Land Use
Amendment meeting comments where they get into the Comprehensive Plan and the
requirements listed therein.
Mr. Edwards displayed the Potable Water Element slides and
reviewed the Adopted Levels of Service.
With regard to Coordination and Urban Sprawl, he pointed out that under
Policy POT 4.1 the County, if looking to expand their service area, needs to
evaluate the impact on their existing customers and shall not expand if they
cannot continue to provide those minimum levels of service. Policy 4.2 essentially says that outside the
adopted urban area, those developments need to continue to rely primarily on
individual wells and shall not be designed or constructed with central water or
sewer systems. Policy 4.5 indicates that
the cost to extend water lines to new developments shall be borne by the
development itself. With regard to the
policies listed on the Coordination of Potable Water and Land Use Planning
slides, Mr. Edwards stated these policies taken together basically say the
County needs to maintain projections of growth, water demand, and make sure the
10‑Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan acknowledges those projections
as well. He reiterated that those are
intended for their current service areas in the urban boundary.
Mr. Edwards displayed the Potable Water Element Conclusions
slide and reviewed the items on the list.
He advised that the project would need to be located within the urban
boundary for the County to be able to provide central water service. The Master Plan and the 10‑Year Water
Supply Facility Plan would have to be updated to reflect the change in service
area. There would need to be an
evaluation of the impacts of expanding the service area which would include
hydraulic modeling, a legal review of existing agreements between the County
and other utility providers in the area, and a modification of their
Consumptive Use Permit with the St. Johns River Water Management District. They would also need to look at the potential
impact on their connection fees and volume metric rates and whether expanding
the service would impact the level of service for their existing
customers.
Mr. Edwards explained that the Sanitary Sewer Element mirrors
largely what he just discussed for the Potable Water Element. He stated there are service standards and
they would need to take a look at whether or not expanding the service area
would impact the County's ability to provide those levels of service. In the
non-urban area, the development needs to look primarily at septic tanks and not
be constructed or designed with central water or sewer. Mr. Edwards displayed the Conclusions slide
and stated the conclusions are largely the same. The project would need to be within the urban
boundary; they would have to update their wastewater plan; and the same types
of evaluations would need to be conducted.
He emphasized that they don't have this information yet and it was not
included with the application; so their conclusions were that the application
was incomplete and did not show compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies
that he just discussed.
Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Edwards if a private developer were
looking to develop something in an area that the County had not planned for in
the future, would they have the ability to provide private water and sewer by
building facilities. Mr. Edwards stated
he believes the first step in terms of water supply would be for them to talk
to the St. Johns River Water Management District about trying to get a
Consumptive Use Permit. If they had to
provide their own wells or wanted to provide their own treatment system, they
would first look at whether or not they could get allocation for groundwater
withdrawals. Commissioner Carey
confirmed with Mr. Edwards that it is possible.
Tim Ippolito, Seminole County Fire Marshall, addressed the Board
to begin his portion of the presentation entitled NFPA and ISO Requirements -
Fire Incident. Mr. Ippolito displayed
the ISO Rating slide and explained the rating scale. He reported that Seminole County has a dual
rating of 2/2Y. The 2 rating is for the
urban area and the 2Y rating is for the rural area component. He advised that with regard to a fire
incident, the initial requirement for the first unit is that they have to be
there within 240 seconds or four minutes.
The rest of the crews have to be there within 480 seconds, which is six
minutes or less. They have to have a
minimum number of personnel for that.
With regard to the EMS Incident component, Mr. Ippolito explained that
the EMS unit has to be there within 480 seconds provided there is a unit within
the first 240 seconds. The way they have
it now is the engine gets there first and then the rescue comes in.
Mr. Ippolito displayed the Response Time Map and advised there
is a software program that routes the closest units that they go to when they
are doing planning for future fire stations.
They put in the address and it provides the fastest and shortest routes
from the fire station to the property.
He indicated the travel times from Stations #43, #48, and #65 to the
entrance of the project and pointed out with these three stations, if all of
the equipment is in the station and not on another alarm, they would not be able
to meet the ISO or the NFPA requirements for that. He next reviewed the cost of a new station
and stated the total would be $8.1 million.
Mr. Ippolito stated they did receive a non-formal response and
the developer did acknowledge their comments.
He stated that one of the things that Public Safety did send to the
Planning Department, which was one of their priorities, would be for a
secondary means of ingress and egress out of the development. The plan they were shown only indicated
one. Mr. Ippolito stated they were
looking for a fire station and roughly a two‑acre parcel for the
developer to set aside. They were also
asking that if they couldn’t agree on a parcel, they could set aside a
designated amount of money for outside that area that would cover that
area. They are also asking for a Tower
that they can negotiate in there. In the
station costs, they did not count the cost of the engine, the rescue, the
tanker, or the brush truck that is normally assigned there. They just counted the cost of the additional
personnel and the equipment that they were looking for. He stated they also put in that they would
work with the developer as best they can to meet and noted that when you are in
a rural area like that, the typical standards can be massaged a little
bit.
Craig Diamond, Balmoral Group, addressed the Board to begin his
portion of the presentation. Mr. Diamond
briefly talked about his background and stated that Balmoral Group is under
term contract with Seminole County, which was executed back in September 2016,
to provide continuing socio‑economic services in support of the Planning
Division. The primary role they have had
to date has been doing long‑range population projections. The list of potential assignments under the
contract does include evaluation of Comp Plan amendments as requested. He then reviewed the slide depicting the
tasks that were not assigned to the Balmoral Group. He advised that Balmoral's current assignment
was to focus solely on the content of the River Cross Plan Amendment and not to
look at code or development order compliance or to conduct any new research
that might be associated with a typical amendment to the Board. The tasks assigned to Balmoral under the
contract included an annotated review of documentation provided by the
Applicant as of mid‑May, an analysis of the Applicant's compliance with
the applicable Comp Plan Standards of Review that have been referred to
multiple times by staff, and an assessment of differences between the
Applicant's projections for housing needs and Balmoral's 2017 assessment for
the County. Mr. Diamond reported that
they have provided the County their annotated review of relevant documents;
however, their primary focus, especially for today, was with Task B, compliance
with the Standards of Review for modifying the boundary and the rest of his
presentation will focus on this.
Mr. Diamond stated a touchstone for his analysis and the
Balmoral team's analysis for Seminole County is found on page 114 of the Future
Land Use Amendment and emphasized the intent is the management of growth, the
provision of public services, and the protection of natural resources. That was their guidance in terms of their
scope of review. He displayed and
discussed the Standards for Amending the Urban/Rural Boundary and pointed out
that the plan requires that all of the conditions need to be affirmatively
met. With regard to these Standards, Mr.
Diamond stated he does not believe the demonstration of need was met at
all. The other two Standards (Locational
Analysis of the Proposed Amendment and Mandatory Consistency Specifications)
were met in part. He stated this is not
a dismissal in any way of the project unto itself, but it is a tested project
within the parameters of Seminole County's Plan and the Standards of
Review.
The
Standards for Amending the Urban/Rural Boundary ‑ Demonstration of Need
slide was displayed. Mr. Diamond
explained that the most objective standard of the three that they have got is
the Demonstration of Need. For any of
these substandards listed on the slide, the key
phrase is "lack of suitable land or re-developable land within the
existing urban area." The
Applicant, per Seminole County's code, is charged with providing enough
documentation to determine that additional land is needed and that the existing
urban area is insufficient to achieve that outcome.
Mr. Diamond displayed the Locational Analysis of Amendments
slide and stated this is the second of the three standards. He pointed out that the Applicant needs to
meet all five of the items listed on the slide (addressing facilities and
services, fiscal capacity, protection of environmental and natural resources,
contiguity to existing boundary, and transitions to maintaining compatibility). Under the Locational Analysis Standard, he
stated he had indicated that was partially met.
He interpreted the application for the Comp Plan Amendment and its
supporting material to at least provide some material to make reasonable judgments
on with regard to Items 3 and 5 and believed that Items 1, 2, and 4 did not
have enough documentation to make a fair assessment. He added that the Applicant is required to
provide information for all five.
Mr. Diamond displayed the Mandatory Consistency with the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Plan and Regional Plans slide. He stated this last standard was a little
tougher to judge but does not want to suggest it is in any way subjective. The Applicant did provide a lot of policies
and put a lot of policies back into the application in which to judge
consistency. He added that consistency
from the State's perspective refers to being both compatible and more
importantly furthering the other policies within the Comp Plan. Mr. Diamond explained that a lot of the
policies that were provided by the Applicant he felt were not applicable and
taken out of context.
Mr. Diamond began the Specific Findings portion of his
presentation. With regard to the
Analysis of Need, he stated there are four pockets of consideration. They only need to focus on one depending on
the type of project being contemplated as the justification for moving the
urban boundary. There is one just
looking at general population and general housing needs. There is another separate standard for
affordable housing or workforce housing.
There is a third option to look at economic development. The last option is looking at critical need
public facilities.
Mr. Diamond stated the Applicant made an attempt to address all
four and he does not think any of the four really pass muster. The critical outcome in each case was that
insufficient data was provided. There
was insufficient demonstration that there was a need beyond what the existing
urban area could provide. He believes
that is a critical lapse in addressing the three required standards.
The Analysis of Need (Population & Housing) slide was
displayed. Mr. Diamond stated that
specifically with respect to the generalized population and housing need, the
Applicant provided their own population projections. The County’s specifications are that they are
to use the County’s own numbers and not use their own. In addition, they have opted to apply a persons-per-household (PPH) statistic, which is a typical
Census for looking at the density of persons per household, and chose a number
that was smaller than that even used by the Census as of 2016 for Seminole
County. Mr. Diamond explained that
critically, the Applicant did not consider the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
category and the densities allotted therein for the various vacant parcels that
were to be looked at and they also failed to consider that the County has a
bunch of additional policies looking at redevelopment and a wide range of other
policies that ultimately do affect housing supply.
The Population Projections slide was displayed. Mr. Diamond talked about how Balmoral has
been providing the County with population projections for several years. The consultants for the Applicant came up
with 559,000 in the year 2038 and Balmoral provided information about
552,000. He acknowledged that is not a
big difference but noted that the Applicant provided a higher number, which in
turn is part of their justification for the additional housing that they were
looking to supply to the County. Mr.
Diamond added that the numbers Balmoral has provided to the County have been
accepted by the County and are in use by their departments.
With regard to Household Size, Mr. Diamond reported that the
Applicant uses a number of 2.51 from ESRI, which is a GIS service, and the
current 2016 mean population per household number for the County is 2.81. He stated that doing projections for the
County going forward, Balmoral uses a demographically weighted by individual
Census block looking at the ethnicity and other demographic characteristics of
each Census block to come up with an aggregated total. Mr. Diamond explained that going out in time
and recognizing the demographics of the county are changing, they are looking
at about 3.03 as to the long-range PPH value that the County would be using for
projections and not looking at a static number in time as of several years
behind. The consultant’s report
indicated that the County would need over 40,000 new units by 2038. Amending for the reduction in total
population per the numbers that Balmoral provided would bring that number down
to about 37,000. Amending the number for
the current Census correct value of 2.81 PPH reduces that to about 33,250. Mr. Diamond stated from their point of view
looking at the long-range projections, the actual number is closer to 31,000.
Mr. Diamond advised that Existing Vacant Land is a critical
component to understanding what the absorptive capacity is of the County going
forward. The Applicant determined there
were 7,299 vacant residential lots; however, the Property Appraiser and the
Applicant’s documentation did not indicate from what year that information was
taken. Balmoral has been using the
certified tax rolls from the Department of Revenue for all of their work for
counties and state agencies for several years.
That is the standard by which they go.
With accounting for things like street stub-outs and slivers and GIS
layers and everything else and doing all of that quality control and cleanup
and looking at parcels that specifically are residential and don’t include
anything else, they have 8,277 lots. Mr.
Diamond pointed out that the difference is 978 lots and that number is not
small when they are looking at this sort of number. In working with the numbers that they have,
they are down closer to a long-range need within the planning horizon out to
2038 of about 30,000 units.
The Future Land Use Map Densities table was displayed. Mr. Diamond stated he believes this is the
critical touch point in terms of the analysis provided by the Applicant. At the time of submittal, the Applicant
assigned a single unit for each vacant lot and subtracted that. The project itself at basically 678 acres
could provide 133 units. In the
Applicant’s analysis, it only would have received one. This is a problem in the sense of extending
that approach to the analysis countywide.
Mr. Diamond pointed out that the category one up from the bottom, the
Rural Residential, shows the maximum value of 0.3. It is actually a slightly larger number
because that is a composite category and included R-3, R-5, and R-10; so that
number may be slightly overstated.
Mr. Diamond explained that under the buildout, the current FLUM
categories more than address 30,000 units going out through the County’s
planning horizon. The planned
developments that the County has in the pipeline alone (the vacant lots within
those not yet built) account for almost 19,000 units. Even if the County was to build out at a
density of two-thirds of what is allowable under the Comp Plan, the County
would still have the cushion to get out through their planning horizon. Mr. Diamond emphasized that the 40+ thousand
units are vacant lots only with no other policies that the County has in its
Comp Plan attached. The County’s
policies and those of several of the cities all provide bonuses for properties
that are in key transit corridors and around the LYNX and SunRail
stations. A lot of those policies
provide up to 50% bonus. Recognizing
that there are policies operating both within the County and the sister cities,
there are an additional 54,000 potential units if all built out at the maximum
intensities that the Comp Plans currently provide. In total, they are looking at about 98,000
lots that are potentially available to the County through the planning horizon.
With regard to the Affordable Housing Standard, Mr. Diamond
stated that the data provided by the Applicant was really at the 60,000-foot
level. It identified what the needs were
at the regional level but did not translate that back down specifically to
Seminole County to say what in fact the shortfall of affordable housing is in
Seminole County that this project needs to address or, more importantly, that
moving the urban boundary needs to address.
There was no consideration of whether or not that County-specific
affordable housing need could be met within the urban area. There was some discussion in the application
about rental conditions noting that 24% of renters are below the 60% Area Median
Income (AMI). He emphasized that there
is no additional data provided to explain how this particular project would
satisfy that unique condition.
Mr. Diamond discussed the third standard, Economic Goals, and
advised there was a comment included about the general need for housing based
on the initial analysis of population and housing demand. They suggested that if the County did not
move forward with advancing more property as residential that the County would
soon be at a major economic disadvantage.
Mr. Diamond advised the County is clearly growing and attracting a lot
of investment which would suggest that the County is not currently at any sort
of economic disadvantage within the region.
He stated some of the other data was fully supportable so that part of
the documentation was commendable. More
importantly there was a focus in here in terms of office space as the target of
economic development and it indicated a need for Seminole County of about 4.5
million square feet. He stated in his
discussion with County staff last week as to what kind of development they are
seeing, staff indicated that they are now beginning to see five, six, and
taller storied buildings coming in for commercial office space. He talked about how a six-story office building
might only need 35 acres of office space based on that 4.5 million of
need. There are 400 acres that are
vacant in commercial property at this time.
