BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:32 a.m., on Tuesday, January 27, 2004, in the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Chairman Daryl McLain (District 5)
Vice Chairman Grant Maloy (District 1)(Late)
Commissioner Randy Morris (District 2)
Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
County Manager Kevin Grace
County Attorney Robert McMillan
Deputy Clerk Eva Roach
Pastor R.W. Merthie, New Life Word Center, Sanford, gave the Invocation.
Commissioner Van Der Weide led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Maloy entered the meeting at this time.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-11, as shown on page _________, commending Algerine Miller, for her seventeen years of service to Seminole County upon her retirement.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Resolution was presented to Ms. Miller who addressed the Board to express her appreciation.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-12, as shown
on page ________, commending Ronald L. Warren, Assistant Supervisor in the Emergency Communications Center for his seventeen years of service to Seminole County upon his retirement.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Resolution was presented to Mr. Warren, who addressed the Board to express his appreciation.
Sheryl Woods, Seminole YMCA Family Center District Vice President, addressed the Board to introduce Wayne Humphries, Vice President of Government and Community Relations, and the new Executive Director of Lake Mary YMCA, Robert Wilkinson. Ms. Woods stated her presentation would provide an update of what they are doing and what is going on in Seminole County. She displayed and reviewed slides of the following: Mission Statement; 5 Key Values of Character Development; Goals; and Fact Sheet of Central Florida YMCA relating to the Budget Size, Locations, Service Areas and Outreach. She continued by displaying and reviewing the Strategic Plan relating to Engage, Connect, Impact and Invest. She reviewed the Power of Partnerships as well as the following locations: Titusville; Blanchard Park; Oviedo; Lake Nona; Osceola; and B.C.C. She displayed and reviewed slides of the Community Outreach in Seminole County; Fact Sheets for the Oviedo Center for Health & Wellness YMCA and Seminole YMCA Family Center; Seminole YMCA Capital Project; and the Ground Breaking Event. She displayed photographs and reviewed the following: Lake Mary facility; proposed lobby area of the Seminole County Family Center; Child Development Center; and Teen Center. She stated the YMCA has asked to be a member of the Strategic Planning Committee and she reviewed the purpose of that committee. She invited the Board to attend the Family Festival and Ground Breaking Ceremony on Saturday, January 31, 2004 at 11:30 a.m.
Wayne Humphries addressed the Board to state the YMCA is here to serve the residents of the County and they are very grateful and honored to be in Seminole County.
Chairman McLain stated the YMCA has had an opportunity to meet with him and staff members in looking at partnering opportunities and they are anxious to work with the County to provide leisure services and family values. He stated staff will provide the YMCA with the Parks study and they are going to be partnering in the future with them on adding those services. He thanked the YMCA for their interest in the community and for bringing those kinds of values to Seminole County.
Commissioner Henley stated he is happy to see that the YMCA is being more aggressive in trying to serve the citizens of Seminole County. He stated he thinks it is important that the YMCA facility does have the potential of a great service to the community, but he doesn’t believe there has been enough effort in the past to recruit and involve the community in the YMCA program. He added he is happy to see this effort is going to come forward and he is looking forward to working with them.
Ms. Woods informed Commissioner Henley that about 70% of the Lake Mary’s facility budget relates to fees charged for various sports activities. The annual membership is $83 a month.
Ms. Woods stated the YMCA will not turn anyone away due to their inability to pay and they welcome the opportunity to get into some underserved communities and provide programs.
Commissioner Henley stated he would like the YMCA to provide the Board with information relative to the amount collected through Seminole County’s donations and the amount that is returned.
Commissioner Morris stated everyone appreciates YMCA’s mission. He stated this community has incredible volunteerism and incredible successes in its 501C3’s. It seems that the YMCA has been more successful particularly in neighboring counties.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Woods advised the YMCA has contacted the Sheriff’s Office relative to controlling traffic for the festival being held this Saturday. She stated the YMCA has permission from the high school to use their parking lot as well.
Mr. Humphries thanked the Board again for letting them come today to make their presentation.
Chairman McLain stated the YMCA also participated in the Envision Seminole daily event. He stated he has invited them to participate with the Board as it moves forward so they can engage the Business Community and Partners and be a productive part of that.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Chairman McLain advised the YMCA will be working with the School Board for partnering opportunities in the northern part of the County.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman McLain stated Item #16, Approval of Amendment #6 to PS-549-00 has been pulled from the agenda. He also informed the Board of an Add-on, Item #24A, Approve First Amendment to the Drainage Easement, AmSouth Bank.
Commissioner Maloy stated he noticed that there was a higher amount last year for Item #26, Approve X-Treme Challenge Adventure Race Agreement, and he feels the County should have a more concrete way to verify the room nights. Commissioner Van Der Weide responded to his comment.
Commissioner Henley stated the economic benefit report of last year’s effort is not included in the backup. He said he would like to see the annual report be a part of next year’s request.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following, as amended:
7. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute submittal of a Competitive Grant Proposal, as shown on page _________, to the Emergency Management Municipal Competitive Grant/Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund as required by Florida Statute. The proposal requests $32,000, the fixed price of the consulting service, with an inkind match of $18,000 reflecting personnel costs associated with the nine month planning process.
8. BCR #04-10 – $434,392 – Environmental Services – Water & Wastewater – Fund: 40103 – Water & Wastewater Fund. The South Seminole and North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority is expediting the replacement of a major sanitary sewer along Aloma Avenue (SR 426) and Dean Road due to recent and potential structural failure of piping and manholes. Modifications include line relocations, service reconnections, consolidating/upsizing lines, providing future stub-outs as well as updating and reducing metering facilities. The net result of the Authority and County’s project will provide improved and expanded facilities capable of servicing existing County customers and future developments along Aloma Avenue. Funds are available from the Northwest Area Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Phase II project due to a reduction in the scope of services for the design phase of the planned expansion currently budgeted at $1.2m. The estimated project cost for the County portion of this Sanitary Sewer Replacement project is $434,392 which includes design, permitting and construction costs.
9. BCR #04-11 – $138,000 – Public Works – Traffic Engineering – Fund: 11541 – Renewed 2001 Sales Tax Fund. The purchase and installation of variable message signs by the Traffic Engineering Division were budgeted in the FY 03/04 budget without identifying specific locations, since this information was still being determined during the budget process. Specific locations for these signs have now been determined (SR 434 @ SR426 and 17/92 @ Airport Boulevard); this transfer directs funding to these locations so that installation may commence.
10. Budget Amendment Resolution #2004-R-13, as shown on page _________, $36,306 – Planning & Development: 11901 – Community Development Block Grant Fund. The Community Development Office anticipated that these funds would be expended in FY 02/03 for tenant relocations, and as a result were not rebudgeted. However, these expenditures did not take place, and therefore these funds need to be recognized as revenue and budgeted for tenant housing payments/relocations in FY 03/04.
11. Budget Amendment Resolution #2004-R-14, as shown on page ________, $3,824,000 – Public Works/Engineering: 10101 – Transportation Trust Fund. Based on a Local Agency Program Agreement approved at the 03/25/03 Seminole County Board of County Commissioners meeting, FDOT has made $3,824,000 available towards the construction of SR434 Access Management and Resurfacing improvements in Winter Springs.
12. Budget Amendment Resolution #2004-R-15, as shown on page ________, $18,715 – Public Works/Engineering: 11500 – 1991 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund. Based on a Joint Participation Agreement approved at the 09/23/03 Seminole County Board of County Commissioners meeting, FDOT has made $18,715 available towards design services for Milling and Resurfacing along State Road 46 from 500 feet west of State Road 415 to 766 feet east of State Road 415.
13. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Lien, as shown on page ________, for Donald L. and Wendy Christy for the Chula Vista Road Paving and Drainage Municipal Services Benefits Unit (Ordinance No. 97-94).
14. Award CC-1223-03/TLC, as shown on page ________, Repair Central Transfer Station Anvil Top Tipping floor with Intron Technologies, Inc. of Jacksonville, FL, (Not-to-Exceed $132,740.00).
15. Approve the First Renewal to RFP-4127-01/BJC – Emergency Debris Management for Seminole County, with Grubbs Emergency Services, Inc., Brooksville (Primary Contractor) and DRC, Inc., Mobile, AL (Secondary Contractor) (February 7, 2004 through February 7, 2006) (Not-to-Exceed $5,000,000.00)
16. Pulled from the Agenda, request to Approve Amendment #6 to PS-549-00/BJC – Architectural and Engineering Services for the Seminole County New Criminal Justice Center and Renovation of Existing Courthouse, with HKS Architects, Inc. of Tampa, FL (add $91,000.00 to Existing Courthouse Renovations).
17. Approve First Renewal for PS-5135-02/BJC – Continuing Services for Miscellaneous Capacity and Safety Improvements Evaluation Services, with GMB Engineers & Planners, Orlando (Not-to-Exceed $100,000.00 per year).
18. Authorize Sole Source Procurement and authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order for the purchase of (6) six LifePak 12 Systems, to Medtronic Physio Control Corporation, Redmond, WA ($137,586.42).
19. Approve Final Plat for Kenmure subdivision for a single family subdivision containing 174 lots located south of Red Bug Road between Mikler Road and Brooks Lane; and accept the Warranty Deed, as shown on page _________, for Lift Station Tract T (Butler Ridge Development, Inc.).
20. Approve Release of Cash Performance Bond for Roads, Streets & Drainage and Water & Sewer for Estates on Lake Mills formerly known as Hilltop Subdivision Phase I in the amount of $31,268.00 (Sandy Bierly for Jordan Edventures, Inc.).
21. Approval to submit and authorization for County Engineer to sign the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Grant Application for the western segment of the Lake Monroe Loop Trail (Sanford Riverwalk Extension).
22. Approve acceptance of Permanent Drainage Easement Agreement, as shown on page _________, from Ray B. Ramirez and Brenda Ramirez, 7285 Sylvan Court, Sanford, Florida.
23. Approve acceptance of Permanent Drainage Easement Agreement, as shown on page ________, from Oviedo Properties Limited Partnership, 1969 Slavia Road, Sanford, Florida.
24. Approve release of the following Road Maintenance Bonds: (1) #ORL/P100766 ($15,135.55) for the Astor Farms Phase 1 project. (2) #ORL/P100765 ($99,842.46) for the Astor Farms Phase 1 project. (3) #LC 3SM 988 397 00 ($64,222.11) for the Retreat at Wekiva – Phase 1. (4) #6133238 ($109,100.00) for the Osprey Lakes Phase I.
26. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute X-treme Challenge Adventure Race Agreement, as shown on page _________, between Seminole County and Allen Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc., in the amount of $20,000.00.
27. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Memorandum of Understanding, as shown on page ________, between the Seminole County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, Sanford/Seminole Chamber of Commerce, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, Sanford Airport Authority, and Orlando Sanford International Inc.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
Steve Lee, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to briefly discuss with Commissioner Henley the requirement of design changes for Items #29-32, Approve settlements, Stappe and Holcomb property.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to authorize and approve the following:
28. Approve mediated settlement of expert costs relating to Parcel Numbers 101 and 102 of the East Lake Mary Boulevard, Segment I road improvement project, located at 1600 East Lake Mary Boulevard, in the amount of $56,700.00, Loxcreen and American Bronze.
29. Approve proposed settlement relating to Parcel Numbers 220 and 820 of the East Lake Mary Boulevard, Phase IIB road improvement project, located at 3886 Bridges Road, Sanford, in the amount of $45,016.00 (plus design changes), inclusive of all attorney fees and costs, Elgan A. Stappe, II.
30. Approve negotiated settlement relating to Parcel Numbers 219 and 819 of the East Lake Mary Boulevard, Phase IIB road improvement project, located at 3874 Bridges Road, Sanford, in the amount of $18,016.00 (plus design changes), inclusive of all attorney fees and costs, Richard and Doris Holcomb.
31. Approve negotiated settlement relating to Parcel Numbers 207, 707, and 807 of the East Lake Mary Boulevard, Phase IIB road improvement project, located at 3880 Bridges Road, Sanford, in the amount of $5,441.00 (plus design changes), inclusive of all attorney fees and costs, Richard Holcomb, Jr.
32. Approve negotiated Right-of-Entry Agreement, as shown on page _________, in lieu of Parcel Number 737 of the East Lake Mary Boulevard, Phase IIB road improvement project, in the considered amount of $6,266.00 (plus design changes), inclusive of all attorney fees and costs, Robert Holcomb.
33. Approve and execute Purchase Agreement, as shown on page ________, and Permanent Drainage/Stormwater Easement, as shown on page ________, relating to Parcel Number 16-19-30-5AB-0500-002A, Thomas Sheipe and Margaret P. Flores, which is required as part of the Lockhart-Smith Canal drainage system improvement project, located at 4730 Orange Boulevard, Sanford, in the amount of $130,000.00, with no fees, costs or expenses incurred.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to authorize and approve the following:
A. Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page ________, dated January 6 and 13, 2004; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page _________, dated December 31, 2003.
B. Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Court Costs:
Mark Stephen Anderson, Case #96-2348-CFA - $255
Dwayne Alan Bernard, Case #89-2096-CFC - $75
Michael Brown, Case #99-5355-MMA - $393
Justin Paul Engel, Case #96-5218-MMA - $462.50
Russell Guay, Case #96-8656-MMA - $105
Paul Timothy Houston, Case #94-3176-CFA - $189.19
Robert Jager, Case #96-4803-MMA - $110
Diane Knight, Case #99-1545-MMA - $193
Mathew Lunsford, Case #96-2580-MMA - $248
Kevin Dwayne May, Case #98-8484-MMA - $40
Max Andrew Reddick, Case #94-2919-CFA - $103
Rolland Livock Sichler, Jr., Case #96-403-CFA - $226.15
Shawn Christian Stanton, Case #99-2978-CFA - $328
Laytoria Yvette Jones & Evergreen Natl. Indemnity Co. - $201
Torry Lavon Rivers & Capitol Preferred Ins. Co. - $1,038
Christopher W. Smith & American Bankers Ins. Co. - $788
D. Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Public Defender Liens:
Scott Arthur Bays, Case #92006674MM - $100
Sadeda Janine Burnell, Case #02003977CFA - $100
Daniel Gene Cantrell, Case #03001666CFA - $150
Johnnie & Margie Cowan, Case #94003049CJA - $150
Bernard Harvey, Case #01003563CFA - $350
Johnny Johnson, Case #88000442CFA - $200
Elisha C. Lawrie, Case #03007663MMA - $260
Nicole L. Lowery, Case #03009535MMA - $100
Dwight R. Offenbacker, Case #00003827CFA - $200
Edinson Padilla, Case #03007401MMA - $250
Kevin Mark Pelletier, Case #03005556MMA - $100
Robert James Rush, Case #92013290MM - $200
Darious D. Sessions, Case #00001933CFA - $300
Darryl A. Solomon, Case #98000494CFA - $300
Leonard James Stefano, Case #92005310MM - $100
Leonard J. Stefano, Case #95002286CFA - $200
Dale M. Vaughn, Jr., Case #02003399CFA - $200
D. Noting, for information only, the following received and filed:
1. Memorandum to Sandy McCann, BCC Records, from Chairman McLain relating to 2004 BCC Liaison Appointments to the Value Adjustment Board.
