BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARCH 22, 2011
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, March 22, 2011, in
Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY
SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD,
FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman
Brenda Carey (District 5)
Vice
Chairman Carlton Henley (District 4)
Commissioner
Bob Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner
John Horan (District 2)
Commissioner
Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)
Acting
County Manager Joe Forte
County
Attorney Robert McMillan
Deputy
Clerk Jane Spencer
Pastor Jody McKewen, First Presbyterian Church, Sanford, gave
the Invocation.
Commissioner Henley led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS
Motion by
Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt appropriate
Resolution 2011-R-40, as shown on page _______, proclaiming April 5, 2011 as
“Seminole County Farm Tour Day.”
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Matthew
Lollar, Extension Service Division, addressed the Board to thank them for
recognizing the agricultural community.
He reviewed the Farm Tour brochure from the packet (received and filed) that
was provided to the Board, and invited all to attend the tour on April 5.
Imogene
Yarborough, 186 First Street, addressed the Board to thank them for passing the
sign ordinance which will allow the people in the County who grow and produce
some type of agriculture to advertise.
She directed the Board to an invitation included in their packets for
the 2011 Annual Spring Ranchers Forum which will be held on Thursday, March 24.
The Board
presented the Resolution to Ms. Yarborough and Mr. Lollar.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Dallari, Ms. Yarborough stated Seminole County did well
with the Rodeo although they did not place first and that they are striving to
have a Junior Ranch Rodeo on May 14.
-------
Motion by
Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt an appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-41, as shown on page _______, to acknowledge Bari Furniture,
Industrial Lighting Products, JVI Appraisal Division, Millennium Luxury Coaches
and Power Grid Engineering for being Seminole County companies that were
nominated as 2011 “Florida Companies to Watch.”
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
William McDermott, Economic Development Director, addressed the
Board to introduce Jason Hendren, President of Industrial Lighting Products and
Bob Williams, who is representing the Figueroas from Millennium Luxury
Coaches. Tom Tilaro, President of Bari
Furniture, and Ron Nation, President of JVI Appraisal Division, were recognized
but were not present. Mr. McDermott also
introduced Fran Korosec, Director of Client Services for the GrowFl program and
Florida Economic Gardening Institute, and advised that Mr. Korosec was
responsible for putting on the program.
Mr. McDermott and the Commissioners presented the resolutions to
Mr. Hendren and Mr. Williams.
-------
Chairman
Carey recessed the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners at 9:45 a.m. in
order to convene the U.S. Highway 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency meeting.
U.S. HWY 17-92 CRA
John Metsopoulos, Program Manager for the U.S. 17-92 CRA,
addressed the Board to present a 2010/11 Informational Project Budget Status
Report. Mr. Metsopoulos advised that the
unencumbered fund balances in Aid to Private Organizations are $193,557 in the
Mini Grant program and $1,700,000 in the Development Grants. There is an unencumbered balance of $953,000
for Medians projects. He discussed Mast
Arms and Lighting projects, stating they have not been tapped into yet, but the
City of Sanford will come forth with some projects next year.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Metsopoulos stated that
when they come forward with the Master Plan, they will be discussing a
Stormwater Study which will identify properties along the 17-92 Corridor that
will be needed for regional storm ponds.
He stated that the Master Plan will hopefully be completed within this
fiscal year.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Mr. Metsopoulos stated that the
Plan should be completed by July or August.
Commissioner Dallari stated that they have been working on the
Master Plan for well over a year and he voiced concerns about losing
opportunities, especially in the downturn of the economy. He stated that the Plan needs to be finished
up sooner rather than later.
Commissioner Dallari advised that the Master Plan will look at
the “joint use” of several different things that are needed up and down the
corridor, not just the purchasing of property for stormwater. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Mr.
Metsopoulos stated that the consultant is VHB Miller Sellen.
-------
Mr. Metsopoulos presented a request to approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the contract between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and French Avenue, LLC,
and authorize execution of a Budget Change Request in the amount of $180,100. He stated that the properties are located
within the city limits of the City of Sanford, have been vacated and are
blighted. The owner plans to tear down
the former service station and renovate the existing structure into a mixed-use
development of retail and commercial. The
applicant is requesting $180,000 to be used towards the $638,500 project.
Chairman Carey clarified with Mr. Metsopoulos that a new
2,000-square-foot center will be built and the 2,400-square-foot center that is
remaining will be renovated.
District Commissioner Carey stated that she supports this
redevelopment.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari,
seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve and authorize the Chairman to
execute the Contract, as shown on page _______, between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and
French Avenue, LLC, and authorize execution of Budget Change Request (BCR) 11-4,
as shown on page _______, in the amount of $180,100 consistent with said Contract.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Mr. Metsopoulos presented a request to approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the contract between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and Pinter
Enterprises Inc., and to authorize execution of a Budget Change Request in the
amount of $53,769. He stated that the total
cost of the project is estimated to be $144,123; and the applicant, Post Time
Lounge, is seeking $53,769.
At the request of Chairman Carey, Mr. Metsopoulos provided
photographs (received and filed) that were taken last week depicting the
completed work.
Commissioner
Henley reviewed the cost analysis page stating it lists $31,180 for
landscaping, $17,000 for the parking lot improvements and $95,943 for the patio
for a total of $144,123 with a funding request of $53,768. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr.
Metsopoulos stated that the 20% was figured on $112,000 which was the cost of
the parking lot and the patio.
Commissioner
Henley stated he believes some of the landscaping costs are extravagant. He stated that the current policy states that
if the landscape is part of a larger project, it can be paid for 100% by
grant. He believes the Board needs to
revisit that from the standpoint of coming up with a percentage, or something
of that nature, that the Board will pay.
Commissioner
Henley stated that his other concern is whether or not this was submitted in
phases since the application he has seen is not complete. He discussed the need for a clearer
definition of when "work begins" since the current policy states that
the application has to be submitted before work begins. When asked by Commissioner Henley who
instructed him to do this project in phases, Mr. Metsopoulos responded that it
was the former Planning Manager.
Commissioner Henley advised that is a policy statement and only the
Board can set policy, not the Planning Manager.
Commissioner
Henley discussed about $6,000 worth of items that are not allowable, such as
patio torches; and he feels they do not meet the guidelines.
Chairman
Carey suggested that the Board may need to look at the policies and guidelines
that they set in December of 2008 and redefine them.
Commissioner
Dallari stated that the application presented to the Board needs to be
complete, concise, and very accurate.
There should be a solid recommendation as to what to do or not do. He stated that this application contains a
lot of vagueness. He stated that his
problem is not just that the dollar figure for some of this landscaping is high
but also the timing aspect. He believes
the project was broken up into two phases to skirt the timing issue the Board has
that the application needs to be submitted before work starts. Because of that, he advised that he has a
hard time supporting this project at this funding level.
Chairman
Carey stated that she looks to the recommendations from the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and the RPA as well as the documentation that comes to the Board. Both of those have unanimously supported this
item.
Commissioner
Horan informed the Board that he sat on the RPA which recommended this grant be
done. He stated that at that same
sitting, another grant application was rejected because it came in late. With regard to the strict application of the
rule that you have to apply before construction starts, they strictly applied
that rule. As he recalled, there was no
issue on this particular project with regard to when construction started. Mr. Metsopoulos stated that is correct for
Phase II, but there was an issue with Phase I.
He further advised there are no costs in the grant for Phase I.
Commissioner
Van Der Weide suggested that the business at hand is this particular project
and he thinks they have crossed all of their t’s and dotted all of their i's. He stated there is plenty of room to make a
lot of changes, not only in the landscaping problem but in the 3% in general that
goes to highway landscaping. He stated
he believes staff has done what they are supposed to do and doesn't see why
this would be any reason to deny.
Chairman
Carey stated she does not believe the landowner should get tripped up in the
process if the process is not defined closely enough. People come forward to make these
applications in good faith based on the rule that the Board has out there and
what they are being told by staff. She
believes this project made an excellent improvement at that intersection and she
would like to see these kinds of projects continuing to happen, especially at
major intersections.
Commissioner
Henley stated the reason for the CRA being set up was to eliminate crime, eliminate
blight and to improve and develop undeveloped land. He stated this site was not a blighted
site. He discussed some concerns he has
in reading some of the information contained in the application. Phasing did not enter into the information
presented until it got to the Technical Advisory Committee. He stated that staff had at first included
all of the things that had been done on the interior and windows and then
excluded them. There was work that went
on prior to submitting the application on September 24, 2010. The work has already been completed for
everything out there. Commissioner
Henley stated for those reasons and the way the policy is written, he cannot
recommend the approval of this application.
Motion by Commissioner Henley,
seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to deny the authorization for the execution
of the contract between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and Pinter Enterprises Inc., and to deny
the authorization for the execution of Budget Change Request (BCR) 11-5, in the
amount of $53,769 consistent with said contract.
Under
discussion, Commissioner Dallari stated it is clear when you read the packet
and the project was broken out into phases after the fact, and that is not per
the Board’s policy.
Under discussion,
Chairman Carey explained why she would not be supporting the motion.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Mr. Metsopoulos stated that both phases were not
done under the same building permit and none of this money is going to a
building permit that was pulled and work done prior to the application. Commissioner Horan stated he will not be supporting
this motion.
Commissioner
Van Der Weide explained why he will not be supporting the motion. He stated that he does believe that there are
things that need to be changed in the process.
Districts
1 and 4 voted AYE.
Commissioners
Carey, Horan and Van Der Weide voted NAY; whereupon, the motion failed for the lack of a majority vote.
Motion by
Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Contract
between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and Pinter Enterprises Inc., with a reduction to the
patio grant of approximately $7,000 and a reduction to the landscape grant by
$10,000. Chairman Carey clarified the
motion.