They have 810 acres of vacant property in FLUM categories in additional
to commercial that support office uses, the mixed-use developments and the like
that were mentioned before. He stated
they are also looking at the County’s other policies that are promoting
redevelopment in and around transit corridors.
He believes there are about 1,100 additional acres there to accommodate
such office space. It seems that
existing vacant space and redevelopment space would be more than enough to meet
that need for the 4.5 million square feet of office. Mr. Diamond reiterated that the requirement
is to show that the existing urban area cannot do it.
Mr. Diamond referred to the last standard, Critical Public
Facilities, and advised that the proposed project was not defined and certainly
not defined in the County’s Comp Plan as a critically needed public
facility. This project was identified as
including an innovation district and these innovation districts, as affirmed by
the Applicant, often include a connection to a nearby institution (school or
hospital). He mentioned that UCF is
eight or nine miles away. Mr. Diamond
stated that an innovation district may be a very attractive concept but it is
not a school, it is not a hospital, and it is not a fire house. It is not a utility substation or some other
piece of critical public infrastructure.
Chairman Horan stated to correct the record that UCF is about
three miles away. Commissioner Carey
stated it is three miles as the crow flies.
Mr. Diamond stated he did take a look at the perimeter of UCF
and identified a 12-acre parcel that was less than three miles by road that was
nonconservation property. He explained that if actual adjacency to an
institution like UCF or a hospital is not a priority for the County, there may
well be property there. He added there
was no consideration given to properties that were nearby UCF that could be
assembled and developed as logically occurs.
As an application trying to provide documentation including a lot of
quotes about the benefits of innovation districts, he advised it was not really
a documentation of need or satisfaction of the requirement to document that the
existing urban area could not really carry that out.
With regard to the Locational Analysis, Mr. Diamond reviewed the
six items on the Services slide. With
respect to Fiscal Capacity, he understands that impacts were under
discussion. There was an estimation of
about $8.9 million in fiscal impacts based on the County rates and the
anticipated number of units. He
cautioned that those numbers may or may not be correct because the document was
not provided within the application. Mr.
Diamond stated that most importantly, from his perspective, there was not
information provided whatsoever about how the Applicant was going to meet that
$8.9 million threshold. Regarding
Protection of Resources, Mr. Diamond reported that this was covered in greater
length within the application. The
County’s plan requires retaining connectivity of wetlands, improving ecological
quality of wetlands, and retaining function and structure of the wetlands in
the rural area. He noted that the
Applicant is proposing to put an easement on the western 100 acres of the
roughly 276 acres of wetlands on site.
An undesignated number of acres on the eastern half were to be placed
under some sort of easement but you don’t know what those numbers are. Beyond the easement, there was really no
indication as to whether the development pattern itself was going to improve
ecological integrity, which is what the County’s plan expects and requires, or
was it in any way going to provide assurances that the ecological structure and
function of wetlands were going to be maintained.
Regarding urban contiguity, Mr. Diamond advised that the
requirement is to discourage urban sprawl.
This was addressed by staff. He
knows that statements were made earlier to the Planning and Zoning Commission
that Chuluota is developed nearby but the County’s language says contiguous and
there is no contiguous urban development pattern next to the property. He pointed out that it would fail on that
count. Mr. Diamond referred to the
Transitions slide and stated that with the notion of sprawl management in mind,
the County’s standard contemplates being adjacent to existing development to
avoid leapfrogging. He discussed the
Transect Map that the Applicant included in the application as some sort of
means of accommodating this sort of transition and pointed out that the notion
of a transect as a tool, a construct taken from the Congress of Urbanism, was
taken completely out of context. It is
used to help define urban elements such as streetscapes, landscapes, and light
fixtures in different areas in different intensities as part of context
sensitive solutions for urban development.
It is not really a tool for defining compatibility or transitioning
between different land uses.
The Findings – Plan Consistency slide was displayed. Mr. Diamond stated this is a tougher
one. With regard to policies, the
Applicant put up 19 policies out of the County’s Comp Plan, 17 out of the
Essential Florida Plan, and 6 out of the State plan. He stated from looking at what those policies
actually address, maybe 5 of the local Comp Plan policies were met and 14 of
them were not applicable. Policies about
interconnected neighborhoods and that sort of thing are fine internal to the
development as proposed but those policies are part of objectives and goals for
the existing urban area and for land use categories in the existing urban
area. When he looked at that long list
of policies, a lot of them kind of fall short.
The words match what they want to do but they don’t reflect the rest of
the plan backing it up. Mr. Diamond
advised that select policies are met but the broader Comp Plan policies and the
regional policies directed at managing growth, efficient use of infrastructure,
land and transportation choice at county and regional levels were not brought
into the discussion to test whether those were being met or not. He believes that is a Board interpretation as
to whether those policies were being affirmatively met. Mr. Diamond offered to answer any questions
the Board may have.
Ms. Hammock pointed out that from Mr. Diamond’s presentation,
the Board can see that the Standards of Review for amending the Urban/Rural
Boundary are high but they are meant to be difficult standards to meet because
they are to ensure that the development potential of the urban area had been
fully exhausted before encroaching into the rural area. She clarified for the record that the
Applicant did provide a letter from the School Board stating that there is
school capacity in the Concurrency Service Area (CSA). If the development were built, the
school-aged children might have to be bused to other locations outside of their
zoned area; however, the Master Plan did show a five-acre parcel for a school
site. Ms. Hammock advised that staff is
available for any questions.
-------
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 4:13 p.m., reconvening at
4:26 p.m. with Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer being replaced by Deputy Clerk Kyla
Farrell.
-------
Tara Tedrow, Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kanter &
Reed, P.A., 215 North Eola Drive, Orlando, addressed
the Board and noted she is here on behalf of the Applicant to present the River
Cross project. Ms. Tedrow
presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “River Cross” (received and
filed). She stated she is here to
establish the premiere master planned community in Seminole County. It is a community that she perceives as being
an innovation district, a 21st century employment center, and something that
the County will be proud of in the future.
As part of the request, they want to move the Rural Boundary and assign
a Planned Development Future Land Use and Zoning designation, and bring the
Rural Boundary into greater compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act, and
help the County address the lack of affordable housing inventory by dedicating
15% of the proposed residential density to creating that exact inventory.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed How’s That Going
So Far and explained after spending about $250,000 to put forth an application
with industry leaders in every category, she received a staff analysis that by
its very design would make it impossible to ever move the Rural Boundary. She opined based on the analysis from County
staff, it may sound like she submitted a five-page application put together on
some loose-leaf paper. What they put
together was a 400-page analysis (received and filed) with industry leaders,
innovative thought, and master planning techniques that would give the County
one of the best premier communities that they could have in Seminole County. They were told after the fact and after they
submitted the 400 pages that it was insufficient information where the rules
were beginning to be rewritten during the game, which makes it very difficult
for any applicant to be able to provide a satisfactory application in the eyes
of a staff that would never support the project. Ms. Tedrow
discussed statements that were previously made by Commissioners who believe in
upholding the Rural Boundary line.
Ms. Tedrow displayed Project Timeline
and pointed out that before they even submitted an application, Commissioner
Dallari requested a moratorium on accepting development applications in the
rural area. She reviewed the River Cross
Timeline: May 30th DRC slides, and stated during the DRC meeting, they were
given no clear analysis, no clear recommendations, and no suggestions as to
what could be feasible. She expressed
they weren’t at the DRC meeting to debate, they were simply there to try to get
some clarifications; but from day one, they weren’t even afforded the opportunity
during a DRC meeting to get clarifications on critical points regarding their
application. She asked what the point
would have been to continue to resubmit and pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars for more studies and more review only to be told after the fact that
those were also insufficient and staff didn’t like the methodology most likely
because they didn’t like the results that were reached.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed Why Should You
Approve This Project. She proposed the
question is, is the rural area ever able to be changed and indicated it
is. She explained it is able to be
changed because of the language of the Charter Amendment. She discussed Florida Statutes Section 570.70
and stated that is a legislative finding that says the rural area is a good
area; and due to population growth, the rural area can actually have commercial
and residential development within it.
However, it is a legislative finding in regards to rural areas and
certain accommodations that can be made such as permanent conservation
easements. She claimed that would
support the project because they would provide 100 acres of permanent
conservation; and today they are willing to offer a minimum of 200 acres of
permanent conservation because if that is such an important policy with regard
to the rural area, then certainly that amount of area of permanent conservation
dedicated to the County would be something that would support the rural
policies that staff says the Applicant did not meet.
In regard to History of the Line (2004), Ms. Tedrow
stated staff has done a very good job in going over how the line was created
and some of the policies that the Board has to consider. She pointed out in the Charter where it talks
about how the County Commission can approve removal of an area from the Rural
Boundary. She explained staff wrote up
an ordinance for the Board’s consideration, so even if the Board doesn’t want
to finalize today what they would decide in terms of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the corresponding Map Amendment, which would lead to a subsequent
PD rezoning at the next hearing, the Board can consider separately whether they
should move the line for this specific project.
She advised if they want to have a discussion about a development
program the Board would consider acceptable, she would hope they can have it
tonight because she hasn’t had the opportunity to do that. Ms. Tedrow reviewed
History of the Line (2005) and opined a 100-foot buffer should be a sufficient
boundary.
Ms. Tedrow discussed History of the
Line (2006) and City of Oviedo/Seminole County Joint Planning Interlocal
Agreement and stated that was an important agreement that ultimately lapsed due
to time passing. When that agreement was
executed between the two jurisdictions, the JPA was designed to create
transitional land uses to address specific edge concerns; but no such concerns
were ever defined for the proposed property.
Ms. Tedrow explained the River Cross property
was called out as a transition area because of its unique location next to the
existing development in the City of Oviedo as well as its location next to
Orange County. She reminded that they
are not talking about a piece of property in the middle of the rural area with
nothing on any side except for rural uses.
They are talking about a unique piece of property that the County has
called out as a transitional area and one that should have special attention
paid to it, but unfortunately that hasn’t happened.
Ms. Tedrow discussed History of the
Line (2006-2013) and stated the removal of the Rook and Mermel
properties from the Rural Boundary never went through the Planning and Zoning
Commission; they were done through a specific agreement that the County had
with those property owners. She advised
just because there is movement in the Rural Boundary doesn’t mean that the
entire Rural Boundary has to go away, and the inability to have a dialogue on
the standards by which the County judges applications to move the Rural
Boundary will be the demise of the Rural Boundary itself.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed the 2006 Rural
Character Plan. She stated if the Board
listens to staff’s analysis, they’re only looking at part of the Rural
Character Plan. Granted while the Rural Character
Plan was never formalized into the Code or Comp Plan, it is a guiding document
that the County commissioned to have completed.
And what it said about the parcels is that they can’t just look at the
50% open space and the clustering, that was only with regard to residential
developments, and it doesn’t take into consideration a project that also
includes other uses.
Ms. Tedrow discussed Mermel Hearing 8/27/13 and reiterated there are no criteria
established in either the ballot language or the Charter Amendment establishing
under what circumstances they could move the Rural Boundary line. There is not a lot of guidance on how to deal
with it or what the County would establish as necessity, but Ms. Tedrow believes they will make a strong case for necessity
by the end of the hearing.
Ms. Tedrow submitted CVs (received and
filed) for three experts that will be presenting with Ms. Tedrow. George Kramer, Director of Planning and Area
Manager, S&ME, 1615 Edgewater Drive, addressed the Board and explained
there are a couple components to being the premier master plan in Seminole
County and one is the environmental component.
Seminole County has a great Econ wilderness area, and this plan would
enhance that through the protection area.
Mr. Kramer opined by providing safe and responsible access to the
protection area, they can actually appreciate the natural beauty of the county
and help long-term preservation efforts.
He stated the second component is the transition and the compatibility
with rural areas. The lowest densities
are along the northern and western borders.
In regard to What Is River Cross, Mr. Kramer stated the view shed along
419 is really important and that is why you can see the large estate homes and
the buffer to preserve the rural character of that corridor. As you get further into the community, there
are larger higher densities with a walkable-community design and a variety of
housing types. The most intense area is
the innovation district; and innovation districts expressly rely upon a
relationship between major research universities, which is why there is a
unique opportunity there. There is a
unique opportunity for Seminole County to take advantage of 21st century
development trends and employment opportunities.
Mr. Kramer displayed Surrounding Seminole County and stated it’s
important to note that they are not proposing sprawl. The two things they need to think about are
auto dependency and single-use. The plan
they are offering is not a continuation of sprawl, which is what the Rural
Boundary intended. Mr. Kramer reviewed
Regional Planned Development. He stated
when you look in a regional context, you see Chuluota to the northwest, outside
of the rural area; and you see Sustany and The Grow
to the south; and there are other developments down into Orange County that are
east of the proposed project and to the south that are already developed, so
you have change in character within the area already.
Mr. Kramer stated within the 2006 rural study, the transect was
mentioned along with the ability to demonstrate compatibility. He explained they’ve utilized the transect in
the planning of the site and reviewed Seminole County Transect. He displayed the Transect Map of Surrounding
Uses and stated when they look at it in the context of the region, they see a
lot of suburban development around the area; but they also see a nice connected
green system and some trail connection opportunities that could be advanced
through the plan; and you can also see the compatibility within the site of the
rural areas. It’s important when they
talk about the most dense and intense areas, to remember that those areas are
within the middle of the project, utilizing the transect to provide the
appropriate transitions and compatibility with adjacent areas.
Amending the Rural Boundary was displayed and Mr. Kramer reviewed
Need, Size and Location. He displayed
Master Plan Phase 1 and stated they should be talking about the benefits of a
complete street from 434 all the way to 419.
It is important to note that this project is proposed as a phased
project, and the first phase of the plan does not include the commercial
component of the innovation district. It
does include 600 single-family homes and 270 townhomes, and it also includes
the protection area on the Econ River Basin.
The second phase (Master Plan Phase 2) would be in conjunction with the
complete street McCulloch extension, and would include 500 multifamily units,
including those affordable and also including the innovation district. Mr. Kramer advised there was talk about the
importance of linking transportation, jobs and affordable housing; UCF is the
fifth largest employer in the region with close to 10,000 employees. The innovation district itself would have
employment. In terms of transit, a plan
like this that has a range of densities and a mix of uses is transit
supportive.
Mr. Kramer expressed the County has a great staff that he has
enjoyed working with, but he has been disappointed with the process and
discussed political pressure. He
explained a lot of things can be addressed through a Development Order, but
that won’t be considered tonight. His
hope is that an affirmative vote will give the Applicant another chance to
engage in a planning process and continue some productive dialogue. In closing, Mr. Kramer displayed
Environmental Stewardship, Community Design, and Economic Opportunity.
Ms. Tedrow advised part of what staff
analyzed was a Comprehensive Plan Analysis of the criteria in order to move the
Rural Boundary. The County’s Comp Plan
sets forth standards, and the first one is a demonstration of need. She reviewed Comprehensive Plan Standards for
Amending the Rural Boundary and The Home Rule Charter: Section 5.2. Ms. Tedrow stated
there are no standards in the Charter for amending the Comp Plan, and it
doesn’t provide any criteria by which an applicant would know that they’ve even
met that criteria. In regard to
Demonstration of Need, Ms. Tedrow explained the
demonstration of need portion of the Comp Plan has four criteria, each of which
has an “or” after it which means they don’t all need to be satisfied; you only
have to satisfy one of the four. In the
application, they have reasons why they support all four of the criteria; but
she is going to talk about two of them that they know that they definitively do
meet. The first is data and analysis
provided to document that additional urban lands are needed to accommodate
population, housing or employment projected for the horizon year.