2. Memorandum to Dixie Haller, Planning & Development, from Sandy McCann, Commission Records, relating to outstanding P&D documents.
3. Letter to Chairman McLain from Meredith Pickens, Shutts & Bowen, re: Appeal by Scott Kobrin of Cosmopolitan Home Corp. of the Building Contractor Examiners Board.
4. Letter to David Butler, Dept. of Revenue, from Sandy McCann, Commission Records, forwarding certified copy of the Notice of Tax Impact of the 2003 Value Adjustment Board advertisement and proof of publication, as shown on page ________.
5. Utility Agreements, as shown on page ________, for water and sewer service with Jornat Properties, LLC.
6. Bill of Sale, as shown on page ________, accepting water and sewer system within the project known as Lake Forest Sect. 17.
7. Satisfaction of Connection Fees, as shown on page _________, for the project known as Dunkin Donuts SR 46.
8. Utility Agreements, as shown on page _________, for water and sewer service for Community United Bank of Florida.
9. Bill of Sale, as shown on page _________, accepting sewer system within the project known as ITT Business Training Facility.
10. Order Vacating Judgment, as shown on page _________, regarding State of Florida vs. Darrin Jerome Starling, Case #02-1793-CFA.
11. Development Orders, as shown on page _________, as follows: Renar Development Waiver; Barbara Sheridan Variance; James Goplen Variance; Craig & Jill Clark Variance; Edwin Berry Variance; Hector & Nancy Mendez Variance; Kathleen Lamb Variance; John Czagas Variance; Alan & Linda Coto Variance; Bill & Lisa Harrison Variance; Gayle Marion Variance; Michelle & Landon Thomas Variance; and SCG Partnership Variance.
12. Letter to Board of County Commissioners from Geraldine Harford, Tax Deed Clerk, submitting a list of a tax deed being placed on list of lands available from tax deed sale.
13. Memorandum to Sandy McCann, Commission Records, from Jean Abi-Aoun, Planning & Development, re: Outstanding P&D documents.
14. M-406-03 Consultant Services Agreement, as shown on page _________, Key Solutions, Inc.
15. Memorandum to Board of County Commissioners from Kevin Grace, County Manager, re: Capital Project Fund Transfer, Lake Mary Blvd. Capacity Improvements.
16. Fourth Amendment, as shown on page ________, to RFP-411-97, HTE, Inc.
17. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to Work Order #75 to FC-1139-00.
18. Work Order #22, as shown on page ________, to PS-5129-02.
19. Work Order #2, as shown on page _________, to CC-1215-03.
20. Work Orders #1 & #2, as shown on page _________, to PS-5143-03.
21. Work Order #11, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4173-02.
22. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to Work Order #11 to PS-594-01.
23. Work Order #20, as shown on page ________, to PS-574-01.
24. Work Order #61, as shown on page ________, to PS-590-01.
25. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to Work Order #8 to PS-561-00.
26. M-411-03 Consultant Services Agreement, as shown on page _________, Inwood Consulting Engineers.
27. Biennial Budget Book for FY 2003/04 and 2004/05.
28. Bids for CC-1225-04, as shown on page __________.
Kevin Grace, County Manager, addressed the Board to state he has provided the Board with a copy of a letter from the Seminole County Health Care Task Force and a Resolution (both received and filed) relative to trauma centers. He stated he is recommending the Board to approve the resolution and to forward same to the Legislative Delegation. The proposed resolution incorporates the recommendations of the Health Care Task Force as well as some suggestions from the Board. Representative Simmons attended the last Task Force meeting and spoke on that issue for about 15 minutes. He said Representative Simmons is pushing the idea of increasing the auto insurance limits from $10,000 to $25,000 to $30,000. That would provide additional revenue for the trauma centers and hospitals.
Commissioner Maloy stated he has heard that the Legislators are working on making it tougher for individuals to get their insurance and licenses and then cancel it a couple months later. Mr. Grace stated he has not heard of that.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace advised the proposed resolution only acknowledges the Task Force’s report.
Commissioner Morris stated he has received information from the Chairman, Mr. Bomford, and another member of the Task Force. The University of Miami School of Medicine has also submitted material. He asked if the County is putting the Task Force committee on stasis for a while and then bring it back, depending on what the Legislature does.
Mr. Grace stated he feels that would be a wise thing to do as the Task Force indicated at their last meeting that they didn’t have any other issues to discuss.
Chairman McLain stated he feels they should have a statewide methodology of funding all the Trauma Centers. If it doesn’t happen, then the County needs to have the tools to pay their fair share in providing those services. The last thing he wants to see is the Legislature doing nothing and then look to the County’s General Fund for the shortfall.
Commissioner Morris stated the one thing that disturbs him is the ORMC Task Force recommended the driver licenses issue. He stated he feels this is unacceptable as 25% to 30% of the tourists use this facility.
Chairman McLain stated a large percentage of the tourists that go to the attractions use the facilities. He stated he feels the County needs to come up with an equitable solution. He added that this County is willing to be a partner in anything as long as the methodology is fair and equitable.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he agrees with everything said today. The hospitals are going to look to the State for action. The Board needs to be prepared to act on this if the Legislators do not act, and they need to have the tools available. He stated he would like the Legislature to respond to a local community need; and he cannot believe they will not do anything.
Commissioner Henley stated a considerable number of people using the Trauma Center are the tourists. Since the Legislators are not interested in new taxes, then the County needs to ask them to allow a different distribution by allowing a portion of the tourist tax to go to the Trauma Center. That could be based on utilization. He stated he would like staff to explore this further by contacting Orange and Osceola Counties.
Mr. Grace stated that was discussed at both the Regional Task Force and the Health Care Task Force. He stated anything the Board does that is tangible will have a lot of opposition.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Grace advised there are a couple of numbers relating to the prefile bill on trauma centers. He stated he will bring that back to the Board.
Commissioner Maloy stated he is glad that the County is looking at different ways to change the function of the service to try to prevent the crisis from continuing.
Mr. Grace stated after sitting on the Task Force, he is convinced that there isn’t a short-term funding crisis.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-16, as shown on page ________, urging the Legislature to develop and implement an equitable funding solution for the Regional Trauma Center at ORMC.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Sally Sherman, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board to inform the Board of the Legislative Session Day scheduled on February 16 and 17. She reminded the Board that the Employee Recognition Luncheon is also scheduled for February 16. The Board will need to attend the luncheon and then leave for Tallahassee.
Commissioner Van Der Weide recommended rescheduling the Employee Recognition Luncheon.
Mr. Grace stated the luncheon has already been moved once and he is hoping the Board can leave for Tallahassee immediately after the luncheon. He stated he could try to move the Employee Recognition Luncheon earlier in the day.
Mr. Grace stated the Board is being contacted by the Judges relative to the Traffic Hearing Officer’s Program. He stated Article V is a big issue going into this Session. He stated he would encourage the Board not to make any commitments to fund any of these programs until they give the Legislature an opportunity to do what they should do. He said there is plenty of time to sort out what hasn’t been funded and whether they want to step forward with any of those items.
County Attorney, Robert McMillan, left the meeting at this time.
Commissioner Morris stated this County is going to be the net donor county when this is over. This County does things more efficiently than other communities. This predisposition issue saved money by not incarcerating the juveniles and now it is under the Governor’s proposal again. This is a big mistake and the Board needs to be firm on this. The other thing that concerns him is if the State does not continue funding this, then the County could lose quality people who do an amazing amount of work. He stated he is concerned with the gap funding and he feels the Board needs to look at this further.