Chairman
Carey called for a second to the motion three times, without response,
whereupon the motion died for the
lack of the same.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der
Weide, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve and authorize the Chairman to
execute the Contract, as shown on page _______, between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and
Pinter Enterprises Inc., and to authorize execution of Budget Change Request
(BCR) 11-5, as shown on page _______, in the amount of $53,769 consistent with
said contract.
Districts 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners Henley and Dallari voted NAY.
-------
Mr. Metsopoulos presented a request to approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the contract between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and Ho Pi Inc., and
to authorize execution of a Budget Change Request in the amount of $32,766.
Mr.
Metsopoulos stated that Ho Pi is the home of Hirina’s Fish Market and is an
underdeveloped and blighted property. He
described the changes that have been made by the applicant to the
property. Since the lease with Hirina’s Fish
Market will end soon, the applicant will be seeking an upscale tenant to go
into the new and improved building and is requesting $32,766 from the CRA.
District
Commissioner Carey recommended approval of the request.
Motion by
Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to execute the Contract,
as shown on page _______, between the U.S. 17-92 CRA and Ho Pi Inc., and to
authorize execution of Budget Change Request (BCR) 11-6, as shown on page
_______, in the amount of $32,766 consistent with said Contract.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting of the U.S. Highway 17-92
Community Redevelopment Agency at 10:19 a.m. and reconvened the meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners at 10:20 a.m.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Joe Forte, Acting County Manager, addressed the Board to advise that
an item has been added to the Consent Agenda, Item #11A, Approval of the NSP3
Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). He stated that with regard to
Item #16, Renewal Grant Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the sentence that states “The anticipated funding would be
included in the proposed FY 2011/12 budget” has been stricken.
Mr. Forte
advised that Items #19 and #20 are BAR items and request funding from the Fire
Fund reserves. If both items are
approved, the balance of reserves after funding both items will be $28,862,807. Regarding Item #37, he stated that the date
on the Chairman’s signature line has been changed to correspond with the March
22, 2011 meeting date.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to
authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s Office
Purchasing & Contracts Division
7. Award
RFP-601033-11/BJC - Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for the Lease of
Landfill Equipment to Nortrax, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
Central Services
Support Services Division
8. Approve and
authorize staff to settle two workers' compensation claims for previous
employees in the amount of $193,405.86 inclusive, for Claim Numbers 192966 and
193507.
Community Services
Community Assistance Division
9. Authorize staff
to amend and submit the 2010-2011 One-Year Action Plan within the 2010-2015
Consolidated Plan to allow previously approved acquisition funding to be used
for both the acquisition and rehabilitation of the new Recovery House location.
10. Approve and authorize staff to
submit to Florida Housing Finance Corporation the underline and strikethrough
technical amendments, as shown on page _______, to the 2007-2010 and 2010-2013
Local Housing Assistance Plans (LHAP).
11. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the Modification of Agreement, as shown on page _______,
between the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Seminole County. The
Modification provides an additional Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) award
of $92,897 to the original award of $230,875 for a total award of $323,772
granted by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs; and approval
of the re-allocation of $18,580 for the required cash match.
11A. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the NSP3 Grant Agreement, as shown on page _______, with
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer and
implement the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 in Seminole County.
Environmental Services
Business Office
12. Approve the release of the
original Water & Sewer Maintenance Agreement with Letter of Credit #F853608
for the project known as Acuera in the amount of $363,638.20. (C&G at
Markham, Inc.)
13. Approve the release of the
original Water & Sewer Maintenance Bond #105076192 for the project known as
Alaqua Country Club Subdivision in the amount of $4,499.50. (Steel Curtain,
LLC)
14. Approve the release of the
original Water & Sewer Cash Maintenance Bond for the project known as
International Parkway Village in the amount of $750.00. (Nations Investment
Group)
Fiscal
Services
Business
Office
15. Approval to submit an
application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection requesting
$200,000 through their Recreational Trails Program; approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2011-R-42, as shown on page
_______, for such application; and authorize the Acting County Manager to
execute any other documents as may be required for the application.
16. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute a Renewal Grant Agreement, as shown on page _______, with
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in acceptance of $249,120
in additional funding through the Shelter Plus Care Program.
Budget Division
17. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2011-R-43, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #11-35 through the Public
Works Grant Fund in the amount of $6,704,708 to recognize grant revenue and
establish budget from an agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) for the SR 436/Red Bug Lake Road Interchange project.
18. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2011-R-44, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #11-39 through the General
Fund in the amount of $66,000 to reduce current funding to the Documents
Management Program by $20,000, and reallocate the remainder towards updating
the OnBase Enterprise Content Management software system.
19. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-45, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-41 through the Fire Protection Fund in the amount of $73,100
for replacement of fire suppression units for three (3) Woods Trucks.
20. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-46, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-42 through the Fire Protection Fund in the amount of $26,200
for the renovation of two (2) 2.5 ton vehicles.
21. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-47, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-43 through the Public Works Stimulus Grant Fund in the amount
of $240,197 to recognize revenue from the Florida Department of Transportation
and budget the funds for the design and construction of a pedestrian overpass
over Red Bug Lake Rd at Aloma Avenue.
22. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-48, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-44 through the Public Works Grant Fund in the amount of
$312,812 to reduce revenue from the Florida Department of Transportation and
reduce the budget for the construction of a sidewalk on Ridgewood Street,
Alpine Street, and Palm Springs Drive.
23. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-49, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-45 through the Public Works Stimulus Grant Fund in the amount
of $433,744 to recognize revenue from the Florida Department of Transportation
and budget the funds for the replacement of the Orange Boulevard Bridge at
Lockhart Smith Canal.
24. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-50, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-46 through the Public Works Stimulus Grant Fund in the amount
of $314,374 to recognize revenue from the Florida Department of Transportation
and increase 2001 Infrastructure Sales Tax reserves to offset project
expenditures made on the resurfacing of Rinehart Road from CR 46A to Towne
Center Boulevard.
25. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-51, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-48 through the Public Works Grant Fund and Natural
Lands/Trails Fund in the amount of $600,000 to recognize grant revenue from the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and budget the funds for Phase 4 of
the Seminole Wekiva Trail.
26. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-52, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment
Request (BAR) #11-49 through the Community Services Block Grant Fund in the amount
of $173,126 to increase funding for the Community Services Block Grant Program.
Leisure Services
Greenway & Natural Lands
Division
27. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute both the renewal of the Memorandum of Agreement No. AQ166,
as shown on page _______, for Landscape Maintenance on the I-4/17-92
Interchange as prepared by the Department of Transportation (FDOT) and appropriate
Resolution 2011-R-61, as shown on page _______, attached as Exhibit
"A" to the Memorandum of Agreement.
Tourism-CVB
Division
28. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute an Agreement, as shown on page _______, with the Central
Florida Zoological Society, Inc. in the amount of $225,000.
Public Works
Engineering Division
29. Adopt appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-53, as shown on page _______, accepting a Perpetual Easement,
as shown on page _______, from the State of Florida Department of
Transportation for property identified by FDOT as Parcel Number 861.1, Part B,
and determined to be necessary for the Lake Mary Boulevard Station in
conjunction with the Commuter Rail (SunRail) Transit System.
30. Adopt appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-54, as shown on page _______, accepting a Quit Claim Deed,
as shown on page _______, from the City of Sanford for property necessary for
the construction of a sidewalk adjacent to a portion of Upsala Road.
31. Adopt appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-55, as shown on page _______, accepting a Quit Claim Deed,
as shown on page _______, from Emory Green and Eddie Green for property necessary
for roadway improvements on Brisson Avenue and 20th Street.
32. Adopt appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-56, as shown on page _______, accepting a Sidewalk Easement,
as shown on page _______, from the City of Sanford for property necessary for
the construction of a sidewalk along a portion of Central Park Drive.
33. Approve and authorize
the release of a Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond (Number
OFL0579254) in the amount of $5,920.00 submitted for roadway improvements to
Airport Boulevard in conjunction with the BUB Warehouse Project.
34. Approve and
authorize the release of a Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond
(Number FLC55507) in the amount of $20,391.00 submitted for roadway
improvements to Old Lake Mary Road in conjunction with the Shoemaker Mini
Warehouses Project.
35. Approve and authorize
the release of a Private Road Maintenance Bond (Number 105076193) in the amount
of $35,625.80 submitted for roadway improvements in conjunction with the Alaqua
Country Club Subdivision Project.
36. Approve and authorize
the Chairman to execute a Preliminary Engineering Agreement, as shown on page
_______, with CSX Transportation, Inc. for a proposed multi-use railroad
crossing for the Cross Seminole Trail - Winter Springs "Missing Link"
Project.
Traffic Engineering Division
37. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the State of Florida Department of Transportation E-Verify
Form, as shown on page _______, for the Locally Funded Agreement between the
State of Florida Department of Transportation and Seminole County for
Interchange Modifications at State Road 400/Interstate 4 and State Road 46. (FDOT FPN:407573-1-52-01)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Dallari stated that he had not yet been briefed on
Item #38, the proposed negotiated settlement relating to Case #09-CA-6402-15-K,
Central Florida Environmental Corp. v. Seminole County, and would like
to continue it until he can receive additional information.
Robert
McMillan, County Attorney, addressed the Board to review the item and explain
why it is time sensitive. The item was continued until today’s afternoon
session.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT AGENDA
Clerk’s Office
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to
authorize and approve the Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page _______,
dated February 21 and 28, 2011; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page _______,
dated February 17, 2011; and approval of the BCC Official Minutes dated
February 22, 2011.
Districts 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
The Board noted, for information only, the following
Clerk’s “received and filed”:
1. Denial
Development Order #10-30000118, as shown on page _______, for Elizabeth Castilo
and David Attard, 321 Kingsbury Avenue.
2. Development Order #09-20000008, as shown on page _______, for Island
& Village of Geneva Rural Heritage Center, Inc., Rural Heritage Center,
approved by BCC on October 26, 2010.