Ms. Tedrow introduced Karl Pischke, Senior Associate with RCLCO, and stated she
engaged RCLCO because they have done studies all over the United States, not
just for private developers but also for local governments. She wanted them to analyze whether or not
there was a demonstrable need and whether that need could be met in the
existing urban areas or whether additional lands were actually needed. She reviewed Housing Demands: RCLCO Study and
A Few Staff Report Highlights. Ms. Tedrow stated Mr. Pischke and his
team were expected to look at every piece of property, accommodate what every
single Zoning and Future Land Use iteration could potentially be under all of
the Zonings and under all Future Land Uses; and then when they were done with
that hypothetical exercise that would be basically impossible for anybody to
do, they were then supposed to take every parcel and look at putting 1 house, 2
houses, 3 houses, all the way up to 350 units.
She opined with that type of hypothesizing, nobody could ever meet the
demonstrable need standard.
Mr. Pischke addressed the Board and he
and Ms. Tedrow reviewed Response to Key
Critiques. Ms. Tedrow
confirmed with Mr. Pischke that even taking into
consideration criticism from The Balmoral Group and updating his study, he
still found a significant need when it comes to population growth and
residential units.
Mr. Pischke reviewed Updated Analysis
of Residential Need. He explained he
took into account the actual acreage of the parcels. They did not utilize a one-to-one
relationship between housing units and parcels, but instead they looked at the
total acreage of parcels identified as vacant residential uses by the Seminole
County Property Appraiser. In order to
determine the capacity, The Balmoral Group utilized maximum densities, which in
many cases would not be possible based on topography and environmental concerns
of not being able to fit that level of development on that land. So what he used was the overall gross density
of Seminole County as a whole (.862) which came out to an overall need of 7,740
housing units by 2027 and 24,104 by 2038.
On the next slide, Analysis of Residential Need, Mr. Pischke
explained one of the things they wanted to analyze was whether or not future
growth may actually be denser than that.
He looked at other Florida counties, particularly Pinellas County which
is one of the most population-dense counties in Florida, and their overall
gross density is 1.31. He reran the
analysis using the vacant residential acreage and looked at the redevelopment
acreage identified by The Balmoral Group, and they still come out with a need
of 2,471 housing units by 2027 and 18,835 by 2038.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed the Summary and
confirmed with Mr. Pischke that there is still an
unmet demand that cannot be satisfied by current urban areas. Ms. Tedrow stated
even taking into consideration the outside consultant’s study and what they
said was a criticism of the Applicant’s consultant’s study and modifying those
numbers, they still find there to be an unmet residential demand that cannot be
satisfied by existing urban areas, which means the Applicant has met the first
criteria for a demonstration of need.
She reviewed Demonstration of Need and pointed out the County
understands that there is a definitive demand and a need for affordable housing
because the Comp Plan sets that forth as a goal. One of the goals is that the County shall
continue to implement and enforce innovative land development techniques to
support the provision of affordable and attainable housing by the County’s
workforce and lower income residents.
She discussed an article in the Orlando Sentinel where it talked about
how rural residents are vigilant as growth looms east of the Econ, and opined
it was ironic that that same day there was also an article in the Orlando
Sentinel reporting on 8,000 people in Central Florida who were standing in line
for 201 apartments. She noted the
proposed project would create 205 apartments.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed How Do We Know
There is a Shortage of Affordable Housing and stated tonight is an opportunity
for some quick action, and some of the needed tools to help with the affordable
housing shortage come in the form of River Cross’s 15% dedication of
residential density to affordable housing projects. She discussed the Shimberg
study detailed on the slide and pointed out the differences between chronically
homeless and affordable housing programs.
Ms. Tedrow stated staff provided a
report that showed a lot of the different affordable housing projects, and only
four of them are actually in unincorporated Seminole County; that matters
because the cities are seemly the ones actively addressing the problem. She discussed Florida Statues Chapter 163
which prohibits local governments from concentrating affordable housing units
in one specific area of their jurisdiction.
Ms. Tedrow claimed if the County says that you
cannot have any infrastructure in the rural area that would support affordable
housing and they prohibit that by policy, then the de facto net effect is they
will never have affordable housing in the rural area because there’s never
going to be infrastructure or any support network put in place by the County to
allow affordable housing there, which means they’re always going to concentrate
it in the urban areas of the county. If
cities cannot change the land use of properties in the rural area without
County consent, then the County could be blocking cities from implementing
affordable housing by permanently blocking amendments to the Rural
Boundary. So not allowing those changes
to the Rural Boundary without the County’s consent means that some of the
cities that want to have more affordable housing projects couldn’t until the
County consents to them being able to do so, which by policy is going to be
basically impossible.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed the two State of
Housing in The Region 4/11/18 slides.
She stated the Applicant would love the opportunity to participate with
the County to provide a solution to a critical shortage of affordable housing
units with the River Cross Project. She
reviewed the two County’s Remedies slides and opined that fitting families into
500-square-foot “tiny homes” is not a solution to affordable housing. She explained River Cross provides the
opportunity to allow people to live with dignity and to live amongst different
income levels in an interconnected community that has employment opportunities
and doesn’t make people rely on transit.
Ms. Tedrow discussed Staff’s Analysis
and pointed out the River Cross project guarantees 15% of all units will be
affordable, serving an existing need in the county. In regard to Affordable Housing &
Segregation, Ms. Tedrow stated it is a very important
issue for the Board’s consideration and one that hasn’t been a point of
discussion in the County up until a study was done by the Applicant. She reviewed The Fair Housing Act (FHA) of
1968 and pointed out that even vacant land is subject to the FHA. She discussed Why Does the FHA Matter, What if You Just Want to Keep Out the Outsiders, and The Law
Says You Can’t. Ms. Tedrow displayed Should We Care
About Housing Options for Racial Minorities and stated a comment was made that
the Applicant was playing the “race card.”
She stated when they are talking about racial integration, it’s not
about “race cards.” It’s an important
topic that doesn’t have any place for humor, so she would hope that they treat
this topic with the respect and concern that it demands. She reviewed Yes and discussed the Dews v.
Town of Sunnyvale case. She stated the
fact pattern from the Sunnyvale case is almost identical to the fact pattern
today, and that bears consideration in looking at what that is and what that
Court found when they talk about the FHA.
Dr. Stephanie Boone, Statistical Consultant, Analytic Focus,
LLC, 11467 Huebner Road, San Antonio, Texas, addressed the Board and displayed
Seminole County Rural Boundary Impact Report.
Ms. Boone reviewed Study Aim and Methodology (Data Sources). She explained she was asked if the Rural
Boundary poses a disparate impact on protected minority classes in violation of
the FHA, and she believes that available U.S. Census data gave her an answer to
that question. She displayed Methodology
(General Approach) and noted the U.S. Census has its own definition of rural,
but she did not use that; she used the County’s definition of rural. She stated she has done these types of
studies quite often, and she understands there are always limitations depending
on which regions she’s looking at so she wanted to be sure she was getting a
comprehensive understanding of what was going on. She expressed she wasn’t happy looking just
at countywide numbers because she thought it would be good to know what was
happening directly around the boundaries, so she isolated a one-mile area on
either side of the boundary line and considered that region when comparing
rural versus non-rural. Then she
expanded out and went to three miles out on either side, then five miles out;
and she felt that approach would allow her a comprehensive view.
Ms. Boone reviewed Analyses, First Form of Analysis, Analyses:
(For the Record), and Second Form of Analysis.
She stated in 2016, a Seminole County resident was 37% more likely to be
a non-Hispanic white in a rural area as opposed to a non-Hispanic white in a
non-rural area. In contrast, a county
resident was 66% less likely to be a person of color in a rural area as opposed
to a person of color in a non-rural area.
She noted the 2016 numbers are statistically significant when you look
within any of the minority categories.
She clarified that the First Form of Analysis is countywide, and the
Second Form of Analysis is looking at the Rural Boundary line and scoping out
from one mile to five miles outside of that line. Commissioner Carey asked if she was looking
one mile to five miles into Orange County, and Ms. Boone answered she excluded
anything in Orange County. Ms. Boone
discussed Third Form of Analysis which was rural voter precincts.
In regard to Conclusions, Ms. Boone stated she feels like she
“sliced and diced” it in every way she could think of, and the data was
consistently telling her that minorities are disproportionately represented on
the eastern and western sides of Seminole County. She expressed she has done this for many
years and has never seen anything like it; rural areas simply have a much
smaller percentage of minorities than non-rural areas, and the Rural Boundary
only serves to enforce a disparity that already exists and divides the county
in two. Ms. Tedrow
explained the conclusion from the study was that in light of those disparities
between rural and non-rural, the continued use of the boundary related to
development and land use may perpetuate, if not exacerbate, the existing clear
disparity; and that could be considered in violation of the FHA.
Ms. Tedrow stated the County’s Comp
Plan also requires additional analysis such as locational analysis of
amendments. The availability of
facilities and services is difficult for an applicant to meet. She explained the Applicant received a
utility letter dated April 13, 2018, which stated there was adequate unreserved
capacity to serve the proposed project.
Then the Applicant received another utility letter dated May 9, 2018,
stating the County would need to conduct additional analyses to ensure that the
level of service would not be significantly affected. Ms. Tedrow reviewed
PD Master Development Plan Submittal Requirements. She stated on the initial Master Plan, the
Applicant’s engineer gave an analysis as to how much water they would need to
service the project. They understand
that there is no infrastructure in place because they are not in the urban
boundary, so they can’t prove to the County that there is infrastructure in
place to serve the project because they’re not even in an area that the Comp
Plan would allow to have that type of infrastructure. She claimed they would be willing to look at
different alternatives such as providing it privately on site.
In regard to Utilities, Ms. Tedrow
explained the Applicant has to prove that those are available. She reminded the Board that staff provided a
long list of policies in the Comp Plan that essentially prohibits urban
facilities and services so none are available.
Staff even stated they would have to be in the urban service area, but
that is exactly what the Applicant is asking to do; remove the property from
the rural area and put it into the urban service area so those facilities and
services can become available. Staff’s
report notes that urban services continue to be excluded by policy from the
east rural area, which is why the Applicant doesn’t want to be in the rural
area.
Ms. Tedrow presented Utility Crossings
and explained the Econ has been crossed six times for utilities, even by the
County; so there is availability across the Econ for utility crossing for this
project but that will depend on the final development plan that’s agreed
to. If they have a smaller development
plan, obviously force mains and other sizes would be much smaller to
accommodate whatever residential and commercial or office uses that they would
ultimately have on the project. Then
they would come up with utility plans based on what the Board would be
agreeable to, and then they would run the numbers and do things like change
consumptive use permits in the Stormwater Treatment Plans. Ms. Tedrow then
reviewed the Summary which noted the Applicant will pay for the costs of
required utility connections, staff’s requested studies are premature, and
staff says the Applicant would need to accommodate for emergency services and
schools. She explained once the Board
voted to put the property in the urban service area, that’s when the Applicant
would know the type of modifications to consumptive use permits, to the
Wastewater Master Plan or to the 10-Year Water Supply Plan. Those aren’t agreements the Applicant could
enter into or modify before they have proper entitlements on the property to
even have those services become available.
Ms. Tedrow stated the Comp Plan also
provides guidance on environmental protection, and that is something the
Applicant took into consideration when designing the project. In terms of environmental protection, the
site is designed around wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. They are clustering the development in
satisfaction of Future Land Use Policy 1.7.
There is a minimum of 25% open space and green space (she claimed they
would be getting closer to 50% by the end of the development program when they
look at final lot lines, interior setbacks, and all of the units in the
development). They would dedicate
100-plus acres to the County in satisfaction of Future Land Use Policy 1.5, and
the Applicant is willing to dedicate 200 acres as a minimum starting
point. Staff even agreed the setbacks
support Policy 4.5 of the Comp Plan.
In regard to a Leisure Services Report from May 16, 2018, Ms. Tedrow explained the report stated the River Cross project
may have official protection of conservation areas and expansion of outdoor
recreation available for the public via the Econ River Wilderness Area. Those aren’t things that the Applicant is
asking the County to buy through any public trust fund or to put any County money
towards in terms of acquiring those lands; they are saying if the County wants
200 acres, they will dedicate that to the County or the St. Johns River Water
Management District. The Applicant would
be happy to dedicate those acres because it is not only a benefit to the
county, it is a benefit to the project as a whole to have those greenways and blueways that make it a livable, walkable environment that
people really enjoy and where nature is not only protected but integrated into
the design of the project itself.
Ms. Tedrow explained the definition of
urban sprawl and stated, by definition, this project is not urban sprawl. She reviewed Urban Sprawl: Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes. She summarized that
the criteria is saying they need to look to see what is being promoted as urban
sprawl and stated the proposed project does not meet the criteria for urban
sprawl.
Ms. Tedrow stated the Comp Plan says
that they need to have adequate transitions.
That was difficult for the Applicant to try to meet just on an
intellectual level in looking at what those requirements are. She reviewed Adequate Transitions and noted
adequate transitions are required, yet transitioning of land use is ineffective
in a rural area. Ms. Tedrow
explained the Applicant is not getting consistent feedback as to what would
ever be sufficient for any development on the unique piece of property. If anything but rural next to rural is going
to be, by policy, considered incompatible, then the Applicant could never get
past a compatibility analysis for the project regardless of the amount of
studies that they present or how much they write into the Development Order
because if staff says all you should be able to have is transitioning (but it’s
ineffective so you can’t transition), and you want to have something that’s
compatible (but rural next to rural is the only thing staff considers
compatible), then quite literally the property will never be able to be changed
by virtue of the policies and the interpretations that staff took in their
report. Ms. Tedrow
stated staff also prevented the Applicant from having a realistic compatibility
analysis by concluding that nearby development in the urban area cannot be used
to demonstrate compatibility and a change of character in the area. So after the Applicant submitted the analysis,
they were told that part of the analysis wasn’t even allowed to be used because
they were looking at urban developments nearby. She opined there really is no realistic
opportunity for any applicant to be able to come forth with a viable
application for the Board’s consideration under that framework.
Regional Context & Comparisons was displayed and Ms. Tedrow reviewed the A Project Similar to Chuluota
slides. She expressed the Applicant
would be willing, if they take a prorated basis on the 395 net-buildable acres,
to take the Chuluota residential densities and intensities prorated out on the
proposed property. If you prorate out
what Chuluota is entitled to have by right today under their Future Land Use
designations, the proposed project would be able to have 1,852 residential
units and 410,692 square feet of commercial uses. If that would be an acceptable development
program, the Applicant would be willing to take a development program like
that. She opined no one who lives in
Chuluota would say that their community is not compatible with a rural
lifestyle because most people consider Chuluota to be rural by nature even
though it’s not rural by policy under the Comp Plan. Ms. Tedrow then
reviewed A Project Similar to The Grow.