Mr. Grace stated staff will be prepared to quickly assess what happened and bring these issues before the Board as soon as possible, so the Board can make the funding decisions.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Grace advised every county is in the same situation. He stated FAC is in the middle of it and they have been successful in holding off the Juvenile Justice related charges. He said staff is working with the lobbyists.
Mr. McMillan reentered the meeting at this time.
Commissioner Morris stated the Legislature is reinstating the sales tax holiday. He stated he feels the sales tax holiday is a fraud, as the primary services to the people, who need them the most, will be cut.
Commissioner Henley stated it may be helpful if each Board member were assigned certain delegates to contact directly rather than relying on staff and the lobbyist.
Chairman McLain stated it may not be a bad idea that these issues are written down on paper and the Board be provided with a list of the entire delegation. Then the list can be split amongst each Board member to discuss these issues with different members of the Delegation.
Mr. Grace stated the Board might want to consider calling each of the Delegation members.
Commissioner Morris stated the Board can inform the Delegation that they are united on this.
Mr. Grace stated staff will develop those topics.
Ms. Sherman asked for Board consensus on sending a letter to the Legislative Delegation regarding the preposition funding for Juvenile Justice.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Sherman advised staff is questioning the true cost.
The Board voiced no objections to sending a letter to the Legislative Delegation regarding the County’s position on the Department of Juvenile Justice funding.
Liz Block, Water and Wastewater Division, addressed the Board to state staff is proposing a Water Conservation Garden at the entrance of the County Services Building. She stated implementing this garden meets one of the requirements for the Northwest Service Area Consumptive Use Permit and staff would like to educate people of landscaping alternatives that use far less water. She reviewed the history of this project, the potential location, and landscaping and irrigation improvements. She displayed and reviewed the Master Plan.
Chairman McLain surrendered the gavel to Commissioner Maloy and left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Block stated the quality of the garden design upgraded quite a bit due to the location. She stated staff’s intent is this garden will be the premier water garden in central Florida. Because of these expansions, staff will be coming to the Board for a BCR for this project. Other support includes cost sharing with St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and a number of partnerships with different companies or organizations will provide ideas, labor and materials. This will keep the cost down. She continued by displaying and reviewing the landscape plan as well as seven theme gardens. She reviewed the irrigation and maintenance of this project. She said education will consist of primarily 10 signs and she displayed the first draft sign for the butterfly garden. She added there will be seven similar signs for the theme gardens as well as signs with general information. The signs will be high-pressure laminate and will be as vandal resistant as possible. Staff hopes to implement this garden this spring.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Block advised the initial budget for this was $7,000. She said she doesn’t know what the anticipated annual maintenance cost will be each year, but will get back to the Board.
Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time and assumed the position of Chairman.
Commissioner Maloy stated he feels that maintenance is a big issue. He stated this garden has a lot of different plants and he feels those will be high maintenance. He stated he feels staff can simplify the plan more and he would suggest getting rid of the perennials and tropical plants, as they will have to be replaced on a regular basis.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Ms. Block advised the master gardeners at the Extension Office would be one of the partners in this.
Commissioner Maloy stated this project does not call for any additional native trees and he feels those would be a good idea. He stated the University of Florida has a native landscape class and the University of Stetson has been changing their campus into a native landscape. He added he feels staff can contact both of them for their input. In order to bring down the maintenance, he would encourage staff to look at the ideas he mentioned as well as water conservation.
Chairman McLain stated the County has a new Historical Museum and he would think that would be a great area to showcase the project.
Mr. Grace stated the Museum may not want to lose any of their property for this project. He stated staff could look at other locations.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated the question is do they want it at this location or somewhere else. There are probably better places to put this project instead of at the Services Building.
Mr. Grace stated he doesn’t think the SJRWMD indicated that this project needs to be placed at the Services Building. He stated staff feels that this would help beautify this area.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Grace advised that one of the libraries or parks are highest traveled County Building.
Chairman McLain stated staff needs to look at alternative locations.
Ms. Block stated the deadline for a water conservation plan has expired.
Commissioner Van Der Weide suggested the new Courthouse location.
Commissioner Morris stated he feels that better signage is needed around the entire County Services Building to inform people where to park and where to enter this building. He stated nobody knows what this building is.
Mr. Grace stated staff is working on the signage plan and they will get it to the Board soon.
Kevin Fall, Economic Development, addressed the Board to request direction regarding the Fern Park Area Utilities Improvements Project. He stated the Fern Park area contains many areas that are still under served. The State Urban Reconstruct Project provides a unique opportunity to address the utility deficiencies in this area. The Cities of Altamonte Springs and Casselberry and the County have met over the last several months to develop a strategy and implementation plan. The plan calls for cost sharing between the utilities Community Development Block Grant Funds and CRA trust funds. The plan is to incorporate these improvements into the State’s Urban Reconstruct Project. Staff is proposing to develop an interlocal agreement with the Cities of Altamonte Springs and Casselberry and the 17-92 CRA to formalize the schedule, financing and commitments of each party.
Commissioner Morris stated he knows the partners recognize that central retrofitting for 17-92 will be in the plans and this is the smartest time to put this in. He stated he still believes the County should use Utility Department funds wherever possible, as well as the CDBG funds as a priority item dictated by this Board. This is an economically depressed area and it qualifies for the CDBG funds.
Chairman McLain stated he feels the CDBG funds should be used in this area, however, he feels the CRA needs to make a significant contribution as well.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated if the cities cooperate, they would want a return on that revenue and that would mean mandatory hook up for businesses.
Commissioner Henley stated he would want the Board look at the 1/3 from the CRA funds, as those funds are a lot more flexible and the other funds may not be as flexible. He stated he would rather see the CDBG funds pick up a larger portion and keep the CRA funds to deal with this. Since this is a depressed area some of the people will have to be subsidized in order to handle the mandatory issue.
Chairman McLain stated some of the CDBG funds could be used to assist with hookups.
Commissioner Morris stated this should have been done when this road was widened to 6 lanes. The other thing that can be done is to have an option of a lower water hookup fee if they do it during a certain period of time.
Mr. Grace stated he agrees with that but on the conceptual plan, the County’s utility isn’t going to be a provider. Interlocal agreements will have to be worked out and brought back to the Board.
Chairman McLain stated Commissioner Morris is an active member of the RPA and the Board will look to him for some advice on this. He stated the Board needs to move forward in trying to incorporate some of these thoughts into the action plan.
Commissioner Henley stated he would like to have a time line laid out as to when certain decisions have to be made.
At the request of Chairman McLain, Mr. Fall updated the Board on the status of the City of Longwood’s interest in the CRA. He stated staff is trying to work on small business property improvement programs. He added the City of Longwood is very interested in this.
Mr. Fall informed Chairman McLain that Longwood’s City Manager is on the invitation list for the RPA meetings. He stated he will add Commissioner Holt’s name to that list.
Commissioner Henley stated last year the County entered into a joint project with the Farmer’s Market and they ended up with a building for marketing displays. He stated he has visited that building several times and he has seen only one tenant. He said he would like to know how they are trying to market that and why people are not taking advantage of the space there.
Mr. Fall stated Mr. Zack Henderson is in charge of the market and it seems as though he had more tenants than spaces available. He believes what they are struggling with now is some of the tenants have expressed an interest of not doing an all day thing and going to two days a week.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Fall advised he doesn’t know what the rental charge is, but will get that information for him.
Chairman McLain stated the local growers should have a place to go to sell their vegetables and the rent should be a nominal fee.