3. Consummating Order from Florida Public Service Commission regarding
Petition by FP&L to recover Scherer Unit 4 Turbine Upgrade costs.
4. Conditional Utility Agreements, as shown on page _______, for water
and sewer with JP Morgan Chase Bank.
5. Parks Contracts, as shown on page _______, with James L. Speake,
Jr., Maria Virginia Toledo, Adrienne Dienst, Sabine Blaha, Greg Sobosky, Jim
Nista, Tammy Childs and Rina Srinivassan.
6. Work Orders #74, #75, #76, #77, #78 and #79, as shown on page
_______, for CC-1741-07.
7. Change Order #1, as shown on page _______, for CC-4614-09.
8. Change Order #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #23 for
CC-2184-07.
9. Change Order #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #48 for
CC-1075-06.
10. First Amendment, as shown on page _______, for IFB-601015-10.
11. Third Amendment, as shown on page _______, for IFB-600855-10.
12. First Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-600963-10.
13. Work Order #89, as shown on page _______, for PS-5120-02.
14. Change Order #3, as shown on page _______, for CC-5018-09.
15. Work Order #3, as shown on page _______, for RFP-5465-10.
16. Group Voluntary Cancer Plan Policy, as shown on page _______, award
approved by the BCC on October 12, 2010.
17. First Amendment, as shown on page _______, for IFB-600926-10.
18. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #10 for
PS-2564-07.
19. Work Order #58, as shown on page _______, for CC-1284-06.
20. First Amendment, as shown on page _______, for IFB-600966-10.
21. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #7 for
PS-5172-04.
22. Work Orders #35 and #36, as shown on page _______, for CC-2184-07.
23. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #65 for
PS-1529-06.
24. Change Order #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #22 for
CC-2184-07.
25. Change Order #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #26 for
CC-1284-07.
26. Change Order #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #25 for
CC-2184-07.
27. Change Order #9, as shown on page _______, for CC-4813-09.
28. Surety Bond Change Rider, as shown on page _______, for CC-4923-09.
29. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #1 for
PS-5438-10.
30. Amendment #5, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #69 for
RFP-4214-04.
31. First Amendment, as shown on page _______, to RFP-600063-06.
32. First Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-600847-10.
33. Demand Letter of Understanding, as shown on page _______, to
Clarkson Concepts for RFP-4277-09 regarding 2601 Marshall Avenue, 444 Marathon
Lane and 208 Cabana View Way.
34. Demand Letter of Understanding, as shown on page _______, to Ruby
Builders, Inc., for RFP-4277-09 regarding 1025 Spring Garden Street.
35. Demand Letter of Understanding, as shown on page _______, to Miller
Construction Services, LLC, for RFP-4277-09 regarding 525 Hillcrest Street and
1732 Canterbury Circle.
36. Demand Letter of Understanding, as shown on page _______, to
Woodard Construction Company for RFP-4277-09 regarding 391 Brittany Circle.
37. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #60 for
PS-1529-06.
38. Release of Lien, as shown on page _______, for Code Enforcement
Case #09-136-CEB, Christine N. Wolfe, as authorized for execution by the BCC on
February 8, 2011.
39. Bids as follows: IFB-601086-11 and CC-6210-11.
REGULAR AGENDA
Request to schedule and
advertise a Public Hearing to amend Chapter 30 of the Land Development Code to
address manufactured housing and churches in the A-1 (Agriculture) zoning
district, and bed and breakfast establishments in specified agricultural and
residential zoning districts, presented.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve
a request to schedule and advertise a Public Hearing to amend Chapter 30 of the
Land Development Code to address manufactured housing and churches in the A-1
(Agriculture) zoning district, and bed and breakfast establishments in
specified agricultural and residential zoning districts.
Under discussion, Commissioner
Van Der Weide asked if any of the churches that will be affected had been
consulted. Chairman Carey stated the
amendment would require any church going into an A-1 zone to have a Conditional
Use but would not affect the churches that are there today.
Commissioner Dallari
stated he would like to look at performance-based criteria instead of the way
that it is stated; so both sides could be looked at and the pro's and con's
weighed. He requested staff to present
that to the Board before it is advertised so both can be advertised at the same
time. He would like to have some of the
issues worked out before it is advertised so everyone understands what the
Board is looking at. and he thinks performance-based criteria would be the
proper way to go.
Commissioner Henley
stated he had trouble with 5,000 square feet and doesn't believe that will
stand up under the RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act) law. You cannot be more stringent
upon churches than you are to others within your County. As a matter of fact, it goes on to say that you
have to be more lenient with churches.
Commissioner Dallari
stated if they are going to be looking at performance base, they should have
some guidelines so there can be open discussion with the public and the Board.
A discussion ensued with
regard to the sizes of churches. Commissioner
Horan stated that a 5,000-square-foot church would be a relatively small
church, a church with a congregation of 330 to 340. He believes more detail needs to be
added.
Commissioner Van Der
Weide stated he believes considerable more detail is needed, along with a lot
more input. He suggested getting some of
the churches and organizations involved to see what they have to say.
Chairman Carey asked if
the Board would like to continue this item until the second meeting in April.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to
continue the request to schedule and advertise a Public Hearing to amend
Chapter 30 of the Land Development Code to address manufactured housing and
churches in the A-1 (Agriculture) zoning district, and bed and breakfast
establishments in specified agricultural and residential zoning districts until
the appropriate time that staff feels it appropriate to bring back.
Under discussion, Chairman
Carey advised that there are some things in this item that do need to be
addressed that deal with manufactured housing, mobile homes and also bed and
breakfast establishments. She asked if
the Board wanted to separate those portions out and go ahead and approve this item,
less the church portion, and then come back with the church portion.
Commissioner Dallari
stated he believes when talking about A-1 Rural, there needs to be more
performance-based criteria in all of this.
If the item is continued, staff will have the ability to bring it back
and to separate it.
Chairman Carey suggested the church issue be separated
out and bring the other items back at the next meeting.
Commissioners Dallari
and Henley agreed to that amendment to
the motion.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Ian Sikonia, Senior Planner addressed the
Board to present the request for approval of the Final Site Plan and
Developer’s Commitment Agreement for the Bill Ray Nissan PCD, consisting of 13
acres, located on the north side of Hickman Circle, approximately one mile
north of the intersection of Hickman Drive and SR 46. The applicant, R & R Investments, LLC, is
requesting approval of the Final Site Plan consisting of a car dealership with
accessory buildings that will encompass a total maximum building size of 94,285
square feet. Mr. Sikonia described the proposed
permitted uses and stated that those uses are compatible with the existing
zonings located within the Hickman Industrial Park.
Mr. Sikonia explained that this PCD will be
phased and only Phase 1 of 4 will be accomplished through this Final Site
Plan. He further stated that the
applicant is requesting that approval for Phase 1 of the Final Site Plan remain
valid for three years. He described
minor changes to the landscaping requirements being requested by the applicant
within the Florida Power and Light and Progress Energy easements located on the
east side of the development. He added
that staff recommends approval of the Final Site Plan and the Developer’s
Commitment Agreement.
Commissioner Dallari stated that he would like
to change the length of time the Final Site Plan remains valid from three years
to five years due to the economic times.
District Commissioner Carey stated that she
is in support of this item and would support the five years.
Motion
by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide, to approve the Final
Site Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _______, for
the Bill Ray Nissan PCD, consisting of 13 acres, located on the north side of
Hickman Circle, approximately 1.0 mile north of the intersection of Hickman
Drive and SR 46, R&R Investments, LLC; and authorize the Chairman to
execute the aforementioned documents based on staff findings and the changes
discussed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Carey requested that staff bring
information back to the Board with regard to extending the period of time for
site plans and development orders so people won't have to come back through
this process again. She added that a
year ago, DCA extended everything for two years.
Chairman Carey further requested that staff
get together with the power companies. She
stated that the County continues to require plantings under power lines; and
that continues to be a problem for the power companies, who just come along and
cut the trees down because they are in their easements and their
rights-of-way. They could probably plant
the proper material if they think about it ahead of time. She requested that staff work on these two
items.
Commissioner Henley stated he believe it is
a reasonable suggestion in view of the fact there seems to be reluctance to
make loans on these large projects and they need more time.
COUNTY MANAGER’S BRIEFING
Motion by Commissioner Henley,
seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to accept the Informational Budget Amendment
Status Report FY 2010/11 for the period ending February 28, 2011.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S BRIEFING
Mr. McMillan advised that there has
not yet been an Order issued in the case of Allied Veterans of the World,
Inc., et al. v. Seminole County, Case No. 6-11-CV-155-ORL-28DAB, and he cancelled
the closed strategy session with County Attorney staff and private counsel to
discuss pending litigation. He requested
that the Board authorize the closed meeting under the same terms and conditions
as today’s meeting to be held at the end of the morning session of the Board’s next
meeting.
Motion by
Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to authorize the
scheduling and advertising of a closed strategy session with County Attorney
staff and private counsel to discuss pending litigation in the case of Allied
Veterans of the World, Inc., et al. v. Seminole County, Case No.
6-11-CV-155-ORL-28DAB, in accordance with Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes,
on April 12, 2011 at the end of the morning session.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
-------
Mr.
McMillan updated the Board with regard to Sun State Trees. He stated Sun State Trees has a hearing this
week in bankruptcy court where several of their creditors have moved to move
them from reorganization to liquidation.
-------
COUNTY
MANAGER’S BRIEFING (Continued)
With
regard to Item #37, Mr. Forte stated that the Board had approved adding the
language for E-Verification into the state contract. He stated there will be a number of these
different federal and state contracts that will need this language added. Mr. Forte requested that, instead of bringing
all of these items to the Board to include that language, the Board authorize
the County Manager or his designee to make that amendment to each of the
contracts.