She proposed if the Applicant uses their own net-developable acres,
would the Commission allow them to have the identical densities and intensities
of The Grow. Ms. Tedrow
explained they would have 974 residential lots and 81,000 square feet of
commercial. She has looked at every
comparable type of planned, mixed-use development in near proximity to the
property to try to figure out what would be compatible and what would be
allowable. The beginning of the
commercial uses northwest of the Applicant’s property in Chuluota is 1,000 feet
from the property line across 419. She
advised they are also close to The Grow even though she recognizes that The
Grow is in a different county.
Ms. Tedrow asked just for
consideration purposes, whether or not they could have a dialogue where the
Commission would tell the Applicant if they are proposing something that is far
too intense. She stated what is
important to the Applicant is what the Commission would consider to be too
intense or too dense. She asked what the
Commission would consider to be sufficient buffers and how much open space does
the Commission think the project should have.
Ms. Tedrow advised those are the types of
answers that the Applicant would like to have so they can submit to the Board
the final utility plans and tell the Board how much the Applicant will have to
pay to be able to connect and even if they can connect. She expressed the Applicant just wants to
know what the Board would be considerate of in terms of a density and intensity
that is allowable given the context of the area, the rural character studies,
the fact that there is no clear guidance in history aside from a few references
here and there in time and considering the fact that there are no standards in
the Charter for how the Board should amend the Rural Boundary and that the
residents don’t even have the opportunity to vote on that every five or ten
years to figure out if there should be some Charter Amendment standards that
they would have for considering necessity.
Ms. Tedrow reviewed In Closing and
stated they need to look at the Rural Boundary policies and procedures with
careful consideration and try to provide some guidance because she guarantees
even if the Applicant gets “shot down” tonight, somebody is going to come in
the future who wants to develop in the same area; and if somebody hasn’t made
the line go away by that point, she would hope that there is something on the
record that a developer could look at to see what the Commission had to say
about densities and intensities, adequate transitions and buffering, and open
space.
Ms. Tedrow stated the Applicant
respectfully requests amendment of the Rural Boundary Charter line, transmittal
of the Comp Plan Amendments, and approval of the requested rezoning. She advised even if the Commission wants to
table consideration of the Comp Plan Amendment to a later date, the Applicant
would at least ask that there is the removal of the property from the Rural
Boundary under the Charter because the only thing they have to prove is
necessity; and she believes there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove
the necessity of moving that line specific to the ordinance that staff put
forth before the Board. She stated all
of the Applicant’s engineers are present, and her team is happy to answer any
questions that the Board may have. She
asked for the opportunity to respond after the public has had a chance to
comment, and Chairman Horan advised she will be given 15 minutes to respond.
Commissioner Dallari stated the Applicant made several comments,
and one of them was about the Dews case.
He asked if staff has reviewed that at all. Mr. Applegate stated he hasn’t heard from the
Applicant’s attorney about any of the issues, and the decision that the Board
is faced with is not one under the threat of an FHA complaint. The Board’s decision is based on the evidence
and testimony. He discussed his
background creating projects which help state and local governments address affordable
housing issues. Mr. Applegate advised if
he had to find a federal case that is as far off point as legally possible from
what the Board is dealing with today, he would cite the Dews case.
Mr. Applegate explained the Dews case involved a city in Texas
with a population of 2,000 people. The
entire city consisted of one-acre lots, and the reason it was one-acre lots is
because the City took great delight in ignoring a consent decree that required
desegregation of 30 communities surrounding the Dallas area. Mr. Applegate explained he hired a very
reputable firm to tell him he was wrong, and the analysis came back that it is
not an issue to be concerned with. The
City’s argument was that they don’t have to have minorities in the community
because they are living around the city.
He read a sentence from the holding in the Dews v. Sunnyvale case,
“Moreover, such an argument is circular when Sunnyvale’s zoning ordinance and
regulations are to blame for the inability of African Americans like WPI’s (The
Walker Project, Inc.) clients to penetrate Sunnyvale’s housing market.”
Mr. Applegate stated that the presumption that African Americans
cannot live in a rural area if they choose to do so is not only invalid under
the FHA but is disingenuous. He advised
the comments regarding Commissioner Dallari requesting a moratorium on accepting
development applications in the rural area has nothing to do with the decision
the Board is going to make today. Mr.
Applegate informed the Board that it is a cardinal principle in this area of
law that statically evidence of percentages and the factors relating to
statistical evidence, by itself, will not prove a case.
Commissioner Dallari requested staff talk about the Rook and Mermel properties.
Ms. Hammock stated those are both small pieces of property
(approximately four acres) that have been removed from the rural area. The Rook property was removed based on
litigation with the City of Winter Springs.
Both the Rook and the Mermel properties were
removed based on annexations into Winter Springs. The part of the Mermel
property that was removed from the County’s rural area is for a tot lot and
open space and a portion of stormwater.
Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Ms. Hammock that there is no
vertical construction. Ms. Hammock
explained the Rook property was annexed into Winter Springs around the same
time that the 2004 rural Charter Amendment was approved by the voters; and when
that happened, the County and the City were involved in litigation.
Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Ms. Hammock that there are
two Rural Boundary lines and asked Ms. Hammock to explain the difference of the
two. Ms. Hammock explained the first one
was established in 1991 and was established in the Comp Plan, and the second
one was established by the Rural Charter Boundary Amendment that was voted on
by the citizens of Seminole County. They
are similar boundary lines, but there are slight differences. The line is the same where the subject
property is located. Commissioner
Dallari stated there are different definitions regarding how you can move
them. Ms. Hammock advised the Comp Plan
has standards that are required to be met in order to move it; and the Charter
boundary does not define any standards within the Charter, it is up to the
discretion of the Board if they believe that the line needs to be moved.
For the record, Ms. Tedrow advised she
disagrees with the County Attorney’s conclusions and the Applicant did try to
engage in a conversation with Senior Assistant County Attorney Paul Chipok. Mr.
Applegate stated the Development Review Committee is not the forum to get into
legal debates about past projects; and County staff, as shown by the
presentation, made every effort to meet with the Applicant’s representatives on
a number of occasions.
-------
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 6:06 p.m., reconvening at
6:17 p.m.
-------
Commissioner Dallari asked if the County Manager concurs with
staff and if she has any comments. Ms.
Guillet answered yes, she concurs with staff.
She explained she worked with staff and was engaged with them as they prepared
the information for the Board. She
commended staff for their comprehensive and professional approach they took to
the analysis of the project. She advised
she joins with them and their recommendation to deny transmittal.
Chairman Horan stated they are now going to move into public
comment. He advised the Board will hear
from public officials first.
Emily Bonilla, Orange County Commissioner, District 5, addressed
the Board and stated she started Save East Orlando in 2013. She started that when she met some
constituents at a community meeting full of about 300 people. It has grown into Save Orange County and has
continued to grow into Seminole County.
Orange County Commissioner Bonilla explained that goes to show how
passionate all of the constituents are about keeping the rural areas rural in
Orange and Seminole Counties. This isn’t
just a county issue, it is a regional issue that crosses county
boundaries. She fought against the Lake
Pickett developments for three years, and eventually the Orange County
Commission turned down Lake Pickett North.
She discussed why rural areas are affordable areas and noted there has
been a trend to build estates in rural areas of Orange County, which drives up
the prices and makes the rural area unaffordable. She stated she is a minority who lives in the
rural area and supports the Rural Boundary, and she supports it because the
line prevents urban sprawl.
Orange County Commissioner Bonilla pointed out that Ms. Tedrow didn’t go into why minorities aren’t living in rural
areas. Orange County Commissioner
Bonilla explained there are multiple reasons why minorities don’t live in rural
areas and you can’t just look at the statistics. If you look at the culture, many Hispanics
and African Americans do not live in trailers, and there are a lot of trailers
in rural areas. If you want to have a
home, it’s expensive to build a home in a rural area; a lot of minorities are
low income because they don’t have equal opportunity in the workplace. Minorities are usually of low income, which
is why they don’t live in the rural area; it has nothing to do with the Rural
Boundary.
Chairman Horan discussed a Joint Planning Agreement concerning
the county’s eastern area that the County has been trying to get Orange County
to enter into that he believes is an important part of stopping urban
sprawl. Orange County Commissioner
Bonilla expressed she would like to have a Joint Planning Agreement and would
like to head that up and make it happen.
Malcom Clayton’s name was announced, and it was determined that
he was not in attendance.
Ken Clayton, 5405 Diplomat Circle, addressed the Board and
stated he is the president of Hi-Oaks, LLC, which is the owner of the
property. He explained he is not the
Applicant, but the Applicant has done an incredible job and put forth an
incredible effort to demonstrate to the Commission that they have a very
worthwhile project. Mr. Clayton stated
the history of the property has been around longer than a lot of the people in
the room have been involved with the area.
The property was bought by his father and his cousin in 1989. In 1994, the Econ River Wildlife Area was
created when they sold it to the County and that is the other half of the
property. The Seminole County Charter
Amendment occurred in 2004; however, Mr. Clayton received no notice of that
even though his was an obviously affected property. He explained he did not live in Seminole
County so he wasn’t sent information on it.
As the owner of the property, they never consented and they never
agreed. The property was designated as a
transition area so it was anticipated that it would transition to something,
but that seems to have never happened; and he is discouraged that they are
still sitting here looking at a property that is exactly where it was back in
1989 except it is far more restricted.
Mr. Clayton stated the property was purchased with the
expectation that it would be able to be developed and that it would be able to
be rezoned. He advised Hi-Oaks, LLC,
supports the amendment that is being sought by the Applicant and they strongly
believe that what they are applying for are highly desirable uses and
improvements to the area and will be a very strong, positive development that
the people in the area would be very proud of because it will help their values
and infrastructure needs.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Clayton that since his
family didn’t purchase the property until 1989, then they were not the owners
of the property when it had the application for one-acre home sites on it. Commissioner Carey asked if there was still
an active Development Order at the time his family purchased the property, and
Mr. Clayton answered not that he is aware of but he’s pretty certain there was
not. Commissioner Carey opined if they
had looked back through history and saw that it had an application for a
one-acre home site development, their expectation would be that that would
probably be the most they’d ever get on it.
Mr. Clayton disagreed and explained the property was undeveloped and it
was in an area that was undeveloped. He
would like to think that over a 50-year period there is a chance that zoning
and density could change dramatically as it has all over Seminole and Orange
Counties.
Dr. Lisa Jones, P.O. Box 3772, addressed the Board and stated
she was shocked when she saw an article on a Planning and Zoning meeting that
indicated that the developer’s law firm was stating that the County is playing
the race card. She was even more shocked
tonight to hear that they seem to actually care about the welfare of African
Americans in Seminole County when the Applicant’s law firm is defending a
developer in Orlando that is actively engaging in environmental racism. Chairman Horan reminded Dr. Jones to keep her
public comments to information pertinent to the issue before the Board. Dr. Jones stated she disagrees with the
development and is opposed to it as a Floridian because she enjoys the rural
area and enjoys the Econlockhatchee. She agreed with staff’s presentation and
their recommendation. She opined when it
comes to affordable housing, the developer is not going to build any housing
that people who make $20,000 a year are actually going to be able to
afford. The Applicant is trying to claim
that this is based on racial segregation, but it has nothing to do with racial
segregation.
Mary Jo Martin, Geneva Historical Society, addressed the Board
and presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy received and filed) and stated
she would like to make a few points about the request to change the Rural
Boundary and rezone the 669 acres of the Hi-Oaks Ranch. Ms. Martin stated Ms. Tedrow
said that they are at a handicap because the County has set no criteria for
removing land out of the rural area.
There is one criteria and it is that the Commissioners may remove
property from the rural area and amend the Rural Boundary whenever, in the
opinion of the Board, such a change is necessary. Ms. Martin discussed the history of changes
to the Rural Boundary including the Mermel and Rook
properties. She talked about the
constituents’ rights to the rural area.
Ms. Martin opined many blessings of UCF have made it to Seminole County. There are two Seminole State campuses in
Seminole County that feed into UCF; the county has the highest in the region of
college attainment for high school students, growing new housing of UCF faculty
and staff in the County’s cities which love taxable growth in their
boundaries; and classes for students at
UCF in agriculture, STEM and environmental studies. The rural area serves as a place for UCF
students to study and do internships on farms, ranches, at the Rural Heritage
Center, and the museum.
Ms. Martin discussed transition.
She opined the Applicant seems very proud that they have 30% of the
acreage in greenspace. Perhaps that is
because around 30% of it is in the flood-hazard area, and those who live around
there already worry about flooding on their properties. She pointed out Seminole County is a
participant in several regional planning groups and reviewed the mission
statement of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which is to
avoid further sprawl, and discussed “How Shall We Grow.” Ms. Martin suggested they make five-acre lots
with beautiful houses, selling for $800,000 to $900,000, and consider using
some of those profits for affordable housing in the rural area using existing
zoning densities. Or better yet, why
choose this one piece of land in the rural area when there is other open space
not saved as rural area. She stated it
is a beautiful piece of land that deserves something special, and it is very
special just the way it is. She doesn’t
see how anyone can say such a change is necessary.
Deborah Schafer, 1740 Brumley Road, Chuluota Community
Association, addressed the Board and stated while many areas in Seminole County
have struggled for identity, Chuluota has not.
Chuluota has been a rural community since its founding; and for over 50
years, the citizens of the area have worked to preserve the rural
lifestyle. She discussed Chuluota’s
history. She advised when Mr. Clayton
claims he did not know about any of the changes, he is wrong. Ms. Schafer stated she has the original
letter that was sent to every resident that was affected. She noted it may not have been Mr. Clayton
personally, but whoever was on the address at that time was notified. Ms. Schafer expressed they want to keep it
rural, and they are not against development; but the proposed development is
too intense for the area and is not designed for what the residents have all
worked on for over 25 years. She asked
that the Board back their staff and uphold the will of the voters and vote no
on the project.
Gracia Miller, 150 Zenith Pointe,
addressed the Board and stated she is a member of the Geneva Village Homemakers
and the Geneva Community Association.
She explained she lives in Geneva because that is where her grandparents
homesteaded in the ‘20s. She knows that
today she would not be able to buy the land that she lives on, so she is very
grateful for her grandparents and parents.
Ms. Miller explained they need to understand that people live where they
want to live, and there are no racial barriers or boundaries as far as she can
see. And for that to have been implied
is the only reason she came today. She
worked in a Seminole County elementary school that is considered a poor, urban
school; and they had all the races there, but mostly the folks were just poor,
but the folks got along. Ms. Miller
stated she knows as an African American of Seminole County, there are some
places that she doesn’t feel safe and has raised her children not to go in
certain places; but for the most part, Seminole County is a great place to
be. The Rural Boundary needs to be
maintained because the people need the freedom and flexibility to make their
own lifestyle choices. She believes the
Board will do the right thing.