Mr. Fall stated he will get with Mr. Henderson and report back to the Board.
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 11:20 a.m., reconvening at 1:31 p.m., this same date with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who were present at the Opening Session.
Chairman McLain advised Sergio Gabil has requested to address the Board with regard to his efforts to show support for the American troops fighting overseas.
Sergio Gabil, 2577 Grassy Point Dr., addressed the Board to state he is committed to travel across the country collecting signatures and messages in support of the men and women fighting overseas. He displayed and read some of the signatures and messages he has collected.
The Chairman stated the Board appreciates Mr. Gabil’s efforts in communicating encouragement and thanks to the troops overseas. He said Mr. Gabil would welcome anyone who would like to send a message and will be out in the lobby of the chambers to collect same.
Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting’s scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REQUEST TO VACATE & ABANDON,
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon a 10-foot wide portion of the platted 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement situated at the rear of Lot 13, Raymond Oaks Subdivision, in Section 11, Township 21, Range 29 and further described as 107 Raymond Oaks Court, Altamonte Springs, Edwin & Laura Johnson, received and filed.
Principal Planner, Rebecca Hammock, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the applicants are requesting the vacation of a 10-foot wide portion of the platted drainage and utility easement located on the east side of their lot and at the rear of their home in order to install a swimming pool and screen enclosure. She said the vacation will not diminish the effectiveness of the subdivision’s drainage system. The staff recommends adoption of the resolution vacating the easement as requested by the applicant.
It was ascertained that the applicants nor their representative were in attendance.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-17, as shown on page _______, vacating and abandoning a 10-foot wide portion of the platted 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement situated at the rear of Lot 13, Raymond Oaks Subdivision, in Section 11, Township 21, Range 29, and further described as 107 Raymond Oaks Court, Altamonte Springs, as described in the proof of publication, Edwin & Laura Johnson.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
ALLAN E. KEEN/KEEWIN REAL PROPERTY CO.
Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon that portion of the platted right-of-way of 16th Street and that portion of the two 30-foot wide unnamed platted rights-of-way lying north of Vihlen Road and southwesterly of SR 417, M.M. Smith’s Second Subdivision, Allan E. Keen, Keewin Real Property Co., received and filed.
Planner, Cynthia Sweet, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the subject property was annexed into the City of Sanford after July 1, 1995, and is presently under review for a proposed single family residential subdivision known as Kay’s Landing. She further advised that pursuant to Statutes, jurisdiction over a public road may be transferred only by mutual agreement of the affected governmental entities. She stated staff found no record of a transfer of jurisdiction of the subject rights-of-way from Seminole County to the City of Sanford. Therefore, the applicant has applied to the County for the vacation. Letters have been provided from the City and the appropriate utility companies voicing no objections to the request. She added that staff recommends adoption of the vacate resolution as requested by the applicant, subject to a warranty deed being provided to the County for the new right-of-way.
Attorney Meredith Pickens, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise they concur with the staff report. She added that Jim Nugent and Tom McCann of Donald McIntosh & Associates are available to answer any questions.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Attorney Pickens displayed a copy of a plat (received and filed) depicting the right-of-way requested to be vacated and the proposed new right-of-way.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-18, as shown on page ________, vacating and abandoning that portion of the platted right-of-way of 16th Street and that portion of the two 30-foot wide unnamed platted rights-of-way lying north of Vihlen Road and southwesterly of SR 417, M.M. Smith’s Second Subdivision, as described in the proof of publication, subject to access being provided to the County through the newly proposed subdivision to the County’s property located to the north of the proposed development, Allan E. Keen, Keewin Real Property Co.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman McLain reported that Commissioner Morris has served as the BCC’s appointment to myregion.org 2004 Board of Directors for the past three years and the Chairman of the organization has requested that another member be appointed from the BCC.
Commissioner Morris advised that DCM Sally Sherman has also been attending these meetings and he suggested that she continue to do so and also act as liaison for the BCC.
Chairman McLain stated he will offer to go to some of the meetings with Ms. Sherman; however, there might be times when he will not be able to attend and Ms. Sherman can represent the Board.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he might be pulling up an issue for BCC review that the Board of Adjustment heard last night. He said he is working with the Planning Manager on same and will let the Board know at the next BCC meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to appoint/reappoint the following to the Trails & Greenways Task Force: Wally Hill - term ending 1/1/06; Rick Smith - term ending 1/1/06; adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-19, as shown on page _______, commending Bill Fernandez for his service; and to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-20, as shown on page _______, commending Pat Burkett.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to appoint Cliff Miller to the Seminole County Port Authority for a four-year term ending 1/1/08.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Henley distributed a copy of a memo dated January 22, 2004 from the LYNX Board of Directors to MetroPlan Orlando regarding LYNX’s representation on the MetroPlan Board and the Municipal Advisory Committee Membership options. He discussed same with the Board. Copy of memo was received and filed.
Chairman McLain stated his first option would be to expand the Board; however, that is probably not feasible because Orange County has objected to that all along.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated it is amazing how many times reorganization of membership has come up. He added that the Legislature may have to step in again before it is all over with.
Chairman McLain stated the BCC has been unified with their position on MetroPlan and he believes this is a non-issue.
Commissioner Morris stated that over the past ten years, the only controversial item with MetroPlan is membership. He said his opinion is if it isn’t broke, then don’t fix it. Whereupon, Commissioner Maloy agreed.
Chairman McLain stated it appears the Board’s position is that they do not have a problem with this and that a rotation of the three counties be required with LYNX.
Commissioner Henley reported that the Governor’s budget will hit LYNX hard. Under his proposal, the Transportation budget has been reduced by $17 million. This, in turn, will decrease the amount of non-emergency patient transportation funding by $165,000 and will probably increase ADA costs.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Commissioner Henley advised LYNX is advertising for the Executive Director position and a cut-off date has not yet been set.
The following Communications and/or Reports were “received and filed”:
1. Memorandum dated 12/19/03 (with attachment) to BCC from Lisa Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director, re: Solid Waste Disposal System Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2003.
2. Notice of 1/21/04 Seminole County Port Authority (SCOPA) Board meeting.
3. Notice of 1/21/04 Seminole County Health Care Task Force meeting.
4. Minutes of the December 2003 Tourist Development Council meeting.
5. Minutes of the January 2004 Tourist Development Council meeting.
6. Letter dated 12/31/03 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from Mary Kate O’Leary, Girls & Boys Town of Central FL, re: 2003-04 Annual Report and 16-Year Follow-up Study.
7. Memorandum dated 1/21/04 (with attachment) to BCC from Lisa Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director, re: Budget Change Requests approved by County Manager & Fiscal Services Director, and Financial Transactions approved by BCC.
8. Copy of memorandum dated 1/16/04 to Sandy McCann, Commission Records, from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services, re: Submission into County Records.
9. Copy of letter dated 1/15/04 to Bob & Nancy Jones from Jane Peterson, Library Services Manager, re: appreciation of donation in memory of Nelson “Lucky” Tullar.
10. Notice of 1/21/04 Sanford Waterfront Master Plan Steering Committee meeting.
11. Notice of 2/4/04 Council of Local Governments in Seminole County (CALNO) meeting.
12. Letter dated 1/9/04 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from Patricia Cerny, City Clerk of Hollywood, FL, re: resolution in support of the existing Florida water law.