Motion by
Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to adopt appropriate
Resolution #2011-R-60, as shown on page _______, authorizing the County Manager
or his designee to sign on behalf of Seminole County all amendments to existing
contracts adding the employment verification requirements as delineated in
Executive Order Number 11-02 and all affidavits attesting to the County’s
compliance with such requirements.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
-------
Mr. Forte discussed the request for
an extension to the Little Wekiva River Watershed Management Plan. He explained that the St. Johns River Water
Management District is extending the contract time frame and advised that he
doesn't have the authority to accept or grant that extension. Mr. Forte requested the Board to authorize
him to sign this extension.
Antoine Khoury, Public Works,
addressed the Board to explain the need for the extension. He explained that on the top page of the
Change Order there is a place to acknowledge receipt of the time
extension.
Chairman Carey verified that this
is only a request to accept an extension that the County requested and was
granted by the Water Management District.
Motion by
Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide, to authorize Mr.
Forte to execute Change Order #3 to Contract SI440AA, as show on page _______,
Little Wekiva River Watershed Management Plan.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
-------
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 10:45
a.m., reconvening at 1:32 p.m., with all
Commissioners and all other Officials with the exception of Deputy Clerk Jane
Spencer, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the
Opening Session.
PROOFS
OF PUBLICATION
Motion
by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Dallari 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.
LAKE
FOREST DRI CHANGE & MAJOR PUD AMENDMENT/
Integra Land Co. & Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider the proposed Settlement
Agreement pursuant to Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, facilitating a Development
of Regional Impact (DRI) Notice of Proposed Change Substantial Deviation
Determination and proposed PUD Major Amendment; 540.30 acres, located 600 ft.
east of the intersection of Henderson Lane and SR 46, Integra Land Co. and
Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture, received and filed.
Donna Wysong, Assistant County Attorney,
addressed the Board to state this item was previously heard at the June 2, 2010
Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission meeting, and at the July 27, 2010 BCC
meeting, at which the BCC denied the original application. The applicant filed a Request for Relief
under Section 70.51, Florida Statutes. A
full-day mediation was conducted on December 16, 2010 and settlement
negotiations continued for several weeks after the December 16 hearing to work
out additional details. Those settlement
negotiations included representatives from the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) to discuss a traffic signal for that location. The Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the request. She
stated copies of the documents created at those meetings are incorporated in
the agenda packet and may be considered when the BCC makes their decision
today. The parties to this settlement
agreement, if approved by the BCC, will include the Integra Land Company, Inc.,
Orlando Lake Forest Joint Venture, and Seminole County. She reviewed the five development conditions
that are incorporated in Addendum #2 as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She pointed out that no other changes to the
DRI or PUD amendment have been made other than those referenced in the
settlement agreement. She stated the
Board’s consideration today should be focused solely on those items contained
in this settlement agreement. Therefore,
testimony and other evidence taken today should be limited to those items as
well. Copies of letters and e-mails from
residents opposing the Lake Forest DRI change were received and filed.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms.
Wysong advised whatever happens today will likely continue in litigation.
Commissioner Henley stated it sounds like
this is an attempt to muzzle the people today and he has some concerns with
that.
Robert McMillan, County Attorney, stated
the point is the Record is already there and a new full presentation by the
developer or opponents was not needed because it is already on the Record. He stated the Board can discuss whether or
not they believe these new five conditions in any way mitigate against what
their decision was previously and how that will affect their prior
decision. Staff doesn’t see any need,
for clarity of the Record, that the BCC needs to do everything over that has
already been done because, to some extent, it is going to be repetitive.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Dallari, Mr.
McMillan advised other than these five conditions, the proposal was the same
and the Board does not have to rehash everything; but, the Board can pursue how
some things may interrelate to what happened before.
Chairman Carey stated she feels they have
agreed to go into a settlement discussion versus filing for litigation and they
wouldn’t have another public hearing.
She stated she believes the applicants were instructed not to bring
their team of staff and she doesn’t want to make it unfair.
Attorney Miranda Fitzgerald, Lowndes,
Drosdick, Doster, Kantor, & Reed, addressed the Board to display a
PowerPoint Presentation (CD and copy of slides were received and filed). She stated they went through a process that
was beneficial and allowed a lot of additional discussion in a more candid way
than they did at the last hearing. She
displayed and reviewed a list of the five conditions in the settlement
agreement. She displayed a graphic
showing the location of the proposed development and she reviewed the
dimensions of the nearest residential buildings, the wetland/swamp area that
will not change, and the Robertson property.
She stated Integra originally was planning to bring a piece of the
Robertson property into the DRI and put in additional units. There were more wetlands on this site than
anticipated and they have decided to drop that parcel. The applicants have withdrawn their
application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The application only includes the 11.15 acres of the undeveloped
commercial portion in the original boundaries of the Lake Forest DRI.
Attorney
Fitzgerald reviewed the location of the proposed 8 ft. vinyl clad fence and the
concerns of the residents. She stated
there have been bear sightings in the area; and one solution was to fence the
entire area and impede anything from crawling over that fence. She added that the applicant has committed to
not put balconies at the end units near Forest Glen as the residents had
concerns with people living on the top floor being able to have visual intrusion
into their back yards. The applicants
have committed to not have any further negotiations to acquire any portion of
the Robertson property. The applicants
have also agreed, in a PUD document at the P&Z meeting, that the commitment
would be binding on successors and assigns and it will run with the land. Integra has also committed to include color
renderings as part of the PUD commitment agreement.
Attorney
Fitzgerald displayed a copy of an aerial photo of what the project will look
like. She stated there has been a lot of
correspondence that these apartments will be a low-income facility and that
will not be the case. She displayed and
reviewed photos (copies received and filed) of existing projects that Integra
has developed in the surrounding area (Orange City Clubhouse exterior view;
interior view of the Daytona Beach facility; and interior view of the
Championsgate clubroom). She stated
these will be part of the PUD commitment.
She displayed and reviewed the traffic impact that is likely to be
anticipated from this change to the project.
Attorney
Fitzgerald reviewed an aerial (received and filed) showing a closer look of
Henderson, the potential change to the Henderson and SR 46 intersection and how
that will impact the people living in the community. She stated the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) asked their traffic engineer to come up with four
alternatives for different types of intersection improvements. That was submitted to FDOT and their answer
was that, from a safety perspective, they are not going to approve a
signal. She displayed an aerial
(received and filed) showing the potential change to the Henderson intersection
with a U-turn added and explained what the residents will need to do when they
get to and come out of Henderson. She
stated Integra has done everything they can to convince FDOT to allow
signalization at that intersection. FDOT
has indicated that they do not believe it is appropriate, and she expressed one
of FDOT’s concerns relating to Holy Cross Academy and how it weighed heavily on
their decision.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated as a result of
FDOT’s decision, Forest Glen elected not to be a part to this settlement
agreement. She explained when Lake
Forest rejected the settlement.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Dallari,
Attorney Fitzgerald advised Integra did a signal warrant study and a signal is
warranted. She was told there are
intersections all over the state where signals are warranted, and FDOT will not
allow them.
Commissioner Henley stated FDOT Secretary
Downs has indicated that Integra’s staff has indicated in their study that it
wasn’t warranted. He stated he is not
supporting this unless the Board can get Integra support the light and help pay
for it. Secretary Downs didn’t seem to
be strongly opposed to it but her staff was.
Chairman Carey stated regardless of what
happens, at some point when that property develops, she believes a light will
be warranted. She stated she believes a
U-turn is more dangerous than a light.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated Integra’s
traffic warrant study shows that today, with nothing on that site, a signal is
not warranted; but when they include the traffic projection from the 209
multi-family units, it would indicate that when those units are on the road, it
would be warranted. She added the
requirements in the FDOT’s Green Book standards indicate that it would be too
close to the signal at Orange Blvd. She
stated they have done everything they can to get warrant approval and they are
willing to do anything to make it happen.
She concluded by displaying and reviewing the future Wekiva Parkway and
the Lake Forest DRI area. She asked the
Board to consider their request.
Attorney Fitzgerald explained for
Commissioner Horan how the residents of the apartments would access Lake Forest
Blvd. to get onto SR 46. She also
explained the proposed traffic solutions and access configuration, how the
approved units in the DRI will work and where they are on the amount of
commercial units under the DRI.
Attorney Fitzgerald informed Commissioner
Henley that the multi-family is not a new use to the DRI. She stated that originally it was all
multi-family which was changed. They are
bringing it back and asking now to convert some of the single-family to
multi-family.
Attorney Fitzgerald advised Commissioner
Dallari that this is the last piece of commercial property that is being
developed.
Discussion ensued between Attorney
Fitzgerald and Commissioner Horan relative to changing the current zoning to
multi-family.
Mr. Forte and Mr. McMillan left the meeting
at this time.
Sandra Salter, 5267 Shoreline Circle,
addressed the Board to address the traffic flow and commute time of the
apartment dwellers within these new apartments.
She stated renters of the apartments may have quicker and safer access
by using the Lake Forest exit; but it will cause a delay for the residents of
Lake Forest. She addressed the type of
problems that people renting the apartments will cause.
Brenda Dalman, 564 Bent Pine Ct., addressed
the Board to discuss the lives and property values being at risk. She asked the Board to carefully weigh their
decisions and look at what is best for the community and not what is best for
the corporation.
Gib Lundquist, 159 Majestic Forest Run,
addressed the Board to state he doesn’t understand why the applicant is allowed
to put up a chain link fence when he doesn’t know if it is allowed by the
County Code. He discussed whether the
legal description of the Robertson property is going to be tied to the sale of their
property if it changes hands, the issue of the traffic light and what the
impact on the nearby residents will be when on vehicles make U-turns while
traffic is going 55 mph.
Chairman Carey stated she has had
correspondence from and discussions by Mr. Lundquist outside of this public
hearing.