Stan Stevens, Jr., 455 Live Oak Avenue, addressed the Board and
stated his parents have five acres that abut the proposed project on the
north. His father worked for years in
Seminole County trying to preserve the rural nature of the county; and he is
sure that if this project were to pass, his father would roll over in his
grave. He asked the Commissioners to not
let his father down and to not let down the citizens.
Deborah Poulalion, 1367 Cor Jesu
Court, addressed the Board and presented three different maps (copies received
and filed). She wondered if the 100
acres that the Applicant is willing to give to conservation are wetlands or
uplands. She reviewed her maps and
discussed the wetlands by the Econ. She
proposed that the County look into making that area a conservation area because
they can’t risk putting the Econ in danger.
Ms. Poulalion explained Rural-5 and Rural-10
isn’t just about people, it is about protecting the river. The river is not going to move, and they
don’t get a do-over on the river. She
talked about The Grow and how it has kept the residents in limbo while going
through court. She hoped the Board
wouldn’t do that to their residents.
Richard Creedon, 1172 Apache Drive,
President of the Geneva Citizens Association, addressed the Board and stated at
the Planning and Zoning hearing, the Applicant’s attorney referred often to the
2006 Rural Character Plan like it was almost part of the County’s Land
Development Code. The plan was prepared
for a considerable fee by the firm of Glatting
Jackson. Mr. Creedon
advised he attended those discussion meetings that the BCC had when the plan
was given to them. A lot of the
suggested ideas were controversial so the BCC did not adopt the Plan; they
didn’t even agree to accept the plan.
They finally were able to agree to only receive the plan. Mr. Creedon stated
it is hardly a book to try to build a case on.
The intent of the Charter Amendment was, and still is, to preserve open
space and the rural lifestyle. It was
never the intent to make it easy to bring intense development into the rural
area; rather it was the intent to make it difficult, not impossible. Mr. Creedon advised
as the county’s population continues to increase, the rural jewel of eastern
Seminole County, with its clear air and water, forest, pastures and wildlife,
will be appreciated even more than it is at present.
Jay Zembower, 3667 Eagle Preserve
Point, addressed the Board and stated he has owned property in the Rural
Boundary for over 40 years, and he finds it real difficult that Mr. Clayton’s
memory is not what it was in 1987 and 1989 when they were fighting the adult
entertainment that was proposed to go on that property. He advised there were absolute discussions,
as Commissioner Carey referenced, about one unit per acre. They knew that at that time, and that is why
they worked with people to try to get the Rural Boundary Initiative Referendum
on that ballot and they’ve done so. Mr. Zembower thinks the voters have spoken and believes staff
has done a good job. He urged the
Commissioners to listen to the experts that have given evidence today.
Melissa Debach, 2945 Star Grass Point,
addressed the Board and stated she is the president of the Sanctuary Community
Association, a neighborhood of 744 single-family homes a couple of miles away
from the proposed River Cross development on CR 419. She is also a board member for Save Rural Seminole. Ms. Debach advised
the Applicant has made several references to subjectivity, inconsistency, and
being treated unfairly. She asked the
Board to acknowledge that although the Applicant is entitled to file an
application and have their case heard by the BCC, they are not entitled to a
“yes” vote, nor are they entitled to a compromise. She explained the land is currently zoned for
agricultural five-acre plots and its Future Land Use is Rural-5. That is the Applicant’s current entitlement
and anything granted beyond that should be based on their presentation of
substantial competent evidence. She
hoped the Board would ask the Applicant questions after public comment. Ms. Debach pointed
out the Applicant’s residential and office needs analysis points out that
Seminole County will need more residential and office space over the next 20
years but does not attempt to make any compelling argument as to why this
location would best serve that need.
Neither the Applicant nor his attorney are subject matter experts in the
field of traffic engineering or economic analysis.
Ms. Debach stated on the subject of
residential and office analysis, she would like to point out that the
consultant’s report states that 7,299 parcels zoned for residential development
are available. She asked the BCC to ask
the Applicant how many of those parcels are single-family versus multifamily
since an apartment building can go on one parcel, so the deficiency may not be
as severe as represented in the report.
The footnote specifies that the parcels include condos and
multifamily. The economic report states
that there is a need for new office space.
Unlike the residential analysis, the report does not provide the
existing office entitlements available countywide. The Shimberg study
was prepared for the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in 2016. Ms. Debach asked
why it was even submitted as evidence.
She opined it has nothing to do with the project or with Seminole County
because it was a statewide analysis. She
talked about the school analysis and noted the project will cause further
overcrowding at the zoned schools.
Ms. Debach stated at the Planning and
Zoning hearing, Ms. Tedrow pointed out that Chuluota
has entitlements that would accommodate approximately 1,774 residential units
and 393,000 square feet of nonresidential space. If that is the case, she asked why additional
entitlements are needed. If the location
is so desirable and important, then Chuluota would already be experiencing more
development. She stated that speaks to
the location not being ideal for such scale of development. The project would destroy the rural character
of Chuluota, goes against the expressed will of the voters as established in
2004, and proposes a 900% increase over the current zoning. Add 1.5 million square feet of commercial
space into consideration and this project sets a dangerous precedent that
current and Future Land Use designations can and should be substantially
altered without equally substantial competent evidence.
Ms. Debach discussed the impact the
project would have to local roads and infrastructure. She opined the impact fees are frighteningly
inadequate to even begin to fund the infrastructure improvements to support
such level of growth and there has absolutely not been a valid demonstration of
need. The proposed development is
nothing more than a want based on insufficient evidence. Conversely, the people in Chuluota, Geneva
and Oviedo have competently demonstrated that they don’t want the
development. She urged the Board to deny
transmittal of the project.
Drew Pommet, 1809 E. Broadway,
addressed the Board and stated he is the president of the Live Oak Reserve
HOA. Mr. Pommet
talked about his neighborhood and noted it is the large development that is
one-third of a mile north of the subject property. He stated he walked around his neighborhood
to bump into people and talk to them substantively about the project. Of the greater than 20 folks that he spoke
with, it was unanimous opposition to all concepts; transmittal, altering of the
Rural Boundary, rezoning, and effective changes to the Comp Plan. Mr. Pommet pointed
out there were 55 instances of deficiencies, absent items or inadequacies of
the application. He advised Mr. Kramer
presented the concept of transmitting and it reminded Mr. Pommet
of the Affordable Care Act concept where it was passed in order to figure out
what’s in it. So the concept is to have
a reasonably adequate application before transmitting, and he would hope the
Commissioners will see it the same way.
Mr. Pommet urged the Board to deny all three
concepts.
Claudia Lamanna’s name was announced,
and it was determined that she was not in attendance.
Nancy Harmon, 752 Pioneer Way, addressed the Board and opined
the Applicant’s presentation has been a disparaging presentation of a plan that
isn’t really a plan that they’ve asked the Board to consider as
a way to make income for themselves.
She feels the Claytons have a responsibility to the community for which
the land is involved in. They have a
responsibility to have known what the land zoning was for, and they should have
taken into consideration through the years that they owned the property what to
do with the property and not wait until now when the family wants to have their
investment come to fruition. She claimed
the reality is, as a citizen of Seminole County, she doesn’t believe any
citizen of Seminole County should have the opportunity to destroy other
Seminole County citizens’ lifestyles.
She asked the Board to completely deny the Applicant’s request to change
the Rural Boundary and all the other associated documents that go along with
that request.
Steve Edmonds, 1022 Vanessa Drive, addressed the Board and
advised he sat on the Land Planning Agency for the City of Oviedo from 1997 to
2001, he was on the Seminole Soil and Water Conservation District from 2002 to
2006, and he was involved in most of the Rural Boundary fights and discussions
if not as a citizen then as an appointed committee person. Mr. Edmonds stated staff did an excellent job
at showing how the project is not concurrent to either its surroundings or even
to the eastern part of Seminole County in general. It fails in traffic, it fails in emergency
services, it fails in water and sewer, and it fails in schools. It fails in every regard. He discussed the Econlockhatchee
Protection Zone. Mr. Edmonds opined PUDs
are the workaround for developers in the state of Florida, especially in
Seminole County and especially in Oviedo.
When you don’t want to follow the rules and you don’t want to follow the
Comp Plan, you develop a PUD and that way you can get whatever you want out of
your development without having to worry about the rest of the citizens that
worked very hard at planning their community for the last 20 years and for the
future 20 years. He hoped that the Board
will follow the will of the people.
Andrew Hogan, 1072 Country Cove Court, addressed the Board and
talked about the negative impact the development would have on CR 419. He stated there is a lot of involvement with
a bridge going over the Econ and he is opposed to it. He hoped the Board will vote against the
project.
Virginia Creedon, 1172 Apache Drive,
addressed the Board and noted Ms. Poulalion covered
the Econ River as a floodplain very well. She reminded the Commission that it is a
recharge area, and that all of the floodplains are recharge areas for drinking
water. She asked when the Board
considers this project and others in the future, to consider that the residents
need drinking water and the recharge areas might be affected by paving and
building.
Roberto Gaier, 2220 Orange Street,
addressed the Board and stated he is representing the Black Hammock
Association. Mr. Gaier
advised although the Applicant is saying the development only impacts 1% of the
rural area, 1% could be far too much. He
pointed out one cancer cell can destroy the entire body. It is a very serious matter to consider the
application because it could destroy the rest of the rural area as it is known
today. In the rural area is a
replenishment of the aquifer for the entire Central Florida; and if you destroy
that, you will have to spend millions of dollars to fix what’s been broken.
Don Peterson, 3585 Canal Street, addressed the Board and stated
the Board should deny all three items.
He expressed the word “precedent” comes to mind because once this would
be accepted, it would open the door for everything else. Black Hammock is a rural area and it doesn’t
have churches, gas stations or schools; but it does have a lot of open
land. They just took out 200 acres of
orange trees; and instead of putting in high-rises and offices, they are
putting in flowers. He advised they
ought to leave the Rural Boundary alone.
It was voted on by the people and upheld by at least two, if not three,
judges. He asked the Board to deny the
project.
Seerina Farrell’s name was announced,
and it was determined that she was not in attendance.
Jenelle Ferrer, 3190 Howard Avenue, addressed the Board and
stated as a Cuban-American married to a Puerto Rican, the racial issue is mute
to her. She advised while the affordable
housing arguments can be subjective, the environmental issues are not. Endangered and protected species have been
found in studies on the River Cross property.
This could create an automatic roadblock for anyone trying to develop on
property with red tape and no further movement; but because of funding and
connections this project is still under discussion when the environmental
detriment is clearly evident in all of the reports both provided by private and
public sectors. Ms. Ferrer explained the
land use of rural areas exists not primarily to appease those who live in the
rural area but to protect the wetlands and the environmental resources. She discussed the language of the 2004
Charter ballot regarding the rural area.
Ms. Ferrer stated the water levels are another environmental
factor that the Applicant has grossly understated. Water levels are higher than ever as a result
of nearby developments like Oviedo Gardens, Black Hammock Preserve, and
Southern Oaks. The drainage goes into
her land after it has overflowed from the canals and creeks that no longer
withstand the flow of water. She
discussed the problems this caused during the recent hurricanes and how the
proposed development would exacerbate the issue. Ms. Ferrer advised as a real estate broker
she has no problem with responsible development that has evaluated the environmental
impact a project may have and takes the appropriate measures to protect the
natural resources as well as sociable obligations; however, this is not a
responsible development. The developer
has not truly considered the negative impact the development has on the
schools, water tables, rivers, protected species, roads and overall way of life
in the area because he doesn’t live in the area nor will he feel directly
affected by his actions. She wondered
when they will stop looking at the growth in terms of dollar signs and start
looking at the impact that it will have on future generations. She hoped the Commissioners would represent
the voice of the people.
Lucas Ferrer, 3190 Howard Avenue, addressed the Board and stated
his wife just covered the major arguments.
He discussed his history living in the rural area. Mr. Ferrer has seen firsthand what
development can do. He is from West Palm
Beach and can’t afford anything in that area anymore due to development and
increasing growth which has steadily moved its way up through Florida. He and his wife found a beautiful lot in
Black Hammock and saw the Rural Boundary as something that could protect that
way of life. He is concerned that once
this development comes, more development will come. There has already been talk about big lots in
Black Hammock being taken. He asked
where they will move next. His way of
life will be affected and there will be nothing left in that area that will
appeal to people that want a rural lifestyle.
Mr. Ferrer doesn’t want to move because he loves Seminole County and has
started a business here. He stated he
wants the Board to vote against the development.
Elton Hogan, 1072 Country Cove Court, addressed the Board and
pointed out Seminole County’s slogan, “Florida’s Natural Choice.” Mr. Hogan opined it is not just a slogan, it
is a way of life for residents and visitors alike. He stated they can find the woods, water and
wildlife within the Rural Boundary; the woods for hiking and camping, water for
kayaking and exploring, wildlife high in the trees and flocks of turkey on the
ground. The Rural Boundary is not just
for the people that live there.
Everybody enjoys natural Seminole County. He asked the Board to not make Seminole
County a laughing stock when someone reads the slogan by preserving the Rural
Boundary.
Jay Jurie, 408 South Virginia Avenue,
addressed the Board and noted he has a master’s degree in Environmental
Planning, a PhD in Public Administration, has taught the subject matter of
Urban and Regional Planning for 32 years at UCF, is one of the cofounders of
the current Master of Urban and Regional Planning program at UCF, and several
of the County’s past and current staff have passed through his classroom; so he
believes he counts as a qualified expert when it comes to this particular
subject matter. He stated staff has done
a masterful job with their review of the application, the methodology looks
sound and solid, and the recommendations are on target. Mr. Jurie opined
they need to design with nature and he believes that is what staff and the
Planning Commission have recommended. He
requested the Board follow suit and deny the Applicant the measures that they
are asking the Board to pass.
Harry Smith’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Edward Dec, 1043 Tropical Avenue, addressed the Board and stated
what the people are really talking about is the destruction on a rural
tranquility. This is a desire, if not a
demand, by the people to keep this area in its natural state and prevent
overdevelopment also known as urban sprawl.
He expressed he cannot in any way, shape or form understand how this
issue has gone from being an application being denied into a race and segregation
issue. If this was truly an issue of
race and segregation, Mr. Dec is quite certain they would be hearing from the
Feds about the 1968 Act. He doesn’t
believe race and segregation were thrown into the issue with Orange County when
they were denying the same application for large developments there. He asked the Board to deny the application
because the Applicant has failed to meet 55 different criteria in the
application.
Rebecca Wilkinson, 1240 Brumley Road, addressed the Board and
stated this battle is now being fought over the future of the Econ River and
low-density zoning within the Rural Boundary.
In her opinion it comes down to being a fight over the finite resource
that the community sees as life sustaining in the broadest sense and what developers
and now some politicians view as money to be made under the banner of progress
and growth. Developers and politicians
have an inability to admit that the River Cross project would ruin the Econ
watershed, wreck the rural lifestyle, destroy an ecologically sensitive habitat
and the species it sustains, and stick the taxpayers with the infrastructure
costs. Ms. Wilkinson opined it comes
down to greed. There is no mandate that
requires that development cannot be bridled.