13. Minutes of the 1/7/04 Seminole County Health Care Task Force meeting.
14. Copy of letter dated 1/21/04 to Seminole County Building Contractors Board from Ken Wright, Shutts & Bowen, re: Scott Kobrin appeal. (cc: BCC, County Managers, Planning & Development Director, County Attorney, Building Official)
15. Letter dated 1/15/04 to Chairman McLain from Clayton Wilder, FL Dept. of Law Enforcement, re: Elder Services Unit-Seminole II grant. (cc: Sheriff, Community Services Director)
16. Notice of 2/4-2/6/04 U.S. 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Public Workshop: Creating a Development Framework That Promotes Better Places to Live, Work & Play.
17. Copy of letter dated 1/20/04 (with attachment) to Richard Valentino, Marsh USA Inc., from Ray Hooper, Purchasing Manager, re: protest letter dated 1/7/04 on RFP 4205-03/TLC-Insurance Brokerage Services for Seminole County.
18. Letter dated 1/19/04 to BCC from Gloria Wade, Protectors of Companion Animals, re: year in review.
19. Memorandum dated 1/22/04 to BCC from Lenor McLean, Special Projects, re: Future Trails Program Master Plan-Analysis & Priority Decision Matrix Status.
20. Letters dated 1/21/04 from Ken Roberts, Public Safety Director, in appreciation of donations to Animal Services Division, to the following: Lisa Trapane; Marie Felter; Rose Daniels; AMF Longwood Lanes Bowling Center; Rita Irene Ferguson; Rock Lake Middle School; Cornelia Dietzel; Aubrey & Jon Burton; Marty Oliver; Robert Lowry; and Marianne & Sid Crouter & Rita Isner in memory of Clark Weidenpreller (c/o Chris Stouffer & Family).
21. Memorandum dated 1/20/04 to BCC from Mary Kay Cariseo, FL Assoc. of Counties, re: Dept. of Juvenile Justice Pre-disposition Detention of Juveniles.
Commissioner McLain stated he understands the City of Oviedo is having a work session tonight with regard to the possibility of relocating the equestrian element at Winter Miles Park. He said if the element is moved, it will require a half million dollars in fill and he does not believe the Board wants to see that happen. He added that he would like County staff to attend and voice the BCC’s wishes to the City.
Commissioner Morris stated the City needs to stick to the original master plan.
The Chairman requested Mr. Grace communicate to the City that County staff will be attending the work session. Mr. Grace stated he will follow up on this.
Commissioner Maloy advised that after meeting with the homeowners associations concerning the widening of Chapman Road, it appears that it is still a very divisive issue and he would not recommend changing the Board’s direction, which is that traffic needs to reach 20,000 trips a day to trigger the widening.
Commissioner Maloy reported that he has had a request from some of the Lake Mills residents asking for funding of a hydrilla control problem for the lake. Mr. Grace stated he will research this and report back to the Board.
Commissioner Morris requested Mr. Grace and staff look into what is going on with the St. John’s Heritage River Group and report back to the Board.
Commissioner Morris also requested staff to report back to the Board with regard to the Five Points vehicle repair facility and the alleged costs and delays of repairs.
Commissioner Morris stated he would like a report on the lighting and signage for the pedestrian bridge over I-4.
Mr. Grace advised the Board that he has been told that there will be no work session on Winter Miles Park in Oviedo tonight. He said he will follow-up with the City Manager and find out what is going on.
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 2:29 p.m., reconvening at 7:04 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.
APPEAL OF BOA/ANN CARR
Continuation of a public hearing from January 13, 2004, the Appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s decision to affirm the Planning Manager’s approval of an administrative front yard setback variance from 25 feet to 23.76 feet for an existing single family house located at 1654 Pine Valley Drive in the R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District); as described in the proof of publication, Anne Carr.
Earnest McDonald, Principal Planner, addressed the Board to present the request in a slide presentation (not received and filed), stating this item was continued to allow staff to provide additional information to the Board. He read Section 30.1348, Non-conforming Uses, of the Code and explained that the appellant is interpreting that a building can’t be extended or enlarged if it has a deficient setback. He further explained that for over 20 years this section has been interpreted by staff to apply only to the use of buildings, structures, or uses of lands. Dimensional setbacks have been excluded from this definition of the non-conforming use section. The staff’s interpretation suggests that a non-conforming setback does not render a building or structure non-conforming under the same definition. He also said staff believes it is unreasonable to restrict the ability to expand a building with a deficient setback when the addition would be compliant. He stated that as a result of this appeal and the Code interpretation issues it has raised, the long standing interpretation of the non-conforming use section of the Code was recently memorialized in writing to affirm that when an existing home encroaches into a minimum setback, as illustrated, an addition may be built if it otherwise complies with the Code and does not expand the non-conforming setback. He said if the Board decides to reverse the long-standing interpretation and restrict the expansion of buildings with deficient setbacks, all future additions to these types of buildings would be subject to the new interpretation of the Code, including the structure tonight as well as thousands of buildings in the County with non-compliant setbacks. He said many of these have resulted from County initiated code amendments. He described the different zoning categories and pointed out on the slide the areas of changes that have occurred since the Code was adopted in 1960. He said the decision to restrict any future addition to this type building, as advised by the appellant, would potentially limit reasonable improvements including building additions, screen rooms, pools, pool screen enclosures, etc. on approximately 45,000 parcels Countywide.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. McDonald affirmed that based on the revised survey, they are now talking about .8 of a foot encroachment as opposed to the original 1.25 foot encroachment.
Robert McMillan, County Attorney, clarified that a non-conforming use is a special category in the Code. It reflects that the use or structure was legal at the time it was constructed and has become non-conforming by virtue of a change in the code. If the original structure was not conforming, it is a violation of the Code and not a non-conforming structure. In this case, the house was built in violation of the Code in 1962. It did not become non-conforming because of any change in an ordinance.
Discussion ensued with Commissioner Morris and Mr. McMillan on the interpretation of a non-conforming structure.
Mr. McMillan said the request for the front yard variance does not affect the applicant coming in and asking for a building permit. He said the applicant would be able to get the building permit under the Code as drafted today, as long as it otherwise complies with the Code.
Commissioner Henley said he thinks the staff information has led to some of the confusion. Under the staff findings, the first statement says the existing structure is a non-conforming structure and that is a misstatement that set the whole predicate for everything they are talking about.
Mr. McDonald reviewed the history of the appeal. He reiterated that the existing home is a conforming use in the R-1AA District based on the historical interpretation of the Code and a proposed addition would not encroach into any minimum setback. Therefore, staff’s initial interpretation that a variance for the extension of the home does not apply based on the historical interpretation of the Code, and the proposed addition could be constructed, unless the Board determines otherwise. He stated staff believes the criteria for granting the variance has been satisfied and, thereby, recommends the Board uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision to approve the Planning Manager’s original grant of the administrative variance.
Attorney Damon Chase, representing Ann and Dan Carr, addressed the Board to state if you review the Code (he showed an exhibit not received and filed) about non-conformity it states the buildings or structures, or uses of lands that are non-conforming shall not be extended or enlarged. He said they are not talking about extending or enlarging on this house. He stated the argument does not apply that if the Board denied the variance, the applicant could not build a barn. He said it was County staff who said this was a non-conforming building and that they would have to have a variance and that they could grant the variance without any hardship. When he looked at the Code and case law, the Code clearly says there must be a hardship. He referred to Section 30.43, and said the Board of Adjustment granted the variance without any concern for a hardship.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. McDonald explained that staff interpreted the applicant’s variance to free the title from encumbrances but did not consider that as the hardship.
Mr. McMillan stated the Code does not specifically address what constitutes a hardship; that is determined by the Board.