Attorney Brent Spain, Theriaque &
Spain, addressed the Board to speak on behalf of Lake Forest Homeowners
Association and Jerry Schwartzberg.
Mr. McMillan reentered the meeting at this
time.
Attorney Spain submitted a notebook
(received and filed) consisting of exhibits submitted on behalf of Lake Forest
Master Community Association and Dr. Ira Schwartzberg. He stated the binder consists of materials
that were introduced at the hearing in July in addition to the denial
development order (received and filed), and they are also in the Record. He stated he wanted to renew the Lake Forest
Master Community Association’s standing objection from the prior hearing based
on the lack of cross examination in this matter. He echoed Commissioner Henley’s comments
regarding any limitation of testimony in this proceeding especially since the
membership of the BCC has changed after the July 2010 hearing.
Dr. Ira Schwartzberg, 5336 Lake Bluff
Terrance, addressed the Board to state the BCC denied this project last July
due to it being incompatible with the surrounding area. The project is now back before the Board
essentially unchanged. The applicant is
proposing to put up a chain-link fence around the stormwater retention pond and
eliminating a couple of balconies to the west.
Neither of these design changes resolve or address the BCC’s
compatibility concerns regarding the project.
Mr. Forte reentered the meeting at this
time.
Dr. Schwartzberg stated a high density,
multi-family rental apartment is incompatible with the low density,
single-family homes in Lake Forest.
Rental apartments in the subdivision will lower the property values and
that will take tax revenues away from the County. He stated there was no mention of apartments
being part of the PUD when he purchased his home in Lake Forest, but he was
shown a shopping center area where the developer now wants to build the
apartments. He said he feels the land
should be used as they originally intended to use it, for stores and
restaurants for the residents of Lake Forest.
This property is required to be developed as a retail shopping center as
exemplified by the declaration of restrictions and reciprocal easement
agreement.
Attorney Spain stated there is a history of
the subject property being designated and planned for Neighborhood Commercial
for 700+ homes; and the residents, in good faith, relied upon the action of
this Board. He stated the proposed
project is not compatible with the surrounding area and he requested the Board
to deny the request.
Commissioner Horan noted the original
application went before the P&Z Commission and they voted to approve
it. The settlement agreement also came
before the P&Z and it was approved by a 6-0 vote. He said if there is litigation on this
particular issue and it goes to Circuit Court, the Circuit Court will apply
Snyder. He stated under that standard he
would like Mr. Spain to explain what the County’s position should be regarding
the consistency of the application with regard to the Comprehensive Plan,
zoning regulations and public policy.
Attorney Spain explained his position and stated he believes the Record
from July has more than ample competent substantial evidence for the
denial. Discussion ensued with regard to
evidence.
Mr. McMillan stated the County believes
there was competent substantial evidence from both sides at the prior
hearing. The Board is free to make a
decision. There doesn’t have to be an
expert witness. The Courts have upheld
citizens’ testimony as to the facts that they witnessed and they are testifying
to what they have actually seen and what they actually experienced.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan,
Attorney Spain advised he would contest if commercial was put on this property
it would generate four times more traffic than the apartments.
Commissioner Horan stated the traffic study
was submitted by the applicant.
Attorney Spain stated, based on the July
hearing, there is a difference between commercial traffic that is spread out
throughout the day versus residential development traffic.
Chairman Carey advised that she has
previously met with Dr. Schwartzberg as well as other residents from the
homeowners association.
Upon inquiry by Mr. McMillan, Commissioner
Horan advised that he has reviewed prior records from the previous hearings.
Commissioner Dallari advised that he has
met with Dr. Schwartzberg and a couple of residents in his office with regard
to this issue. Commissioner Horan
indicated that he has done so as well.
Keith Boyd, 5322 Shoreline Circle,
addressed the Board to discuss the Board considering a design that would make a
public safety issue tremendously worse and the amount of traffic driving during
the morning hours. He discussed the
FDOT’s Wekiva/SR 417 Projection Presentation indicating that the safety
problems now exist on SR 46.
Melanie Marsh, 202 Majestic Forest Run,
addressed the Board to ask the Board to look at this from a different
perspective by going back to one of the basic fundamental principles of Chapter
70.51. She explained what that process
entails. She stated Integra does not own
this property yet; and if they don’t get approved, they can walk away from this
contract. Integra is not vested in this
community like the residents are. She
explained how the residents in the proposed development will drive to get
across two lanes of traffic to make a U-turn at Henderson, and how that will
pose a problem for the residents of Forest Glen.
Chris Puccio, 5471 Glen Oak Place,
addressed the Board to state he represents the Forest Glen HOA, The Heritage,
and Holy Cross Lutheran Academy. He
stated when they met in July, they came up with four or five arguments; and
since that process, they went to a 70.51 process. The residents of Forest Glen do not agree
with any of the five conditions at all.
There was a mediation settlement and the residents did not get a chance
to find out what the special magistrate decided. The five conditions do not address any of the
items that the residents addressed.
Mr. McMillan left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Puccio stated the residents do not like
the language concerning the Robertson property as it is not clarified. The Forest Glen residents contend that Item
#4 (artistic renderings) conflict with Item #1 as the 8 ft. chain link fence is
not shown. He stated the residents
gladly participated with Integra and they fought hard with FDOT in trying to
pitch justification as to why a light should be there. Unfortunately, FDOT decided it was not in
their interest to put a light there. A
second meeting was held with FDOT and the residents were not included in
that. He feels that there was no opinion
from the special magistrate or from staff, and he doesn’t understand why they
are here again on these five conditions which the residents have issues with
the traffic.
Chairman Carey stated there is a cross
access easement over the Publix parking lot and regardless whether it is
commercial or residential, the citizens have a right to cross over that parking
lot. Mr. Sikonia stated he believes
there is some possible litigation on the cross access easement.
Nicole Guillet, Planning & Development
Director, addressed the Board to state she understands there is a cross access
easement but she doesn’t know if there is litigation or the status of it.
Chairman Carey stated this Board is going
to rely on their experts and FDOT. FDOT
has the last word on the access along their road to make sure there is safe
access and it doesn’t matter if it is residential or commercial. When that site is developed, something is
going to have to happen to the transportation access. She stated she believes anything that is
heard today is not necessarily going to be what may ultimately occur when this
property is developed, and that is going to have to be addressed.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Dallari, David
McDaniel, Integra Land Co., addressed the Board to state after they met with
FDOT, their Traffic Engineer came up with four or five different options. They showed the options to two members of
Lake Forest. The Traffic Engineer of
Integra only met with FDOT to discuss the options and FDOT preferred the one
that was shown on the overhead, based on the different studies and traffic
counts.
Chairman Carey stated she met with Mr.
Puccio in meetings outside of this hearing.
Nick DiGiorgio, 5476 Glen Oak Place,
addressed the Board to state he has been a resident in Seminole County since
1977 and he feels this apartment complex should not be constructed. He stated people are thinking twice about living
in the Sanford area. This apartment
complex will not only bring a larger volume of traffic to the area, but it will
also bring transient people and that will downgrade the community. He asked the Board to leave the parcel alone
as sometimes change is not good. He said
with all the foreclosures throughout the County, they don’t need anything that
will bring property values down. He
displayed an article (received and filed) in the Orlando Sentinel
displaying 10% devaluation of properties in the four-county area. He advised that the Property Appraiser’s
office indicates single-family homes median sale prices for Seminole County are
$150,000, and the residents of Forest Glen Subdivision paid twice as much as that. He added he doesn’t need apartment complexes
stuck right in the middle of a nice neighborhood. He submitted a letter (received and filed)
from Manuel Richardson, GMB Engineers, summarizing the traffic study and he
indicated that Mr. Richardson is no longer available to discuss the study.
Fred Tepper, 4985 Fawn Ridge Place,
addressed the Board to state he is President and CEO of a growing company in
the I-4 Industrial Park. He expressed
his feelings about people living in rentals.
He believes the Board will denigrate the neighborhood and Seminole
County if they approve the project.
Kevin Downs, 118 Majestic Forest Run,
addressed the Board to discuss the difference between residential traffic and
commercial traffic. He stated the vinyl
fence is not going to be compatible with the area. He asked the Board to put a guarantee in that
the compatibility issue is going to be fixed.
There is going to be 200 more apartments and more children in the area.
Loretta Talley, 5495 Glen Oak Place,
addressed the Board to state she researched the property before she bought her
house to see what was supposed to be built there. She said she sent an e-mail explaining how
she feels about apartments. She has
lived in this area for nine years and she may have seen a “for sale” sign twice
on this property during that time. There
are only six shops in the shopping center that are not occupied at this
time. They are in a very bad economic
situation but that property will eventually go commercial if they give it a
chance.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Speaker Request Forms and Written Comment
Form were received and filed.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated Commissioner
Dallari questioned whether there will be any additional commercial on the
site. She said there is a vacant bank
site that has been sold and is not yet developed. There has been a lot of discussion about this
being incompatible. She stated staff
previously recommended that the maximum allowable building height be 35 ft. and
they feel multi-family development is compatible and consistent with the
existing trend of development in the area.
It is consistent with the regional growth of “How Shall We Grow”. There was no finding made that this project
was not compatible.
Attorney
Fitzgerald stated there have been comments about the chain link fence not being
appropriate for the character of the area.
They offered the fence in discussion with the Forest Glen and Lake
Forest residents at the hearing and mediation.
It is going to be completely invisible along the swamp on the back end and
next to the Robertson parcel, which is heavily treed. The fence will completely become part of the
vegetation and will serve the purpose of keeping people from traversing into
the adjoining neighborhoods. The
CC&R’s that are in place envisioned the entire site being developed as
commercial and they provided that the owner of the site could unilaterally
amend that provision and they have done that.