She stated the people can choose to preserve sensitive land for the common
good and for future generations. They
have in fact made that choice over and over.
She asked that the Board honor her wishes and vote no on River Cross and
that the Board provide the leadership that is necessary to buy up the contested
lands and put them in trust to the people of Seminole County.
Charles Lee, 1101 Audubon Way, addressed the Board and noted he
is the Director of Advocacy of Audubon Florida.
He stated he has been working with Audubon for 46 years and has been in
quite a few County Commission Chambers in Florida. He has been in a number of land use and
zoning proceeding arguments in those chambers.
He read word for word the entirety of the staff report and he also read
the work of the County’s consultant, Balmoral.
Audubon Florida hopes that the County will follow the staff
recommendation and deny transmittal and deny the map change and the text change
and deny the Rural Boundary change. They
think that staff has put it all together as to why the Board should deny. He reflected back on his experiences in
similar proceedings.
Mr. Lee opined the Dews v. Sunnyvale case really takes the cake
in terms of misrepresentation. He added
the town of Sunnyvale is 11,000 acres compared to the 220,000-plus acres in
Seminole County. Border to border
Sunnyvale’s Planning and Zoning Commission said there shall be no apartments
and the only thing they can have other than agriculture is one house or more on
one acre in the entire jurisdiction of the town, 12 miles from the center of
Dallas, Texas. It was clearly a
deliberate exclusionary effort and the Court found that. For the Applicant to come in front of
Seminole County and try to make that comparison to this decision in the
County’s attempt to protect the rural area was simply disingenuous. Mr. Lee stated it is almost unbelievable that
advocates would try to make that representation and he is astounded by it
because he’s rarely heard anything as over the top as he has heard with that
particular representation. He hoped the
Board would rely on staff and take their good advice to deny.
Andre Klass, 3250 Retreat View Circle,
addressed the Board and stated he is here to voice his concerns regarding the
River Cross project. As the study has
been presented earlier by staff, there are six threatened species of wildlife
that live in this particular plot. The
Rural Boundary was constructed by the Commission and voted for by the people to
support and preserve the sensitive wetlands that are critical pieces of land
that need to be preserved to sustain the quality of the environment. Mr. Klass explained
having worked for the state’s leading electronic recycling company for over six
years, he knows the direct relationship between how well people take care of
the environment and the quality of life for residents in Seminole County. They need to do their best to make sure that
Seminole County remains Florida’s natural choice.
While Mr. Klass supports free markets
and economic growth opportunities, he advised he never supports anything that
could potentially go against the will of the people. He believes wholly in making sure that the
rights of the people to live how they see fit can never be abridged. He asked the Commission to follow his lead
and the lead of the people and vote no on the River Cross project and preserve
the Rural Boundary.
Rocky Harrelson, 225 Carolina Way, addressed the Board and
stated he comes to speak in support of maintaining the Rural Boundary in its
present location. He submitted his
comments for the record (received and filed).
-------
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 8:16 p.m., reconvening at
8:29 p.m.
-------
Steve Meyers, 212 Flame Avenue, addressed the Board and stated
his family moved to Altamonte Springs in 1969 and they have lived in Seminole
County on and off since then. He’s been
involved in animal rights issues since 2015 when the Florida Wildlife Commission
had the idea of a bear hunt. He thanked
the Commission for their leadership against that horrible idea. For 50 years in Seminole County, he has
watched developer after developer ruin the natural environment of Central
Florida. It’s essentially the same dog
and pony show; beautiful presentation, can’t stop progress, can’t slow down
growth, good for the economy. Mr. Meyers
opined most commissions roll over time after time and defer to the developers,
which causes an environmental Armageddon.
Mr. Meyers indicated if you look around, you see the coastal
estuaries are dying. They are filled
with blood-red algae, dead manatees and 250-pound loggerhead turtles floating
around. The Indian River Lagoon is
unsustainable, the St. Lucie estuary is being ruined, and the Caloosahatchee
River is filthy. The City of Orlando
decided to pave over 120 acres of headwaters of the Little Wekiva River in the
Princeton Oaks project. He discussed
other similar projects that have an impact on the environment. Mr. Meyers stated the people have
spoken. They spoke when they voted for
the rural line. The people in East
Seminole County spoke at the Chuluota community meeting when 100% of the people
spoke against the project. At the
Planning and Zoning meeting, 100% of people spoke against the project; and the
Planning Board voted unanimously against it and characterized the plan as
cartoonish. County staff is even
imploring the Board to deny the project.
He asked the Board to give a unanimous vote in opposition.
Pam Meharg, P.O. Box 2977, addressed
the Board and noted she is the conservation chair of the Seminole Audubon
Society. She stated the decision the
Board has tonight is a legislative decision, and the Board has absolute discretion
to vote as it pleases on the decision.
The Applicant is acting like he’s entitled to some kind of change in the
plan; he is not. County staff did a
thorough, professional job. The Seminole
Audubon Society recommends that the Board follows staff’s advice and turns down
the River Cross development. Ms. Meharg submitted a letter dated August 8, 2018, from the
Seminole Audubon Society to the Board for the record (received and filed).
Tom Patrizzi, 265 Riverwoods Trail,
addressed the Board and stated he is on the frontline of this thing and is the
major landholder on that line. He
expressed nobody ever consulted him about a 150-foot easement, and nobody has
talked to him about anything. He knows
what is going on, but it is going to affect him personally and monetarily. When he bought his parcel back in 1988, he
asked Seminole County about the property adjacent to him; and the County said
not in Mr. Patrizzi’s lifetime would that property be
rezoned less than one house per five acres.
Mr. Patrizzi stated everybody has rules, and
the people knew how it was zoned when they invested in it; and now all of a
sudden things want to change.
Terry Elliot’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Philip Grave’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Jamie Matos, 3121 Town and Country Road, addressed the Board and
stated in 2001 UCF brought her to Central Florida, and in 2003 she made
Seminole County her home because of the Rural Boundary. Her house is one mile from the proposed
development and she frequently sees deer, turtles, armadillos, possums,
rabbits, and bears in her yard. She
appreciates and respects the wildlife.
Ms. Matos reminded that the Applicant stated UCF is the fifth largest
employer in Florida. She advised that
all of those staff members are not located at the main campus that is by the
proposed development; they are located at regional campuses throughout the
state of Florida. During her time at
UCF, it was apparent that no one walked to class; they relied on shuttles and
cars. If traffic increases, pollution increases and the fragile Econ River is at risk. She discussed her family’s love for the rural
area.
Ms. Matos stated in May the Board approved something monumental
when it unanimously approved to purchase the Rolling Hills Golf Course from a
developer to provide the surrounding residents an opportunity to clean up the
land so that they could turn it into a County park. That will preserve their way of life and it’s
also going to allow the public to enjoy the park. While facts of this matter are slightly
different, she asked the Board to afford the same consideration for the land
being considered today. She asked the
Board to deny transmittal of the project so everyone may continue to enjoy the
area and the Econ River as it exists.
Development needs to occur upwards in the urban areas in the county and
not outward into land protected within the Rural Boundary.
Pat Lindsey, 1851 Old River Trail, addressed the Board and
stated she has lived in Chuluota for 36 years in the development of River
Woods. River Woods borders the property
that is asking to be removed from the Rural Boundary. She submitted a map entitled City of Oviedo –
Live Oak Reserve and 12 letters in opposition from her neighbors (copies
received and filed). Ms. Lindsey read
one of the letters into the record. She
stated she hopes they have an ethical decision tonight in the best interest of
the people and that they hear four denials.
Bill Lutz, 2618 S. Tanner Road, addressed the Board and stated
he attended a meeting in Orange County that went until 2:00 a.m. regarding a
similar development. He advised that
ultimately the Orange County Commission let the people down and all that is
left is a lawsuit. They have been
fighting The Grow for almost five years.
He thanked Commissioner Dallari for speaking to the Orange County
Commission in opposition to the project and played a short video of his
comments.
Tom Narut, 14620 Jesair
Drive, addressed the Board and stated he is a little bit confused with the
developer. Mr. Narut
proposed if the developer wanted land with urban services, wouldn’t he buy land
within the urban services area. He
submitted a document (received and filed) that was presented awhile back and
now he understands why it is so thorough and he assumes it is because of the
staff that he watched present earlier.
As an active participant in the Save Orange County citizens’ advocacy
group and a resident, he thanked the County’s team that helped to get the Lake
Pickett North project denied in Orange County.
He updated the Board on the lawsuit regarding Lake Pickett South. He discussed the document he submitted and
explained the direct correlation between the recent Lake Pickett North and Lake
Pickett South projects to the current River Cross project. The document also details various policy
violations, inconsistencies, and negative impacts to the defined rural
community, Econ River Basin, and more.
He thanked the Board for its initial position very clearly stated to
Orange County’s BCC and he hopes that position and those findings continue to
hold true with today’s deliberation regarding the River Cross proposal.
Gary Minor’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Sharon Howard’s name was announced, and it was determined that
she was not in attendance.
Theodor Mello, 56 East 2nd Street, addressed the Board and
stated he has a long history in Chuluota and just wants to keep it rural. He lives in a house that his dad helped build
in the ‘60s; and he can remember taking naps on 419, dog hunting in Alafaya Woods, and when Mitchell Hammock was a dirt
road. He grew up with a stick and a dog
and has traveled every river and every lake and he loves it. He advised he is opposed to the development.
James Miller, 1320 Cochran Road, addressed the Board and stated
he has come to speak in opposition to the proposed River Cross
development. He stated many others have
told the Board how the proposed development will destroy the environment and
harm the rural character of the area, which it definitely will. Many have spoken out that this development
will set a dangerous precedent which will potentially lead to further large
development inside the Rural Boundary, and it most definitely will. Mr. Miller advised the developer stated that
the County needs the development and its housing citing a lack of affordable
housing, yet provides no proven evidence that there is a need for affordable
housing outside of the established urban area, which is currently served by
existing transportation and infrastructure.
The developer further stated that there is a lack of housing and the
need for the development is that the County is growing, yet uses data that he
has skewed to support his case.
Mr. Miller stated the developer has even gone so far as to
accuse rural residents and County leadership of being racist and made a claim
that the opposition to the development is a way to keep people of color from
moving into the Rural Boundary. Again,
the developer offers no evidence of that salacious claim. He has not shown a single incident in the
public record of racial discrimination with regard to housing. Mr. Miller opined the developer is attempting
to stir negative sentiments among minority residents and scare the Board into
accepting the project. What the
developer is trying to do is take the attention away from the real issue which
is why he uses race and the threat of a Federal lawsuit hoping that no one will
bring up the true cost of his development, not to him and his partners but to
the taxpayers of the county.
Mr. Miller advised if it is approved, the development will cost
all Seminole County residents a lot of money.
The County will be required to extend the public road as well as a new
four-lane bridge over the environmentally sensitive Econ River. The road and bridge are estimated by FDOT to
cost taxpayers over $60 million. He also
knows that Seminole County public schools are currently filled past their
capacity, and the schools in the vicinity of the project are all currently
using portable classrooms. There will be
a definite need to build new schools to accommodate the new students in the
development. The developer is offering a
five-acre plot to the School District.
The new schools would cost the County an estimated $150 million, and
that is not including the cost of the land.
He noted those numbers are from the School District.
Mr. Miller asked if the developer will pay for the massive infrastructure
costs associated with the project. He
advised the answer is a resounding no.
The taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for the required infrastructure
while the developer collects potentially millions of dollars in profits. Mr. Miller urged the Commission to
unanimously vote no on the proposal and to honor their sworn duty to enforce
the County Charter. Additionally, he
urged the Commission to hold the line and not to compromise with the developer
allowing denser development than is currently allowed by the County’s zoning
ordinances.
Dori Sutter, 234 Morton Lane, addressed the Board and noted she
previously emailed most of her comments and objections last week, but she has
some additional information she would like to add. Ms. Sutter requested that the County’s legal
counsel review the case law before the vote.
She stated case law states non-expert testimony is perfectly permissible
and constitutes substantial competent evidence so long as it is fact
based. Ms. Sutter discussed other case
law she felt was relatable. She stated
presenting fact-based testimony regarding incompatibility of the proposed
development with surrounding uses and adjacent existing development around the
subject site is exactly what the citizens are presenting to the Board. As such, based on the legal grounds of the
proposed development’s fact-based incompatibility, she asked the Board to deny
the project and rest in confidence that any later legal challenge from
big-builder interest has well established case law to overcome.
Kelly Semrad, 3111 Amalfi Drive, addressed the Board and noted
she is a Mexican minority that resides within the rural service area who is
married to an immigrant minority residing within the rural service area. She stated first and foremost she is here on
behalf of Save Orange County and advised the position of Save Orange County is
that they ask that the Board reject the proposed development. Secondly, she is a citizen who resides within
two miles of the proposed development, so she asks as a citizen that the Board
reject the proposed development.
Ms. Semrad stated in regard to the market demand analysis where
UCF is quoted as being an employment opportunity for the proposed development,
she is a professor at UCF and UCF is not hiring on their main campus (staff nor
faculty positions) in a large quantity; rather they’re hiring at the medical
college in Lake Nona (an estimated 37 minutes from the proposed site) as well
as the proposed downtown campus and the Rosen campus (57 minutes from the proposed
site). She advised the Lake Pickett text
amendment is under legal litigation and she was a petitioner on the case. An administrative law judge overheard that
hearing and found in favor of the petitioners saying that Orange County had
violated its Comp Plan by approving the Lake Pickett text amendment which
includes The Grow and Sustany. That was overturned by Governor Rick Scott,
and they are now at the Appellate Court level where they have been accepted by
the Court as having legal standing as well as legal merit in terms of how the
Governor and his Cabinet overturned that decision. She discussed Lake Pickett history.
Ms. Semrad stated the buyer purchased the land knowing it was
rural land. The Rural Boundary provides
rural property rights to all those residents that reside within that
boundary. It doesn’t matter the size of
the land that is owned, everybody is afforded the same property rights by that
Rural Boundary. In terms of the
statistical study that was provided by Dr. Boone with descriptive analyses and
percentages, Ms. Semrad advised she is also a statistician for UCF and opined
the study is completely erroneous. To
draw conclusions of causality that the Rural Boundary causes or influences racial
discrimination or segregation is erroneous.
The conclusion does not account for other variables that could influence
the percentages that were provided.
Those percentages are simply descriptive statistics, not inferential
results of conclusion. She asked that
the Board reject all three of the proposed project requests.
Chuck O’Neal’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Katrina Shadix, 1421 Bringham Loop, addressed the Board and noted she is the
director of Bear Warriors United. She
discussed how important it is to her that she is here tonight to speak out in
opposition to the urban sprawl project entitled River Cross. Ms. Shadix informed
the Board that when she found out the date of this meeting last month, she
immediately sent a text to Mr. Dorworth to request
that he postpone the meeting to give the citizens time to build up paid time
off in order to attend the meeting to address the affordable housing issue and
to oppose River Cross. She was shocked
at how quickly Mr. Dorworth was able to get the item
on the agenda when it has taken several months to several years to get the
bear/trash ordinance, the fertilizer ordinance, and the fracking ban on the
agenda and passed. Ms. Shadix indicated that Mr. Dorworth
never answered her text about postponing the meeting.
