Present:

Chairman Carlton Henley (District 4) (Late)

Vice Chairman Grant Maloy (District 1)

Commissioner Randy Morris (District 2)

Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

Commissioner Daryl McLain (District 5)

Deputy County Manager Cindy Coto

County Attorney Robert McMillan

Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann

Pastor Don Renner, Lake Ellen Church of Christ, Casselberry, gave the Invocation.

Vice Chairman Maloy led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Vice Chairman Maloy announced that Chairman Henley is serving on the Canvassing Board for today’s Election and will be arriving late.

Executive Director of LYNX, Leo Auger, addressed the Board to present Commissioner Daryl McLain with a Resolution adopted by LYNX commemorating his service on the LYNX Board from 1992 through 1998. He expressed LYNX’s appreciation to Commissioner McLain for his services to the Board.

Commissioner McLain stated the six years he served on the LYNX Board were very enjoyable. He said Mr. Auger has done a good job.

--------

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-34, as shown on page ________, proclaiming the week of March 14 – 20, 1999 as "Juvenile Justice Week" in Seminole County.

Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.

The Resolution was presented to Dr. Hortense Evans. Commissioner Morris expressed his appreciation to Dr. Evans for all her good work.

Dr. Evans addressed the Board to thank the Board for their support today, in the past, and in the future.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-35, as shown on page _________, designating March 20, 1999 as "St. Johns River Celebration Day".

Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.

The Resolution was presented to Mark Flomerfelt, Chairman of the event.

Mr. Flomerfelt addressed the Board to introduce Deidre Irwin, Co-Chair of the event and to advise that Marie Lackey is also Co-Chair. He advised that currently there are over 700 people signed up for this event.

Commissioner McLain stated this project has continued to grow year after year. He thanked the County staff for participating in this.

-------

The Board presented the Salvation Army Community Service Award to the Public Safety Department.

Director of Public Safety, Ken Roberts, accepted the award on behalf of the Department and expressed his appreciation.

Federal Lobbyist

Deputy County Attorney, Lonnie Groot, addressed the Board to discuss Federal lobbyists and to distribute copies of a packet of information (copy received & filed) from Leon County concerning their Federal and State lobbying initiatives. He said at first the County needs to determine what program they want to pursue.

Commissioner Morris stated he feels a grant writer would be better than having a Federal lobbyist.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he does not see the need for a Federal lobbyist; however, a qualified grant writer would improve the County’s chances in obtaining funds that are available.

Mr. Groot explained that Leon County has a grant writer and has him/her assigned to help community service agencies in obtaining funds so that they don’t have to seek the same funding amount from County Government.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated this may be an opportunity to network with the community who may or may not have grant writers already on their staffs.

Commissioner Maloy concurred with Commissioners Morris and Van Der Weide, stating he feels a grant writer would be more appropriate than a Federal lobbyist. He said he would like to see what types of opportunities that are out there.

Vice Chairman Maloy stated the consensus of the Board is to focus more on a grant writer position, to be brought back to the Board during the budget hearings; and to direct staff to bring back a list of what types of grants that are available, and the costs involved in outsourcing it or doing it in-house. He also requested staff to look at what other counties are doing.

Mr. Groot advised there are three bills pending with regard to title loans. Copies of Bills H 299, S 868, and S 898 were received and filed.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he believes the County Lobbyists (State) need to immediately get on the proposal that would prevent local governments from passing ordinances concerning title loans. He said he is in favor of the County enacting their own ordinance if a regulating bill does not come out of the State. He added it is almost criminal what the title loan people are doing.

Commissioner Morris stated he completely supports Commissioner Van Der Weide’s comments. He urged the Board to direct the lobbyists to notify the County’s Legislative Delegation of how strongly the Board feels on this issue.

The Board, by consensus, agreed to direct the County Lobbyist to protect the County’s home rule with regard to regulating title loan companies.

County Attorney, Robert McMillan, advised that attorneys from his office will be meeting with staff prior to the Board of Adjustment and Planning & Zoning Commission/LPA meetings to review agendas in order to make sure staff is prepared to deal with issues being presented. He also advised that his attorneys will be on call (working in their office) during those meetings should the boards have legal questions. He added that Lonnie Groot will be available for the Board of Adjustment and Rob Gebaide will be available for the P&Z/LPA.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he believes this is a great idea.

Commissioner Morris suggested Mr. McMillan’s Office also meet with each board collectively in order to explain the grounds of a motion and how to make a motion based on various types of issues they deal with.

-------

Mr. McMillan updated the Board, per discussion during the February 23, 1999 BCC meeting, on the Bob Dance Dodge code enforcement issue. He advised there is no fine accruing and no time period running for corrective action. He further advised that inflatables (without words on them) do constitute an advertising sign under the County’s ordinance. He said he understands the Code Enforcement Board will be meeting to resolve the $3,000 fine.

Mr. McMillan advised of add-on Item #6. He also briefly discussed Item #1, Purchase Agreement for Lars J. Erikson property, stating this is a success story on how the new acquisition process is working.

Commissioner McLain stated that when this issue came to his attention and he saw an opportunity, from a businessman’s perspective, to save taxpayers money, it was a "breath of fresh air" the way staff took the ball and ran with it.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to approve and authorize the following:

1. Approve proposed settlement for Reneski property relating to Parcel Numbers 115/715, located at 1390 Gladiolas Drive, Garden Lake Estates Subdivision, Winter Park of the Dodd Road road improvement project in the amount of $10,329.55, inclusive of land, severance damage, temporary construction easement, attorney's fees and reimbursable costs.