The only issue that is in litigation is whether they did that properly
and she believes they have done that. It
is not a relevant issue for this zoning and the CC&R will be dealt with
separately. It does not affect the cross
access in any way. There has been
discussion about traffic and it is hard to envision how they want commercial
but don’t want traffic. If they don’t
change the use of this property, there is not going to be less traffic. This is a way to restrict the traffic and
allow a reasonable use of that property.
She stated she appreciates the Board’s support in allowing a reasonable
use, which is Class A multi-family, on this site.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley,
Attorney Fitzgerald advised Integra is willing to put in whatever safety device
that FDOT will approve. FDOT will
dictate what will happen at that intersection and Integra will pay for it.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Attorney
Fitzgerald advised she estimates that it will take about $75,000 if they went
forward with the improvements to the directional medians. She stated it would be nice to resolve the
issue before those improvements go in, and not have to rip them out.
Chairman Carey stated if this moves
forward, as a District Commissioner, she will work to not have that kind of
action going on.
District Commissioner Carey stated the
amount of residential required to successfully support commercial will be
difficult to achieve in this particular area.
She said anything west of Orange Blvd. cannot be developed for
commercial. She stated there are a lot
of commercial designations along I-4, International Drive, as well as vacant
commercial sitting around in that area.
She said regardless of what happens, whether it be commercial,
multi-family or office, FDOT is going to dictate what improvements will be made
on SR 46 and they will have the final say.
The traffic will be greatly reduced in this area when the Wekiva Parkway
is built. She recommended approval of
the request.
Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Henley to
approve the Settlement Agreement, as shown on page ________, associated Fifth
Amended and Restated Development Order, as shown on page _______, and Addendum
#2, as shown on page _________, to the First Amended Commitments,
Classification and District Description, for the Lake Forest DRI/PUD on 540.30
acres, located 600 ft. east of the intersection of Henderson Lane and SR 46,
and authorize the Chairman to execute the aforementioned documents, as
described in the proof of publication, Integra Land Co. and Orlando Lake Forest
Joint Venture.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henley
stated he is not overly pleased with this Settlement Agreement as he doesn’t
think it is significant. He stated his
main concern is the safety for that area and he doesn’t believe what FDOT
stated that needs to be done is the safest thing that can be done. He added it puzzles him that they have stop
lights at almost every other block in this County but one is not warranted here
until the development takes place. He
seconded the motion because he has difficulty in saying that it cannot be built
because of the entitlement that is already there. He said he doesn’t think the County will
prevail in court if they turn this down and that is why he is supporting this.
Chairman Carey stated in her opinion, there
is nothing more compatible to single-family residential than multi-family
residential and that is why she is supporting it.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he will
not be supporting the motion as the original developer requested one thing and
the homeowners came in with the idea that that was going to be there, and now
the developers find themselves in a situation where they cannot do what they
originally planned. The applicants are
asking the taxpayers to give them a break so they can do what they can to make
it work.
Chairman Carey stated it is not uncommon for
PUDs and DRIs to come back to ask for changes.
Commissioner Dallari stated basically this
is a PUD and it is a working document that allows them to negotiate different
types of land use so they can figure out what best works for the
community. The PUD was amended to allow
“X” amount of residential and “X” amount of commercial. He stated he indicated at the last public
hearing that his issue was doing away with commercial and he sees nothing in
the settlement agreement that addresses that.
Commissioner Horan stated he sees this
coming in front of them on the basis of a proposed settlement agreement and the
reason for that is he presumes there is going to be litigation. He stated when he looks at the record and the
substantial competent evidence in the Record; he determines that the County
would not fare well in that litigation.
That is the primary reason he is going to vote for approval of the
settlement agreement. The point that
Commissioner Dallari raised is PUD zoning is negotiated zoning and what they
have heard is a number of residential units that is not going to change. He does not think it is a substantial
deviation to lose 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial when there is a lot of
commercial in the area. He said he feels
the County would lose this particular decision if the applicant petitioned the
court. However, he is deeply concerned
about the proposed solution that has been devised by FDOT. He added the only reason for denying this is
on the basis of public safety; and at this point, he doesn’t think they have
enough competent evidence to show that there is going to be a public safety
element to this that’s going to be aggravated in light of the fact that the
substantial competent evidence shows that the commercial development is going
to generate more traffic than the apartments are going to generate. That is the primary reason why he will be
supporting the motion.
Upon inquiry by Ms. Wysong, Commissioner
Henley advised the intent of his motion is whatever they are able to work out
Integra is going to agree to as it relates to the light. If they are unable to get a light, they will
proceed with what FDOT has indicated.
Commissioner Horan stated Condition #5
should be changed to correctly reflect in a very clear way that the developer will
continue to push for the better way to solve traffic problems than what they
have now.
Ms. Wysong stated if a traffic light is
warranted, the developer will pay for that in its entirety.
Chairman Carey stated it would be approved
by FDOT to best serve the public from a safety standpoint.
Mr. McMillan stated he assumes they have
agreed to do Condition #5 unless they can get FDOT to approve a signal in lieu
of this one.
Commissioner Henley stated the last
sentence says “to allow U-turns, or such other improvements as may be required
by FDOT”, which he believes could be a light.
Mr. McMillan stated the applicant is going
have to either put in the turn lane or the light depending on FDOT’s decision.
Chairman Carey stated this still has to go
through the site plan process as well as other steps.
Commissioner Horan stated the developer
will pay for what FDOT is requiring.
Commissioner Henley reiterated that he is
not pleased with this and if he thought the County could prevail in court, he
would be voting against it.
Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Dallari voted NAY.
-------
Chairman Carey recessed the meeting at 3:45
p.m., reconvening it at 3:50 p.m.
-------
ORDINANCE/Use of Fixed-Point Restraining Device
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance adopting
Section 20.39, Use of a Fixed-Point Restraining Device, received and filed.
Tad Stone, Public Safety Director,
addressed the Board to present the request, stating a number of nationwide
agencies and organizations strongly recommend against chaining of animals. The Center for Disease Control indicated that
a chained animal is 2.8 times more likely to bite or attack than an unchained
animal. The Seminole County Animal
Services staff also feels that chained animals will maintain a more aggressive
posture. This ordinance will clean up,
on the enforcement side, that the animal is not in any harm’s way. He stated he would like to commend Carla
Wilson for her efforts in bringing this forward.
Bryan Wilson, 702 Heather Lane, addressed
the Board to thank the BCC, on behalf of Animal Rights Coalition, for
considering the proposed ordinance. He
reviewed what happens when dogs are chained up.
A copy of an e-mail and brochure relating to dog attacks were received
and filed.
Andrew Siva, 1237 Quintuplet Ct., addressed
the Board to speak in support of the ordinance.
He stated dogs that are chained up are more likely to bite, attack other
animals, and more likely to choke themselves by trying to jump over a fence or
other items.
Carla Wilson, 702 Heather Lane, addressed
the Board to state she is glad to see that dogs in the county are being heard
today. She said it is a sad sight to see
an animal chained up, forgotten and have no freedom. She supports the anti-chain ordinance.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms
were received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Horan to
adopt Ordinance #2011-7, as shown on page _________, adopting Section 20.39,
Use of a Fixed-Point Restraining Device, as described in the proof of
publication.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
VACATE AND ABANDONMENT/Alberto Bustamante III
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to approve a
Resolution to vacate and abandon approximately 14,266 sq. ft. (0.32 acres) of
the public right-of-way known as Lake Howell Lane located immediately east of
Howell Point, Alberto Bustamante, III, received and filed.
Brian Walker, Growth Management, addressed
the Board to state the subject portion of right-of-way is within the San Pedro
PUD. This portion of the right-of-way is
not needed for public access and the proposed vacate will not hinder access to
adjacent properties. The applicable
utility companies have no objections to the request. Staff recommends approval of the vacate
request.
Javier Omana, representative of the Diocese
of Orlando, addressed the Board to state he concurs with staff’s
recommendation.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Upon inquiry by District Commissioner
Dallari, Mr. Omana advised there are no other vacate requests at this time.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Horan to
adopt appropriate Resolution #2011-R-57, as shown on page _________, vacating
and abandoning approximately 14,266 sq. ft. (0.32 acres) of the public
right-of-way known as Lake Howell Lane located immediately east of Howell
Point, as described in the proof of publication, Alberto Bustamante, III.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
VACATE AND ABANDONMENT/Seminole County
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to vacate and
abandon a portion of the plat known as Sanlando Springs Tract 49, as recorded
in Plat Book 5, Pages 16 of the Public Records of Seminole County, received and
filed.
Alan Willis, Growth Management, addressed
the Board to state the applicant is requesting the vacate for the purpose of
removing the underlying rights-of-way and parcels where the Sanlando Park has
been built. The applicable utility
companies have no objection to the request.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner
Dallari to adopt appropriate Resolution #2011-R-58, as shown on page _________,
vacating and abandoning a portion of the plat known as Sanlando Springs Tract
49, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 16 of the Public Records of Seminole
County, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
ORDINANCE AMENDING SEMINOLE COUNTY CODE
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance amending the
Seminole County Code Chapter 235 with updates addressing insurance
requirements, agency names and allowable sizes of residential garbage cans,
received and filed.
William (Johnny) Edwards, Solid Waste
Division, addressed the Board to present the request, stating Chapter 235
currently requires firms to submit proof of insurance coverage when applying
for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) to collect
waste. The update would allow the County
to accept policies from companies rated A- or better, which is also categorized
as excellent by A.M. Best. The amendments
would also update the Code to reflect the correct names of specific agencies. The update would also increase the size of
residential garbage cans from 32 to 50 gallons.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
No one spoke in support of in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner
Horan to adopt Ordinance #2011-8, as shown on page _________, amending the
Seminole County Code Chapter 235 with updates addressing insurance
requirements, agency names and allowable sizes of residential garbage cans, as
described in the proof of publication.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL/Calvin & Regine Mills
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to Appeal the Board
of Adjustment’s decision to deny a front yard setback variance from 25 ft. to 1
ft. for an existing privacy fence in the R-1AA (Single-Family Dwelling)
District; located on the north side of Dover Road, approximately 300 ft. north
of Wood Lake Drive, Calvin and Regine Mills, received and filed.