Mr. Chase said the only hardship cited by the applicant for the variance was because he had a potential buyer who wanted to build this room. This was not even a hardship for him, because it was not the case that the house could not sell without a variance. The only hardship that ever made the record was that the applicant had a potential buyer who wanted to know if he could build on. Mr. Chase referred to a Palm Beach court case (copy not received and filed) of the exact situation. The Court of Appeal said the hardship must be such that it renders it virtually impossible to use the land for the purpose for which it is zoned. He explained that if both sides agree to an action, it can be moved forward. But in this case there is a roomful of neighbors seeking the protection of the law. He showed a map of the neighborhood and those areas of the neighborhood that have objected to this request.
Mr. Chase stated the Board should not uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision because the law is clearly written in the Statutes that a non-conforming structure cannot be enlarged.
Chairman McLain advised Mr. Chase that Mr. McMillan has stated this is not a non-conforming structure, but is a violation of the Code due to the house being set 8” into the setback. Whereupon, Mr. McMillan read from the Code the definition of what a non-conforming structure is. He pointed out the definition has nothing to do with setbacks.
Mr. Chase said if they accept that definition, then the variance should be denied because there was no point in it. He said that staff all along up until the last meeting said this was non-conforming. Discussion ensued with the Board.
Mr. Chase showed an exhibit (not received and filed) and read from the intent and purpose of the Code that it is not intended by this chapter to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any lawful easements, covenants, or other agreements between the parties. He said it’s in the record that to add on to this house would be a violation to the deed restrictions. Also, the Code says that “among other purposes, the provisions herein are intended to provide adequate light, air, privacy, and access to property.” He stated this would be blocking Ms. Carr’s light and air. He said the neighborhood has huge yards and they don’t want zero lot lines. If the Board were to grant a variance or a permit, it would be absolutely contrary to the intent and purposes of the Code and contrary to what every member of the community wants to happen. Discussion continued with Mr. Chase and the Board and with Mr. McMillan.
Mr. Chase asked for a show of hands of those who agree with the position he represented, and a unanimous show of hands were raised in agreement.
Ann Carr, Palm Hill Drive, addressed the Board to state she knows the subject home has been bought and sold six different times. She asked the Board to protect their green space.
Chairman McLain called on those who submitted Speakers’ Request Forms and the following stated they agreed with the comments already made: Carla Borrero; Sandra Brock; John Becker; E. Linn Shriner; Nancy Brunner; Jane Brewer; Mary Blair; Harold Schmidt; A. H. Gibson; Betty Gibson; Claire Schmidt; Anne Russell; and Earl Holtgrefe.
Cheryl Adamkiewicz, 1655 Oak Valley Drive, addressed the Board to state she has lived there for 36 years and she is totally opposed to this. They chose Rolling Hills to buy a house because of the privacy it afforded them. When they build a swimming pool, they would have liked to build it back further, but they had deed restrictions. This house was built three years before hers so she knows they were under the same laws as she was. She said the residents have all lived there 25, 30, and 35 years and they are dependent upon the Commission to do what’s right by them.
The following also stated they agree with the comments already made: Sandra Becker; Fran Lee; Dorothy Holtgrefe; Nancy Smith; Margaret J. Agnew; Marie Wishau; and Jay Wishau. Additional Speaker Request Forms were submitted for Gloria Stratford; and Ken Stratford.
Chairman McLain advised of receipt of Written Comment Forms in opposition from the following that were distributed to the Board for their review: Jan Jabosky; Dan Carr; Pat Milliot; Corinne Adamkiewicz; Lynn Whitcomb; Marie Wishau; Gregory Scott Knight; and Harold Schmidt.
Linda Copeland, Rolling Hills, addressed the Board to state she doesn’t want to have structures close by. She has a new house that is within 10 feet of her line because that is the code. The issue here is more of a challenge of the County Code than the applicant being able to add 20 feet. She said the applicant is not going any further to the County line than what the Code is now. There has been a lot of confusion and misinformation on what this is about.
Alvin Rains, property owner, addressed the Board to state all he needs to extend is about six feet, eight inches. He showed a drawing (not received and filed) the total area is six feet eight inches wide. He said his property is well over 12 feet from the boundary line. He showed another drawing of the existing and proposed structure. He explained he wants to extend the house to make the bedroom a little larger.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Rain stated he bought the house with the understanding that he would get the variance. He said he did have a problem with getting a title to the property but not now.
Commissioner Morris noted that Mr. Rain closed without the appeal having been heard.
Mr. Chase showed the application submitted and clarified it shows 12 feet, which is larger than what the applicant is talking about now. When the Board of Adjustment was going the other way, the applicant was on notice that this was being appealed. He chose to buy the property anyway.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received.
District Commissioner Henley commended Mr. Chase for the way he represented his client. He said he lives in this neighborhood. The popular thing to do would be to agree with the neighbors. However, this Board is charged with what’s the right thing to do. Sometimes the popular thing is not the right thing. The argument is based on that the structure should not be extended or enlarged. When he studied the Code, and looked at the non-conforming structure, the code tells that non-conforming are properties which do not meet required parking, building, height, air, and residential plumbing regulations. That is the definition they have to apply to non-conforming uses, particularly under Section B. Setbacks are not mentioned in either one of the definitions. As well as he would like to agree with the neighbors, it is not in keeping with the way this Board has performed over the years. He said he watched the Board of Adjustment meeting last night and there were probably 10 or 15 requests for variances dealing with anywhere from 5 to 15 feet. The Board is dealing here with 9.6 inches. He asked if they disagree, what are they doing to do--cut off 9.6 inches of the home. He has to find this is a conforming structure and the .8 of a foot intrusion that has existed since 1962 and was not caused by the homeowner; and when he considers that this Board has granted numerous variances substantially more than requested by this owner, he thinks overturning the Board of Adjustment would be a substantial deviation from past actions of the Board. He does not feel this variance request is bestowing any special privilege that is not granted to others in this County. Since it has existed for 42 years, he can’t believe it would be injurious to the neighborhood. He thinks it’s right to grant the variance.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris for discussion, to uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision to affirm the Planning Manager’s approval of an administrative front yard setback variance for an existing single family house located at 1654 Pine Valley Drive in the R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District); as described in the proof of publication, Ann Carr.
Chairman McLain said he thinks the Board has heard that the interpretation and usage of non-conforming by staff was probably incorrect in the staff’s initial evaluation of this. This is not a non-conforming structure as far as he’s concerned, but it is in violation of the Code that has been there for 42 years. He thinks the Board has heard that there are no hardships in this case that would justify a variance. Since this is not a non-conforming structure, he tends to believe he would have to vote against the motion and not grant the variance based on those facts.
Commissioner Morris stated he met with Mr. Chase on an earlier date and listened to the argument made upon certain premises. Now in the hearing those premises are not the same and the applicant has changed. Even the application appears to be changing. From a planning basis, when you have a neighborhood that has been there and established for decades and then have an extension occur that is abnormal to the neighborhood and interferes with the quiet and enjoyment of the party next to them, then that gives him great pause. If this ends up in court, the defense of the County is that this potentially threatens 45,000 other parcels. Because of this moving target, they may be finding a major hole in the Code. He has a real problem with this. He thinks he agrees with Mr. Chase’s argument that he doesn’t see a rural section applying exactly as laid out by staff. He thinks they have a mess and it’s a self-imposed mess on the County side. He thinks Mr. Chase handled this in a very good fashion while trying to deal with a compound matter. There is a real legal issue here and he doesn’t know where the escape route is. Earlier he was not prepared to approve this, but now he is wondering where are they headed legally.
Chairman McLain said he thinks the key is that this is not a non-conforming structure, but one in violation of the Code and there is no hardship. The issue of the building permit could be dealt with in another way. Whereupon, Commissioner Morris said he’s not sure this should have been before the Board in the first place. If all the circumstances of the facts have changed, they are chasing after a ball that’s rolling down a hill.