Ms. Shadix stated this project will
kill wildlife and destroy their habitat.
She discussed the death of a bear near the proposed project. She asked the Commission to consider the fact
that the environmental assessment study done for River Cross by Bio-Tech failed
to list the Florida black bears and the nearly extinct panther as species that
would be negatively impacted by River Cross.
Both species have been documented on that property. She expressed another issue she has, which is
that River Cross will not sufficiently provide affordable housing. She met with over 200 Goldsboro residents a
few weeks ago, and they do want and need affordable housing but they don’t want
it in east Seminole County. They want it
in Sanford near their families, friends, workplaces, schools and churches. They want to meet with Mr. Dorworth if he truly does want to build affordable
housing. She suggested using the old
Flea World property to build on.
Ms. Shadix advised she supports
infilling, redevelopment, repurposing existing buildings, responsible growth
and ethical capitalism; but she does not support urban sprawl. There is also the issue of an inevitable tax
increase. Ms. Shadix
explained River Cross is a classic case of a hidden tax increase on Seminole
County residents. Using the Price of
Sprawl calculator to determine taxpayer cost for new development, rough
calculations establish that it does not pay for itself. Even if impact fees are paid, they don’t
begin to cover the costs of schools, roads, infrastructure, Fire, Rescue,
Police, water supply, et cetera.
Ms. Shadix stated this is another
example of privatizing the profits and socializing the costs. River Cross will cost taxpayers $9,328,300
per year. She opined this land use
change is all about Mr. Dorworth because he gets all
the profits and the residents get the destruction and costs that follow. She asked Mr. Dorworth
to respect the Comp Plan, the water supply, natural lands, wildlife, and the
rural quality of life. Ms. Shadix noted she is part Moroccan, which is a country in
Africa.
Philip Gold’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Brandon Arguelles, 1534 Elf Stone Drive, addressed the Board and
stated there is an economic problem and environmental problem with River
Cross. Economically he has looked at the
mixed development that is going to have a dense population and offices and it’s
all going to be in one spot. Infrastructure
hasn’t been built yet for it, and they don’t know that it will be ready in time
when the development is done. Mr.
Arguelles stated from his time living in Orlando, he saw the mixed-use
apartment units and downstairs offices.
They wanted to create a walkable district for people to go to and get to
where they need. In the rural area, they
don’t need that. They want to be further
away from everything. They want to enjoy
the natural parts of Florida. He discussed
his love for the outdoors.
Mr. Arguelles advised his trouble on the environmental side is
where is the water going to go because it’s just going to be diverted
somewhere. He discussed water levels
since the recent hurricanes. He stated
water is being diverted for the developments, and it’s going in discharge
areas, and it takes time for it to filter into the aquifer. Mr. Arguelles expressed he opposes River
Cross because it’s just too much. It’s
too much overreach and too much building in an area that doesn’t have that
character.
Rick Ashby, 1515 Fort Christmas Road, addressed the Board and
stated he agrees with Mr. Applegate that it is disingenuous for this project to
say that it is advocating affordable housing in the rural area. He explained an actual affordable housing
project might meet the requirements for amendment if the Commission wants to
approve an actual affordable housing project, but this project obviously does
not meet those requirements. Mr. Ashby
hoped the Board takes into account the testimony of the citizens as expert
witnesses since most of them live in the affected area.
Mr. Ashby opined the affordable housing claim is ridiculous but
it isn’t the first ridiculous claim that they’ve heard from the developer and
his lawyer. He stated this is the third
meeting he has been to regarding this item and the Applicant keeps claiming
that this project will fix an urban sprawl problem they claim the county
has. Mr. Ashby discussed HB 83 and the
lobbying that was done in Tallahassee that was directly related to the
project. He asked the Board to represent
the will of the people and disapprove all of the aspects of the project. He explained the Board should deny because of
the false claims that the Applicant has made and because the project will cost
the County and the residents money and destroy a beautiful area that actually
produces value just by being there.
Joy Recicar’s name was announced, and
it was determined that she was not in attendance.
Ken Gentile, 251 East 7th Street, addressed the Board and stated
he is a new resident who just moved into Chuluota in June. The first week he was there he was greeted by
a 12-inch snapping turtle, and he knew that he was home. He met all of his neighbors and it is a
lovely community. Mr. Gentile stated
before the Board is a very important decision, but it is not a very difficult
one. In spite of the gravity and the
impact it will have on many lives, he heard a very clear presentation by staff
that they don’t support it. He opined
staff did a thorough job and laid out a very strong case as to why it should
not go forward. This project is not a
project the county needs.
Mr. Gentile stated he is not against growth and development but
it needs to be sustainable and it needs to be in accordance with contiguous
properties, and this proposal does not do that.
He talked about transition and opined it is not a transitional
property. He discussed the Rook and Mermel properties and expressed he was thinking that they
were hundreds of units; but he heard it was just a unit or two. He wondered why those two properties were
even part of the argument. It is clear
to Mr. Gentile that the proposal is not complete and is nowhere near where it
needs to be to pass approval right now.
Jason Kirby’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Landon Jose Thomas, 2140 Old River Trail, addressed the Board
and noted he is the vice president of River Woods HOA and lives within 250 feet
of the proposed subdivision. He
discussed how growth and development caused his subdivision to become a
cut-through street which destroyed the atmosphere of the whole area. He pointed out he is a Cuban American and
owns a large home on ten acres. He
expressed he is very happy in a rural community. He suggested the best way to establish a
buffer zone is to consider when he shoots his gun, are the 15 neighbors on the
other side of the fence going to be happy at the noise and will they feel safe.
Mr. Thomas stated the Applicant claimed that the residents in
the area are okay with a 150-foot buffer and they had spoken to the
residents. Mr. Thomas advised he is the
vice president of the HOA and never heard from anybody. There are ten other owners along that street
side that didn’t hear from anybody either.
He pointed out in the Chambers he sees what is left of the Senator Tree
that lived in the community for 3,500 years and was burned to the ground. He asked what would be left for future
generations to appreciate in Seminole County.
Mr. Thomas advised the Econ River, Wekiva River, and Rock Springs are a
few jewels in the county that will feed natural landscapes and allow wildlife
to travel. He stated as a Board member,
the Commissioners are entrusted to protect those areas and animals for future
generations. Mr. Thomas asked the Board
to take a stand and protect the jewels that make Seminole County Florida’s
natural choice.
Michael Hill’s name was announced, and it was determined that he
was not in attendance.
Randolph Femmer’s name was announced,
and it was determined that he was not in attendance.
Mary Heffner’s name was announced, and it was determined that
she was not in attendance.
Sharon McMullin’s name was announced, and it was determined that
she was not in attendance.
Marjorie Holt, 8502 Alveron Avenue,
addressed the Board and stated she is submitting two letters (received and
filed). Ms. Holt advised she is the
conservation chair for the Sierra Club Central Florida Group. She expressed using the racial issue to
correlate approval for River Cross is very inappropriate. She complimented staff for an excellent,
thorough analysis that she believes will uphold the Board’s decision to deny
the project. She read some of her letter
into the record on behalf of the Sierra Club.
She asked the Board to deny the project.
Michael Parker, 1700 Old River Trail, addressed the Board and
stated he is African American. Mr.
Parker noted his property is adjacent to the proposed development area, and his
property line is affected directly. He
strongly opposes the development. Mr.
Parker stated he would like to address the elephant in the room that did not
exist prior to the earlier statement at the last meeting. There are Hispanic families, black and brown
families, and African American families.
Ethnic people are already in the rural area. He advised the Applicant should not use race
as a scapegoat. Lower income housing
doesn’t just pertain to race, and that is a shortsighted perspective and a
shortcut to getting what the developer wants.
Mr. Parker stated that won’t work and the Board should not allow it.
Mr. Parker suggested if the developer cares so much about
low-income housing and majority black or ethnic areas or districts, they should
renovate and develop areas that are lower income and help the people who want
to be helped. He asked that the Board respect
what the people want that live in the affected area. Mr. Parker discussed the diversity in the
rural area and stated they represent freedom of choice. He loves his land, his guns, his privacy, the
value of the area, the nature, and the safety of the community. He encouraged the Board to deny the project.
Thomas Hawkins, 308 N. Monroe Street, addressed the Board and
stated he sent the Commission a correspondence and he has a copy of it to make
sure it is part of the record (received and filed). Mr. Hawkins is a policy and planning director
at 1000 Friends of Florida. He stated
Mr. Applegate’s commentary with regard to the case law was appropriate and
correct. He complimented the Planning
staff who he has spoken with many times in recent months. He pointed out they received a great presentation
from Mr. Diamond with the Balmoral Group discussing how the technical details
of the application process weren’t met by the Applicant. But Mr. Hawkins wants to bring it back to the
big picture and point out what a binary choice it is. To vote “yes” on the request to move the
Rural Boundary would make the rural area urban and it would cross the Econ
River. To vote “no” on the proposition
says that the Board wants to continue to have vital, positive community-building
development in the existing communities like Longwood, Lake Mary and Altamonte
Springs; using SunRail as a vital transportation corridor; and having the kind
of development that supports something positive for the future.
Mr. Hawkins urged the Board to deny the application because the
strategy to have strong growth in those walkable communities and to move in
that direction is not only the way to build great communities but also to have
places that they can continue to leave to recreate along the Econ River and
leave to have a viable agricultural economy.
Brian Beute, 153 Overlook Drive,
addressed the Board and stated although he serves as president of the committee
to Save Rural Seminole County, he is representing himself. He advised by now the Board is aware that the
organization’s efforts have communicated with thousands of citizens and
procured numerous HOA letters of support for the current Rural Boundary
standards. Mr. Beute
stated by pushing the limits of the zoning designation in the area, the
application attempts to artificially manipulate the laws of supply and demand
in an effort to create a much higher profit margin in a short period of
time. Strategies such as clever
marketing and the threat of litigation are attempts to coerce citizens and put
the Board in a double bind.
Mr. Beute advised he doesn’t have time
to address the climate of affordable housing but asked how a speculative
endeavor of this magnitude could possibly produce affordable housing and still
profit. He explained it would require
taxpayers to supply hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of
infrastructure. To think that there
might even be one vote of support for this application is in itself incredulous
and a misrepresentation of the citizens’ wishes. Mr. Beute stated
the Board’s denial of the application should prompt the petitioner to seek
other opportunities in areas designated for the kind of density that this
application proposes.
In closing Mr. Beute expressed that
the application conveniently ignores the relationship between the citizens and
their elected representatives. The
application has not provided demonstrable need, there is no basis for its claim
of judicial standing, and most importantly the Board is not obligated to
approve any proposal that does not meet the zoning characteristics of the
property’s location approved by the citizens of Seminole County. By denying the proposal, the Board is
encouraging the Applicant to reconsider an appropriate proposal that meets the
specifications of the property’s zoning designation or to pursue free-market
solutions that address the Applicant’s passion for providing affordable housing
within areas that already provide the infrastructure necessary for high-density
developments.
Michael Rich, 300 Lake Eva Drive, addressed the Board and stated
he was on the Lake Jesup Task Force for five years,
one year on the Geneva Bubble Task Force and has been at numerous
administrative hearings. He advised if
the Board allows a high-density urban project inside a protected rural area,
they are instigating new high-density development in adjacent properties. That domino effect is urban sprawl and will
initiate the destruction of the rural area.
The cascading urbanization that the project would cause will threaten
the recharge of the Geneva bubble, which is protected by Chapter 373, Florida
Statutes. He discussed the definition of
urban sprawl. Mr. Rich opined it is a
dressed-up square peg being tried to put in a round hole, and he asked the
Board to reject it.
Steven Rich, 1030 McKinnon Avenue, addressed the Board and
advised he has been a professional environmentalist for over 44 years in
various capacities and he has reviewed tens of thousands of plans over the
years. This is one of the top 5 absolute
worst compatible projects he has seen in 44 years. He isn’t sure what the Applicant’s planners
were thinking, but there is no effort for compatibility; and it is a disgrace
for the county. Mr. Rich stated other
aspects of the project disturbed him, like the way it is laid out. The estate lots are up near 419 instead of
down near the river where they should be.
They have the more dense locations by the river. It is backwards, it shouldn’t be that way. The Applicant is asking the Board to approve
the transmittal of the project predicated upon the fact that a road and bridge
in another jurisdiction that the Board has no purview over will be approved,
otherwise they have an extreme traffic problem.
Imagine all of the traffic going out through
those two little roads on 419 if McCulloch and the Econ bridge are not
approved. Mr. Rich discussed the density
of Sustany versus the density of River Cross. He asked the Board to deny the transmittal of
this item.
RJ Mueller, 14366 Stamford Circle, addressed the Board and
stated he lives just off McCulloch in Orange County and he opposes the project
and trusts that the Board will deny it.
He doesn’t want to talk about McCulloch or the bridge or the traffic,
and he’s not going to talk about the impact of the third most pristine river in
Florida or about all the other gimmicks that he has heard over the years
because the Board has heard it all too.
Mr. Mueller admits he feels like a tired, old soldier in a long war and
has been through many of these battles; The Grow, Sustany
twice, HB 883, and now River Cross. He
stated the cards are stacked against the citizens. Developers have the advantage because they
can lose a battle and come back to fight another day; but if the battle is
lost, that land can never be un-concreted.
Mr. Mueller expressed the Commissioners are what matter. They are the gatekeepers and they get to
decide the battle. He trusts the Board
will vote no with the other 84 opposition speakers and not with the two
speakers who spoke in favor.
H. Alexander Duncan, P.O. Box 620092, addressed the Board and
stated he was born and raised a native of the rural area so it is crazy that
the racism stuff came up. Mr. Duncan
stated the County grew at 16% according to the 2010 census, and the rural area
grew at 13%; so if the rural is growing like the urban, that is due to
somebody. He discussed the Yankee Lake
project. Mr. Duncan stated he spoke here
three years ago and pointed out Orlando North was more than a new motto; it was
a way of life the Board wanted to see.
He opined people don’t understand Consent Agendas because they had three
PDs in Agricultural and Rural classification areas that the Board approved with
the swipe of a pen because nobody even knew it was on the agenda. The precedent has already been set which is
why the developers keep coming because the Board has already taken and moved
the Rural Boundary.
Mr. Duncan discussed the difference of the Rural Boundary in the
Comp Plan in 1990 and the Charter Amendment in 2004. He stated the Applicant wants to take CDBG
money from poor minorities in urban settings to go and destroy “rural white
people stuff” according to the Applicant.
He opined it is all a game and at the center of the game is the county’s
elected officials. Mr. Duncan stated the
Rural Boundary has already been encroached upon and people need to know that at
the core of all of it is local government.
Chris Calder, 2240 Kildare Drive, addressed the Board and stated
he is a business owner. He had the
opportunity to relocate his family and business anywhere in the United States;
and out of 3,000 counties, he chose Seminole County. Since he has relocated, he is now being
encroached with development in Orange County.
If this request is approved, it is going to set a precedent and it is
going to reach a tipping point. Mr.