Ian Sikonia, Planning, advised he submitted
a revised staff report (received and filed) revising some of the language that
basically states that the Building Division made a mistake issuing the permit
and they actually did not. The
appellants were then notified that they need to apply for a variance. The appellants applied for a variance and
were denied by the BOA.
Mr.
Sikonia clarified for Chairman Carey that the appellant applied for a building
permit that showed their proposed front gate and wooden fence. A permit was issued for the portion for the
front gate and for the portion of the fence that is not within the 25 ft. front
setback. The appellants applied for a
variance and were issued a permit for the front gate and the fence outside the
variance. If the Board overturns the
BOA, the appellants would have to modify the existing building permit to
include the front portion.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Mr. Sikonia
advised that the permit was issued for the gate in the front and for the wood
fence setback at 25 ft.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide,
Ms. Sikonia advised this is not a traditional front yard and he indicated on
the site plan the location of the fence.
Discussion ensued with regard to the setback and location of the fence.
Regine Mills, appellant, addressed the
Board to state she did apply for the fence permit and they were told verbally
that the permit was granted. She stated
she was told they needed a variance and at that time, they had started the
fence. She added she applied for the
variance but was denied. She said since
that time they removed the wood fence in the front and they have gradually
improved the property. She stated their
fence is 12 ft. away from the property line and the wooden fence has been there
since they purchased the house.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Ms. Mills
advised the privacy fence back goes back to their property line (22 ft.).
Ms. Mills stated what they are trying to do
is improve their property and maintain security. The neighbor on the other side built a fence
and they want her to put a wrought iron fence all the way around, but that
would not be symmetrical for the entire area.
She said if they have to take down the fence, then there would be no privacy.
Pictures showing the view from her
neighbor’s house, neighbor’s yard, windows of the neighbor’s house that the
wood fence blocks the view, and replaced fence panels were received and
filed.
District Commissioner Van Der Weide stated
at first he felt this request was extraordinary, but when he looked into it and
saw pictures, it is hard to tell where the front yard is.
Mr. Forte left the meeting at this time.
Calvin Mills, 853 Dover Road, addressed the
Board to state he cleaned up the vegetation and orange trees so they could
actually see.
Mr. McMillan left the meeting at this time.
Victor McNeese, 244 Wood Lake Drive,
addressed the Board to state a permit was applied for in November for
replacement of a dilapidated fence and a wrought iron fence was installed in
front. He stated the wood fence was not
dilapidated nor was it removed or replaced.
A section of the fence extending farther than 50 ft. was added to the
end of it. The permit that was applied
for and what was actually done were entirely two different things. The County informed the appellants that this
was unacceptable.
Mr. Forte and Mr. McMillan reentered the
meeting at this time.
Mr. McNeese stated he has an objection as
far as the aesthetic value of the fence.
He stated no one in the neighborhood has a compound fence that comes out
to the road and they want to keep the integrity of it in that fashion. The appellant added a fence back-to-back with
another fence and they placed a number of line voltage lights within three feet
of the cul-de-sac. Since then, the
County has forced them to remove the lights.
Jay Wolk, 857 Dover Road, addressed the
Board to state he is the beneficiary of the adjoining subject property. He stated he opposes the Mills’ request
because he feels what they are requesting is completely inappropriate in the
circumstances of the neighborhood. He
said the prior owners of the Mills’ property had a preexisting stockade fence
that was in conformity with Seminole County’s regulations. Once the Mills received a permit, they
proceeded, without approval, to build a portion of fence that is not in
conformity with the County’s regulation.
One advantage of them going ahead without the necessary approval is it
makes it easy for him to show how the end result looks. He reviewed copies of photos (received and
filed) showing the end of the circle, a view from his garage and the
improvements looking down the property line showing how close they are to
encroaching on his property.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Angie
Kealhofer, Building, addressed the Board to advise according to the Land
Development Code, the front yard setback is measured between the two side yard
property lines at the right-of-way, no matter which way the houses faces. Ms. Kealhofer stated she informed Ms. Mills
of the 25 ft. that could not be done without a variance approval. She indicated on the photo what sections Ms.
Mills would be doing. That is why she
has indicated that there is a 25 ft. front yard setback and it was for the wood
privacy fence only. The wrought iron
could go to the front property line.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Ms.
Kealhofer advised the stockade fence can run down the property line, but they
cannot start it until it is 25 ft. back.
Chairman Carey stated the photo shows one
full section of aluminum fence running down the side of the property in each
direction. If the aluminum fence is 25
ft. back, the appellant does not need a variance. Ms. Kealhofer concurred.
Ms. Kealhofer stated they would need to
revise their site plan because that is not what they indicated on it.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Carey, Nicole
Guillet, Growth Management Director, advised if the wrought iron fence along
the side lot line is setback 25 ft. from the front of the lot, then it is
allowed.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Speaker Request Forms and Written Comment
Form were received and filed.
Commissioner Henley stated it is his
understanding that the 25 ft. came into play when there was a possibility of
blocking traffic vision and he doesn’t see that. Discussion ensued.
Mr. McMillan stated if the Board granted
the variance as requested, the appellant could take down the wrought iron fence
and put up a stockade fence. He stated
staff will have to visit the site to measure.
Chairman Carey stated the appellant
indicated that that is not their intent.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner
Dallari to overturn the BOA’s decision in denying a front yard setback variance
from 25 ft. to 1 ft. for an existing privacy fence in the R-1AA (Single-Family
Dwelling) district; located on the north side of Dover Road, approximately 300
ft. north of Wood Lake Drive, as described in the proof of publication, Calvin
and Regine Mills, and grant the setback variance as illustrated in the photo
provided in the agenda memorandum, and to refund any fees that the applicant
had to pay for the variance request, an approval Development Order, as shown on
page _______.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Carey advised that the 4:00 p.m.
Budget Work Session has been cancelled and will be held on April 12, 2011.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Sabrina O’Bryan, Assistant County Manager,
addressed the Board to give an update on the Legislative program and
activities. She requested authorization
for the Chairman to execute a letter opposing any and all measures that would
allow bigger and heavier trucks on the highways.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Van Der
Weide to authorize the Chairman to execute a Letter, as shown on page ________,
to their lobbyists opposing any and all measures that would allow bigger and
heavier trucks on highways.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Dallari requested that the
letter be sent to their Federal lobbyist as well as to the National Association
of Regional Council.
--------
Ms. O’Bryan submitted a Resolution relating
to Mental Health funding and in conjunction and partnership with the Seminole
Behavioral Center that receives crisis funding for mental health. She stated staff understands that that
funding is in jeopardy and they are requesting approval of the resolution.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Horan to
adopt appropriate Resolution #2011-R-59, as shown on page _________, requesting
the State to continue funding of mental health and substance abuse
services.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Ms. O’Bryan stated the third issue relates
to a fertilizer ordinance that was requested by the Florida Stormwater
Association. She stated this is an item
that has been a priority in the past and if they can approve the resolution as
requested, it may help in preserving the Board’s local authority to be able to
pass an ordinance in the future. If the
Board chooses to do that, it would be more stringent than the model ordinance
that is being prepared at the State level.
Chairman Carey stated she has not had an
opportunity to review this resolution.
She stated this issue has been an ongoing discussion with the Wekiva
Task Force and she believes the Board will want to preserve their Home Rule
right to pass rules and regulations, if required.
Ms. O’Bryan stated this resolution helps
specifically for SB 606 and HB 407 which would not allow the Board to come back
at a later date and pass ordinance more stringent than the ones they are
proposing.
Chairman Carey stated she believes the
Board needs to further discuss the issue of fertilizers.
Commissioner Horan stated the County is
required to meet certain federal requirements regarding water quality and a lot
of the measures that counties and cities take are to comply with them, and now
the State is saying that local governments cannot do that. He stated he has a problem with that.
Chairman Carey stated she would like to
postpone this issue until they have had an opportunity to review it. Staff can put it on the Board’s next agenda
for consideration.
Commissioner Horan stated the only concern
he has is issues are flying through the Legislature and they may have already
passed it by that time.
Chairman Carey stated there have been a lot
of debates about the fertilizer issue and she doesn’t want to take action until
she has time to review it.
At the recommendation of Commissioner
Dallari, Chairman Carey stated rather than a resolution, she will send a
letter, as shown on page ________, to the Legislature stating that the County
wants to protect their Home Rule by being able to make their own rules in their
own county. The Board had no objections.
-------
Ms. O’Bryan updated the Board on a bill (SB
270) that would allow for an early payment and a discount on property
taxes. She stated Fiscal Services
gathered some rough estimates on the impact to the General Fund. She stated the House Bill was withdrawn. It is anticipated that $5 million will impact
the General Fund impact, $1.6 million in the Fire Fund, with additional
$500,000 in Solid Waste and about $90,000 in MSBU.
Chairman Carey stated since the House Bill
was withdrawn, hopefully it won’t come up with a companion bill.
-------
Ms. O’Bryan stated Representative Dorworth
is requesting HB 381 that non-homestead property tax caps be reduced from 10%
to 3%, and FAC is trying to negotiate something in the middle. She stated she has forwarded FAC’s talking
sheets to the Property Appraiser.
Chairman Carey stated there will be a 3%
cap across the board for all tax increases annually.
Ms. O’Bryan stated she contacted the
Property Appraiser’s office to see if they could estimate what type of impact
that would have. She stated it would be
a guesstimate for them based on the economy and property tax values. Staff would continue to monitor that.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Ms.