Mr. McMillan stated the only reason this would have been here is if the building permit had been issued and structured as in the past.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McMillan stated the other issue that makes this unique is this is a corner lot with two front yards and two side yard setbacks and no back yard.
Commissioner Maloy said he agrees with Commissioner Morris that he has a different view of things than when he first came to the meeting. The non-conforming uses to him reads as to the type of uses on the property primarily. He said he is inclined to support the District Commissioner’s recommendation, as he knows he lives in the area.
Commissioner Morris asked Commissioner Henley what he might suggest as a remedy for the neighboring property. Commissioner Henley answered that he doesn’t know if there is a remedy. He said Ms. Carr has a real concern because her lot is considerably lower. He was going to require that if the building permit did come in, but he has not seen any plans yet, that they consider looking into some type of decorator fence or wall to improve the privacy that Ms. Carr has. Hopefully, staff can look at that if a true request comes in for an addition. He hopes staff will look at the proposed addition to see it does not encroach any closer to the property.
Chairman McLain reiterated his comments made earlier, stating there is no hardship and there is no need for a variance, and that is why the Board needs to deny the variance. He said he thinks it is not germane about whether it is .8 of a foot off or not.
Commissioner Morris said if the Board dismisses this item, the applicant is going to apply for a building permit, and the Board has no authority over that. If they do it the way Commissioner Henley is suggesting, then Mr. Chase has recourse in court.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Chase said he understands the arguments and he agrees with Chairman McLain.
Commissioner Henley stated he doesn’t think it is right to go along with the neighborhood. He asked why would the Board want to deny the variance. He said the applicant is requesting it and he has a right to do so.
Commissioner Van Der Weide questioned the applicant is requesting the variance based on whose input.
Commissioner Morris withdrew his second to the motion. Chairman McLain called for a second to the motion three times without response, whereupon the motion failed for the lack of a second.
Commissioner Van Der Weide said he thinks the #2 proposed motion covers this matter. He consulted with Mr. McMillan on the wording.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to reverse the Board of Adjustment’s decision to affirm the Planning Manager’s approval of an administrative front yard setback variance for an existing single family house located at 1654 Pine Valley Drive in the R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District); as described in the proof of publication, Ann Carr, Decision on Appeal, as shown on page ________,
Under discussion, Commissioners Van Der Weide and Morris agreed to refund the appeal fees, except for advertising.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:53 p.m. Commissioner Morris did not return to the meeting after the recess.
REZONE FROM PCD TO
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider rezoning from PCD (Planned Commercial Development District) to PCD; approve the major amendments/clarifications to the Fossitt Business Park PCD and preliminary PCD site plan; and authorize Chairman to execute the amended/clarified development order for the Fossitt Business Park consisting of approximately 4.7 acres; located on the northeast corner of Orange Boulevard and Missouri Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. Willie Fossitt, received and filed.
Matt West, Planning Manager, stated this is a two-part request to clarify some of the conditions of approval contained in the Development Order of February 11, 2003, and make changes to the other portions of the Development Order which staff considers significant or major.
Copies of e-mails to staff from Tim and Lise Templin, Art and Pat Payer, and Patrick and Carolyn Moore were received and filed.
Mr. West reviewed the minor and major clarifications as summarized in the staff report, indicating staff has no objections to the changes.
Commissioner Henley said what concerns him is that all these were dealt with at the previous Board meeting he believes they were recommendations of staff. He doesn’t understand now why they don’t matter. These were from staff originally and if they didn’t matter, why did they put them in.
Mr. West said some of these were negotiated between the developer and the other property owners. He thinks they are clarifying the language and doesn’t think that takes away or lessens anything from the intent of the development. He said staff can make the clarifications but wanted the Board to be made aware of them.
Commissioner Henley stated these are already set up as an order from this Board.
Mr. McMillan said this is a question of the staff’s interpretation of the development order. That is something that staff does all the time. He is not sure if there is authority for the current Planning Manager to amend the development order.
Commissioner Henley said he doesn’t want it generally accepted that staff could change the Board’s development orders.
Mr. West reviewed the major changes to the development order as also provided in the staff report.
Mr. McMillan stated there is a provision in the Code that permits the Planning & Development Director to amend the development order if the determination is made that the amendment would not materially impact the conditions of development.
Jamie Russell, 1555 Missouri Avenue, representing Mr. & Mrs. Fossitt, addressed the Board to state they agree with the staff. They believe the landscaping plan is better and creates a much better look on Missouri. She said they decided that a brick wall would be better for the project. They are at odds with staff about the sidewalk. She stated Kathy Brown explained the only reason she believes the homeowners were interested in a sidewalk is they think it may create a tunnel affect down the road.
Ms. Russell said the applicants have only asked for clarification of the word, “coordinate.” They have no objections giving the elevations to the homeowners. She showed and submitted pictures (received and filed) to add to the Record of the Monroe Commerce Center, Small Bay project showing roll up doors and Michael Good’s project. She said they would coordinate an actual elevation drawing of the plans for the homeowners.
Bruce Anderson, 1230 Perch Lane, landscape architect, addressed the Board to state he thinks the plan and some landscape material have been reduced, but overall it is a better plan. The applicants have added standards they did not have before and have added irrigation. He showed a drawing (not received and filed) of the plan. He said he thinks everyone has agreed that the brick wall is a good thing to do.
Kathy Brown, 1730 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board to state she spoke with Ms. Russell yesterday and came to agreement with some things. She was a little disheartened because she thought they had come to agreement the last time. Concerning the sidewalk, they thought if they had two brick walls that would be a tunnel affect. They are happy with the brick wall. They are o.k. with the idea of having plans in their subdivision for anyone to look at for a two-week period. She said Mr. Harling had stated there would be no problem stubbing out the back property line with water. They want that still left in for the future. The Board had requested staff to do a small area study and the homeowners still want to see that done. On the minor changes, the neighbors still want a sign on Missouri prohibiting truck traffic. On landscape buffers, they understood that with ingress and egress sides, they are o.k. as long as they have the wall and the landscaping going in and coming out of the subdivision. She said the homeowners want to make sure there is a trust factor. As far as economics, they don’t want to be jeopardized as homeowners to have to cut corners with things that should be done to benefit everyone in the neighborhood.
Tim Templin, 1761 Missouri Avenue, addressed the Board to state they had a neighborhood meeting the other day and he was very disheartened to learn there were a bunch of requested changes to the written and documented order they negotiated last year. He still does not see where any of these changes are for clarifications. Since they went through this last year and they got down to very specifics, he is not in favor of changing anything from last year’s development order.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
District Commissioner McLain asked for a motion to support the staff recommendation with a few minor changes.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to enact Ordinance #2004-4, as shown on page _______, adopting the rezoning from PCD (Planned Commercial Development District) to PCD; approve the major amendments/clarifications to the Fossitt Business Park PCD and preliminary PCD site plan; and authorize the Chairman to execute the amended/clarified Development Order, as shown on page _______, as described in the proof of publication, Mr. & Mrs. Fossitt, with staff findings and recommendations, and including that $4,000 be set aside from the developer to the Sidewalk Fund to be used by the community where best needed; the applicant is to provide, prior to the final PCD site plan, copies of the elevations to Ms. Brown and Mr. Anderson, and provide an opportunity for them to ask questions and get clarifications, and that those who spoke tonight be noticed of the final PCD site plan so they can attend that meeting.
Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
The Chairman advised the audience of a book located in the lobby for anyone who wanted to send messages of support to the troops serving overseas.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST: _____________________ Chairman ___________________ Clerk