Calder assumed that the developer would say this is less than 1% of the rural
area, and he will say that there are no remaining large parcels that can be
developed in the rural area. Mr. Calder
explained they aren’t talking about large parcels, they are talking about five
acres here and ten acres there because it sets a precedent. That 1% goes to 2% to 5% to 10%.
Mr. Calder referred to the Planning and Zoning meeting and
stated the Applicant said it is not about money, it is about his legacy. He discussed legacies and asked what kind of
legacy the Board will have. Mr. Calder
stated this county is worthy of its good fortune for the people decades to
come. He noted River Cross has done
something incredible in today’s toxic political environment; it has brought Democrats
and Republicans together for a common cause, it has brought hundreds of
environmentalists sitting down at the same table united, farmers, homeowners,
teachers, mechanics, students, and business owners all united to stop changes
to the precious Rural Boundary. Mr.
Calder asked that the Board vote against the proposed River Cross development.
In
rebuttal, Ms. Tedrow stated that she has heard a lot
of testimony today. They have been here
for eight hours and she appreciates that everybody has stayed vigilant. She stated that she understands this is a
politically unpopular project and they knew coming into tonight that they were
going to have a room full of opponents who simply don’t want anything on this
piece of property. She can understand
that by the end of tonight, she was going to change nobody’s mind in the
audience who came in opposition that this was going to be a good project, that
this would be a project that would be good for Seminole County in the long run. Ms. Tedrow talked
about the type of project and principles that drove the original inception of
their plan and how they wanted to develop a community that met existing needs
and future projected needs for Seminole County in terms of residential uses and
job creation. They wanted to put it not
shoved next to undeveloped or rundown houses in foreclosure and parts of town
that people don’t want to live in but rather somewhere where people would be in
close proximity to the things that make this county Florida’s natural choice. She explained that it is the type of
development that would be unique that only Seminole County could have because
it would incorporate those greenways and blueways
that you would not be able to get in other parts of the municipalities within
Seminole County. This is not a project
that they can replicate and try and find 700 acres where hundreds of those
acres would be dedicated to permanent conservation and would have open space
and green space for people to enjoy. It
just simply does not exist.
Ms. Tedrow suggested that they can
continue to have what she would call “death by a thousand cuts” to the Rural
Boundary where they will be poorly planned and will be one acre here, five
acres there, ten acres there or they can try and satisfy what is a
statistically significant need that was demonstrated through their expert
testimony, even taking into consideration the County’s consultant, for unmet
residential units in the county. Ms. Tedrow talked about how they are going to have applicants
continue to come before the Commission for years. She pointed out that they have a piece of
property that for years has been told it is different than the rest in the
rural area. That is the guidance that
she received from the County in a joint planning agreement with the City of
Oviedo where the County identified this as an edge property, as a transitional
area, where the County says it deserves planning consideration for very obvious
reasons. The County had a Rural
Character Plan and it went nowhere. The
County had a joint planning agreement and it went nowhere. That does not change the fact that this
specific piece of property is fundamentally different than the rest of the
Rural Boundary given its location, given its dimensions, and quite frankly
given the premier master planned community that they hoped to bring before the
Board tonight.
Ms. Tedrow stated
she is not surprised in finding two lawyers who are going to disagree with each
other on facts of interpreting some case law.
She does not want to go into a debate and believes that she and the
County Attorney could have a healthy debate about this another time. She does believe that it takes a moment for
all of them to pause when they find out what is statistically significant analysis
about the line. She emphasized that not
once tonight has she said that the County did this, that this was intentional,
or that anyone here is to blame. All she
said is that this is a problem that they unearthed during their project. It is a problem that quite frankly there is
no other evidence on the record except what one of the nation’s leading
statisticians has told them was a startling conclusion, one in her 20 years of
experience she has never seen anything like before. Ms. Tedrow stated
they looked at that and thought that was worth considering as a Commission when
taking into consideration a set of policies that make it almost impossible to
have a real thoughtful dialogue of what should happen in the Rural
Boundary. They have a unique opportunity
to do something and to meet an unmet demand and to build a project that would
be good for the county.
As to what they want, Ms. Tedrow
advised that she certainly does not know what anyone sitting up on the
Commission wants and where they want to have communities that incorporate where
people can work, live, and play in close proximity so they don’t continue to
have auto-dependent development and force development, by definition, to be
urban sprawl. She stated they have a
piece of property where they are asking the County what it wants and whether
there could be something on this property that the County would find
acceptable. They would be willing to
hear that feedback and table the items that they have put before the Board
tonight in order to come back with that revised plan.
Ms. Tedrow suggested that at the
minimum given the amount of time, money, and effort they have spent to try to
come up with a plan, they would appreciate a minimal amount of feedback as to
what at all could be considered on this site because the County has for years
said that it considers some transitional planning principles. She wondered what those would look like and
whether there could be buffers that they think are adequate, an amount of
residential units they think is adequate, an intensity of commercial development
they think would be okay and a way that they would want that designed. She wondered whether they want more than 200
acres of permanent conservation or a guarantee of 50% open space. She asked whether they want Chuluota where a
lot of folks in this room currently live and find that lifestyle to be rural
and compatible with rural lifestyles.
She questioned what would be wrong with giving the Commission Chuluota
on this specific piece of property, which is only 1,000 feet to the
northwest. Ms. Tedrow
noted that it seems to her that they are asking for some dialogue from this
Commission on an important topic because another developer is going to continue
to ask and she does not think simply saying we will not engage in the dialogue
is a fair shake at due process for any applicant regardless of how politically
unpopular a project may be.
With regard to a solution, Ms. Tedrow
stated they have asked the Board to transmit their project and they are asking
the County to give them feedback as to what they would or would not find
acceptable. She believes if the Board
thinks there is something that is debatable under the County’s Comprehensive
Plan or if the Board wants more information or analysis or they want to see a
plan that has been modified to perhaps accommodate some of those concerns, then
they can bring that back.
Ms. Tedrow advised that they would
like there to be a vote on the Charter Amendment because County staff put
together an ordinance that says the Board could move that under the ordinance
if they deemed it to be necessary. She
stated they feel that they have presented competent and substantial evidence
not only to support their case but certainly to support the Board voting yes on
that amendment even if they ask the Board to table the rest of the items to let
them bring back something that perhaps the Board would consider to be
acceptable for this piece of property.
She appreciates all of the time that the Board has taken in considering
the project. She appreciates all of the
comments that they heard from the community tonight. Ms. Tedrow stated
she would ask that the Board approve their project; but at a minimum if this is
going where she thinks it might be, that they will not get approval, she would
ask the Board what they would approve and give them the opportunity to show
whether that is a viable plan that could come to life on this project.
Ms. Hammock stated that she would like to point out several
things with regard to staff’s presentation.
With regard to the issue of affordable housing, she stated the Applicant
provided staff a revised Development Order.
They provided information; it wasn’t a formal resubmittal. As part of the revised Development Order,
they did commit to providing 15% affordable housing, but the submission also
stated they would be applying for Florida Finance Corporation funding and if
they did not receive that, the units would revert to market rate units.
With regard to the transitions that were brought up, Ms.
Hammock advised that at the meeting on September 26, 2006, staff did state in
regard to Transition Area 3 (which the property is located within) that the
area already transitions and the Cluster option could be employed, which is
already in the Land Development Code.
Ms. Hammock stated this particular property has a Rural-5 Future Land
Use designation; so it is entitled to one dwelling unit per five acres. With the Rural Cluster Subdivision Options,
they would be entitled to 58 dwelling units because they calculate density
based on net buildable. Ms. Hammock
stated she has a record book (copy received and filed) with various studies
that she would like to enter into the record.
Commissioner Dallari asked Ms. Hammock if she had indicated
that the Applicant had emailed information on Friday, because he got a copy of
it, and that there were some changes to the D.O. but they were not
substantial. Ms. Hammock replied that
the Applicant did make some changes and did answer some of the questions that
were within the DRC comments. One of the
changes was related to the mixed-use and commercial and office provision. She pointed out that Phase 1 of the
development is all residential uses and Phase 2 would be the nonresidential; so
there is no correlation between the nonresidential and the residential. There is no linkage. They are not requiring a certain amount of
nonresidential uses to be built concurrently with a number of residential
units. Therefore, it is not truly mixed
use. Commissioner Dallari pointed out
that Ms. Hammock had stated it was not a formal submittal but that they still emailed
it to the County and asked what that means.
Ms. Hammock responded that it was just for information and staff did not
do a formal review on it. Chairman Horan
stated there was not a formal review but he indicated to the Applicant that
they could put it into the record.
With regard to public participation, no one
else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was
closed.
Speaker Request Forms and Written Comment
Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Applegate if
he feels that there has been due process here because it has been said several
times that there has not been due process.
Mr. Applegate stated he thinks due process has been met very
clearly. They talked about the Dews case
at length and the Board heard other comments about it. He stated when a Board, a public body, is
threatened with litigation (in other words if you don’t vote this way, we will
see you in Federal court), he feels obligated to remind the Commissioners, as
he knows this Board has done repeatedly over the years that he has been the
County Attorney, they do not let that threat persuade them one way or the
other. They should base their decision
on the testimony, the evidence, and the record before them; and he knows they
will do that.
Commissioner Dallari stated he thinks the
staff did a phenomenal job. He knows
they have all worked very hard on this over the past several months and thanked
each one of them for their hard work. He
also thanked the citizens for their input.
He advised that it is nice to be in a public setting like this where
there is actually decorum and civility.
The Commissioner mentioned all of the emails and correspondence that he
received and noted that it was impressive, and he thinks the citizens have done
their work as well. He reiterated that
he has submitted them as part of the record.
Commissioner Dallari stated in going through the submittal, hearing the
testimony, and basing his decision on the evidence presented today, he feels
the application is incomplete and he would like to make a motion.
Motion
by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to deny
transmittal of the Ordinance enacting Text Amendments to the Seminole County
Comprehensive Plan to amend the Urban/Rural Boundary, and enacting a Large
Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Rural-5 to Planned Development to the
State and regional review agencies; deny adoption of the associated Ordinance
enacting a Rezone from A-5 (Rural Zoning Classification) to PD (Planned
Development), and the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan
for approximately 669.4 acres, located west of CR 419, east of the Econlockhatchee River, and north of the Orange
County/Seminole County Line; and deny the adoption of an Ordinance enacting
the Charter Rural Boundary Amendment, as described in the proofs of
publication, Christopher Dorworth; Denial Development
Order.
Under discussion, Commissioner Constantine
stated he wanted to echo what Commissioner Dallari just said. He pointed out they have been here on this
issue for seven hours and noted the civility on both sides has been
incredible. The testimony on both sides
has been incredible and is something you don’t see very often in a public
hearing like this. He thinks that everyone
deserves a great deal of credit.
Commissioner Constantine indicated that he is not going to spend a whole
lot of time stating the reasons why he is going to vote. He believes less is more and that this
development is not necessary and not compatible with the County’s current land
uses.
Commissioner Carey advised that this Board
has taken a lot of steps to encourage growth and development in their centers
and in their existing corridors, and they have taken a lot of steps to
discourage growth in the Rural Boundary.
She emphasized when you start to widen roads, you encourage growth and
mentioned that they have taken some of these improvements out of their
long-range plans so they are not really encouraging growth to occur out in the
rural area. Commissioner Carey stated
the issue they have, which they talked about in 2006, is that there is always
going to be pressure on the Rural Boundary until something is built. Whether it is a five-acre subdivision or a
three-acre subdivision or one unit per ten acres, that pressure is going to
remain. They have situations out there
where the Urban Boundary has gone right up to the imaginary line in the
sand. Snowhill
Road is a great example of where you have four units per acre on one side of
the line and then you have one unit per five and ten on the other side. She questioned how they address that. Commissioner Carey acknowledged that in 2006
they didn’t want to talk about how to transition from one area to the other to
relieve that pressure and advised that at some point they do have to have that
discussion.
Commissioner Carey explained that the Commissioners’ job is
to review the applications before them and not to tell the developer what the
Board thinks they ought to do; but she thinks they should have good, clear
policy on what needs to happen in transitions and what appropriate setbacks
are. At some point with all of the
encouragement the County has to develop in the corridors that exist in their
urban area, there will come a time when they will be looking at where they go
next. She thinks planning for it and at
least having a discussion about it is a reasonable thing to do. It is a conversation they need to have in the
future as to how they are really going to protect the Rural Boundary by having
some guidelines in place about how to protect it. Commissioner Carey mentioned that was the one
thing that she thought was missing when the Comp Plan was adopted in 1991. She does not know what the next 20 to 50
years are going to look like; but for the landowners out there, there has to be
some conversation so they have some anticipation of what to expect or not
expect. She thinks that is fair.
Chairman Horan stated when he looks at
this, he thinks it is important to have some historical perspective on all of
this. He explained that when the Rural
Boundary passed in 2004, it was followed up by a vote in 2006. He talked about how, in the early 1990s or
late 1980s, the voters in Seminole County passed a $5 million bond issue backed
up by a special millage to pay off those bonds.
With that $5 million, they bought about $20 million of natural lands,
much of which is in the eastern rural areas.
The Chairman explained how in 2006, they went back out to the people and
asked for another $5 million bond issue to buy more natural lands and it got voted
down. One of the things they wanted to
do because they had the Rural Character Plan was buy up development rights of
major owners in that area, but they never had the money to do it. After that came the recession and they forgot
about all of this stuff because no one was developing anyway. In 2018, developers are coming out
again. He thinks it is important to see
a little bit of a historical perspective as to how they got to this point today
in 2018.
With regard to what they are supposed to be
doing here, Chairman Horan stated they are supposed to be acting in a
legislative fashion on a transmittal and acting in a legislative fashion with
regard to the movement of the boundary line.
The standard they have to follow is, is their policy as set forth in
their Comprehensive Land Use plan fairly debatable, and is that policy
something that is not arbitrary or capricious.
When looking at the County’s Comprehensive Land Use plan, there is no
impossibility.
Chairman Horan stated that the provisions about moving the
line and about exercising the Board’s discretion on transmittal, especially
with regard to the rural area, have nothing to do with the rural area. It has everything to do with the urban area
because the policy is to develop those particular areas of the urban before
developers would go to the cheaper land in the rural area. With regard to the Applicant’s question of
“what do you want us to do,” Chairman Horan stated under the County’s policy
what they want developers to do is exactly what the developers of Oxford Road,
Reagan Center, Winter Springs Golf Course, 434 Greenway District, Lake Mary
Colonial Town, and Allure projects are doing.
The land is more expensive but the policy here is definitely more than
fairly debatable. The Chairman
emphasized that it is dead certain clear that Seminole County’s policy and the
other policies involving TCEAs and DULAs are consistent. He added the rural area and the Rural
Boundary have more to do with the entire county than it does with just the
eastern rural areas. He is in support of
the motion. The Chairman thanked staff
for all of their hard work and their excellent presentation. He thanked the Applicant and their
representatives for their excellent presentation. He thanked the people who came to the meeting
tonight for their comments and civility and patience.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
There being no further business to come
before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.,
this same date.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
tp/js/kf