O’Bryan advised the companion bill is SB 658.
Chairman Carey stated the biggest concern
she would have is the Property Appraiser indicated at the budget work session
that the non-residential properties are being written down 10% to 40% in
value. That could financially impact the
County. She stated the Board should be
discussing this issue with the district representatives.
The consensus
of the Board was to send a letter to the district representatives addressing
their concern on this issue.
Ms. O’Bryan stated the Florida Association
of Counties has attempted to do some negotiating to increase that fee. They have proposed amendments to the
legislators involved but they haven’t received any support on that.
-------
Ms. O’Bryan stated the final item relates
to library funding. She stated staff is
receiving word that State Aid is at risk.
Leisure Services advised that they are currently receiving $147,200 for
library funding for a number of programs that are in jeopardy.
Commissioner Van Der Weide asked if there
are any legislative issues that will affect government employees.
Commissioner Dallari requested that Ms.
O’Bryan provide the Board with the Florida Retirement bills that will impact
the employees. She stated she can
provide the Board with a matrix showing which ones are most active now and how
they will impact the employees.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
Mr. McMillan stated he briefed the Board on
Item #38, Approval of a proposed negotiated settlement agreement relating to
Case #09-CA-6401-15-K, Central Florida Environmental Corp. v. Seminole
County. He stated there is no
problem defending this case as he feels they have a strong case. He summarized the worst case scenario if the
County litigates the dispute and the best case scenario if the County accepts
the settlement agreement.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner
Horan to approve the proposed negotiated settlement relating to Case
#09-CA-6402-15-K, Central Florida Environmental Corp. v. Seminole County,
in the amount of $270,000 inclusive of all claims, damages, interest,
attorney’s fees and costs.
Under discussion, Commissioner Dallari
stated he will not be supporting the motion as he feels this is pending
litigation and there is not enough information.
Commissioner Carey stated she will be
supporting the motion and the information provided indicates that a change
order had been issued and not signed.
She stated when something is being issued, that work should not start
until someone with authority has signed the work order.
Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Dallari voted NAY.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Chairman Carey stated the Board received a
letter from the city of Longwood requesting action be taken on the revenue cap
legislation (TABOR). She stated she
addressed the County’s concerns with the delegation about TABOR and caps on
local spending. She added she doesn’t
think it would hurt to send another letter to the representatives reminding
them that the County would be opposed to placing caps on local
governments. The consensus of the Board was to send a letter, as shown on page
_________, to the Legislative Delegation opposing same.
-------
Chairman Carey stated there was quite a bit
of discussion at the MetroPlan meeting on March 9. The Board received a sample resolution to be
sent to the Governor and State Legislature in support of SunRail.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Henley to
adopt appropriate Resolution #2011-R-64, as shown on page _________, supporting
SunRail.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Carey discussed the positive
outcome that came out of the 60 Minutes news story highlighting the homeless
families and children in Seminole County.
She stated Jeno Paulucci generously made a contribution designated to
Pathways to Home. She said a couple
hundred cases of food was also distributed by Mr. Paulucci. She added she also spoke to Associate Pastor
Danny Dearmas, First Baptist Church in Orlando, and they have committed to
raise over $5 million to support this particular issue. The pastor is working on how the money is
going to be distributed and they are going to try to look at doing the
distribution by where the money comes from.
-------
Chairman Carey noted that Pathway to Homes
has been selected as one of the Community Innovation Award recipients from the
United Way of Florida and they will be receiving that award on April 4 in
Tallahassee. She stated if there are no
objections from the Board, Father Bluett would like to give an update and
highlights of the programs they are doing at a later date. The Board voiced no objections.
-------
Chairman Carey reiterated that the Budget
Work Session scheduled following today’s meeting has been postponed and it will
be held on April 12, 2011, after the morning session if there is time.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports
were received and filed:
1.
Letter dated March 1, 2011 to residents and
businesses in the Geneva area from the St. Johns River Water Management
District re: Inventory of wells in the 22 square mile area known as “the Geneva
lens or bubble”.
2.
Letter dated March 2, 2011 to the Seminole
County Board of County Commissioners from Doug McLaughlin, Commodore, Orange
Boating Club, re: a thank you for their support in the restoration of Lake
Jesup.
3.
Letter dated March 4, 2011 to Brenda Carey,
Chairman of the Seminole County Commission, from Brad Loar, Director,
Mitigation Division of FEMA, re: agreement on settlement of lawsuit which
alleged that the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) encourages development
along Florida beaches that is harmful to 5 species of threatened or endangered
sea turtles.
4.
Letter dated March 4, 2011 to Seminole County
Board of County Commissioners from Raymond Bradick, Bowyer Singleton, re:
recommendation of David Heath for County Manager.
5.
Letter dated March 6, 2011 to Brenda Carey,
Chairman of the Seminole County Commission, from John Bistline re: appreciation
for the resolution acknowledging his contribution over the last 20 years.
6.
Letter dated March 7, 2011 to Seminole County
Board of County Commissioners from Hugh Maloy re: his opposition to the renewal
of the one penny sales tax.
7.
Copy of letter dated March 7, 2011 to OCPS
School Psychologists from Seminole County Parks and Recreation thanking them
for their $200.00 donation in memory of Tom Guest.
8.
Letter dated March 7, 2011 to Brenda Carey,
Chairman of the Seminole County Commission from Charles Pritchard re: Negligent
performance of duties with regard to the Seminole County Water and Sewage
Utility ref: 799 Cricklewood Terrace, Lake Mary, FL 32746.
9.
Letter dated March 11, 2011 to Brenda Carey,
Chairman of the Seminole County Commission, from Gary Causey, Director
Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, re: NSP3 funding approval and Grant Agreement B-11-UN-12-0018.
10.
Letter dated March 14, 2011 to Commissioner
Brenda Carey from Larry W. Nelson, Vice President, The Jeno and Lois Paulucci
Family Foundation, re: donation to support Pathways to Home.
DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Commissioner Dallari stated Pathway to Homes
was also recognized nationally from the Realtor’s Association.
-------
Commissioner Dallari stated he received a
resolution (received and filed) from the city of Sanford expressing support of
the Seminole Science and Simulation Consortium.
-------
Commissioner Dallari recognized the
Purchasing Department for receiving their annual Excellence of Public
Procurement award for 2011. He stated he
wants to thank staff, particularly the Purchasing Department for a job well
done and for continuing to excel year after year in that.
------
Commissioner Dallari stated the Board has
been asking for the Halogen evaluation and he would like an update on
same. He said he has several issues on
that. One is it is too subjective and it
doesn’t foster relations not just with staff among staff, but customer
services. He stated he feels staff
members are not be graded accordingly.
He added he has been getting a lot of e-mail referencing the lack of
customer service and he has asked the County Manager to have customer service
training. He said he hopes something
will be presented to them, especially during the budget work session, so they
can understand what is taking place.
Chairman Carey stated performance reviews
have been over time tied to, “I get reviewed and I get a raise”, or “I get
reviewed and don’t get a raise”. She
stated she doesn’t think performance reviews should be tied to money at
all. Even though the salaries are frozen,
people should still be evaluated based on their performance. If an employee is not being evaluated
correctly because there is no money in the bank to give them a raise, that is
unfair to them. She stated she feels the
best time to discuss this is when the Evergreen Study comes back.
Commissioner Dallari stated he believes a County
employee should be graded on the merit of what they did over the past
year. He stated to grade an employee and
not be able to give a 2.6 because they are only allowed to give 2.0, is not
doing what is in the best interest of the County.
Chairman Carey stated she feels the pay and
the review should not be tied to the other.
She stated whether they do it really well or do it with room for
improvement is really what should be evaluated and there should be some room
for improvement in that area.
Commissioner Dallari stated he feels a
thank you or a job well done goes a long way.
Chairman Carey stated she feels it would be
helpful to discuss that issue and the Evergreen Study at the same time.
-------
Commissioner Horan stated with regard to
Pathway to Homes, he has forwarded to Beth Davalos and Father Bluett names of
various people who have responded to requests to adopt a family. The Planning Department is in the process of
adopting a couple of families and John Metsopoulos is going to be the point
person for that.
Commissioner Dallari commended Beth from
the School Board for doing a phenomenal job on that issue.
-------
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he is
well aware that employees have not had a raise and he is looking forward to the
Evergreen Study. He said the County
needs to do something about that as soon as they can.
------
Commissioner Carey stated she has a
situation in her district where a gentleman is developing a shooting range for
his own personal use near the Heathrow Elementary playground. She stated the Land Development Code doesn’t
really address having a private shooting range, but she believes there is
something in the County Code that speaks to disarming of firearms within so
many miles of a residential section. She
said if someone misses the range, it could go over to the playground at
Heathrow Elementary. She asked Mr.
McMillan and Ms. Guillet to get together on this issue.
Mr. McMillan stated the Code says that it
shall be unlawful for any person, unless exempted by Subsection B, to discharge
a firearm or firearms in a repetitive or continuous manner on a parcel of land
within 500 ft. of a residence.
Subsection B states it shall not apply to law enforcement officers in
the line of duty, nor a private individual lawfully defending this property,
nor to the operation of a firing range approved by the Board of Adjustment or
otherwise permitted under the Land Development Code. He stated the firearm cannot be discharged
within 500 ft. of a residence unless there is a legally permitted firing
range.
Ms. Guillet stated this would not fall
under that exception.
Chairman Carey requested staff to contact
that individual to let him know that he cannot be disarming firearms.
Ms. Guillet stated staff has heard through
the grapevine that he has already abandoned that effort.
COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT
No Report.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
No Report.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA
John Horvath stated he has a deacon at his
church that is working with the Christian Sharing Center regarding the homeless
and he is going to contact them and the Board to see what they can do as well.
-------
There being no further business to come
before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
ATTEST:_______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
js/er