1. Authorization to represent the Clerk of Court with regard to Ronald L. Sims, P.A. v. Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Circuit Court, in and for Seminole County, Florida, et al matter. The Plaintiff in this case alleges entitlement to certain proceeds resulting from a sale of property for nonpayment of property taxes.

DCM, Cindy Coto, reminded the Board that when staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amending the Land Development Code to exempt private and public schools from road and fire impact fees, they were also directed to bring back information relating to exemptions of water and sewer connection fees. She stated information supplied to the Board at that time was that the County’s Bond Counsel did not indicate a problem with the exemption as long as he could review the ordinance in order to ensure bond covenant compliance. She said the staff also indicated that any action by the Board regarding exemption of fees would only affect those private schools built within the County’s service areas which is about 20% of the County. Staff felt this was disparaging because it would be a direct impact to the County’s customers versus the taxpayers at large. She advised that the County’s agreements with the cities stipulate that connection fee payments will be made. She explained that the water sewer fund is an enterprise fund funded solely by the ratepayers and, therefore, she believes the correlation that exists with fire and transportation impact fees does not apply in this case.

Ms. Coto advised that over the past eight years, approximately $991,077 has been collected in water and sewer connection fees - $823,943 from public schools and $162,134 from private schools. She further advised that they have spoken to some of the city staffs who have indicated that they were not interested in recommending to their boards that they amend their agreements with the County so the County would not have to pay if connection fees were not collected from a private school. She requested direction on how to proceed and if the Board wishes the staff to make presentations to each of the applicable cities regarding the exemption proposal.

Commissioner Morris stated it has been about two years since the Board has been trying to get these fees dropped. He said he disagrees with staff and believes the ownership is by the taxpayers and not the ratepayers. He said this is not a staff-driven item; all staff is concerned with is efficiency of operation. He stated this is a political decision that needs to be made. He further stated he does not care what the city staffs are saying. He believes the issue needs to be presented post haste to all the city councils and commissions.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to authorize a letter be sent from the BCC to all the mayors and city commissioners, and a follow-up formal request that they consider the exemption of water and sewer impact fees, with staff to make a presentation to each entity should they request it.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated he would like this done post haste and completed before next year. He suggested that maybe CALNO is the way to go with this. He clarified that the exemption would be for both public and private schools.

Upon inquiry by Ms. Coto, Commissioners Morris and Van Der Weide agreed the motion included that staff would work concurrently on the ordinance and that same will be brought back to the Board for consideration of enactment in April, 1999.

Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.

Ms. Coto advised that Item #7, Budget Amendment Request in the amount of $14,766 has been pulled from the agenda.

Commissioner Van Der Weide left the meeting at this time.

The Board noted revised sheet (copy received & filed) for Item #17, Amendment #4 to M-46-98/BJC.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to approve and authorize the following:

Community Assistance

1. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute FY99/00 Contract #G7029, as shown on page ________, which represents the second renewal option by the Department of Juvenile Justice for the Juvenile Alternative Services Program ($107,000 annually).

1. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Florida Power Corporation Distribution Easement, as shown on page ________, to serve the new Lynwood Water Treatment Plant currently under construction.

1. Accept and authorize the Chairman to execute the Certificate of Completion for PRC-144-98/BJC, as shown on page ________, Sanford Avenue Drainage Improvements, with Sunshine Building and Development Corporation, Casselberry (Certificate of Completion).

1. Authorize Proprietary Source Lease and Award Miscellaneous Lease Contract M-84-99/BJC, as shown on page _________, Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Equipment Rental Agreement Upgrade and Internet Access Provider (IAP), plus Workstations with Sprint-Florida, Inc., Altamonte Springs ($2,298.42 monthly for 60 months).

1. Approve and authorize a request for reimbursement from Volusia County for two payments made to WIN Consultants, Inc. (WIN) for housing rehabilitation/reconstruction performed while a Subrecipient for Seminole County.

1. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Agreement, as shown on page ________, to Exchange Land and Property Rights between Paul Musante and Joan Musante and Seminole County in conjunction with the McCulloch Road Paving Project. District 1 – Maloy

 

TOURIST DEVELOPMENT

2. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Agreement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County and the Great Orlando Baptist Association (GOBA) for the 2000 Women’s Church SP National Championship event ($2,500).

-------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 10:40 a.m., reconvening at 10:56 a.m., with all Commissioners in attendance, including Chairman Carlton Henley, who were present at the beginning of the meeting.

Community Services Director, Phil Stalvey, addressed the Board to present request for approval of the Interlocal Agreement with Volusia County concerning Medical Examiner Services.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to approve the County of Volusia Interlocal Agreement for Provision of Medical Examiner Services to the County of Seminole, as shown on page ________; and adoption of appropriate Resolution #99-R-38, as shown on page ________, implementing a $30 cremation service fee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Director of Human Resources, Nancy Tallent, addressed the Board to present request for adoption of Personnel Policy Manual refinements. She advised the changes include a complete revision of the Sexual Harassment Policy, revision of the Code of Conduct, and a new policy concerning On-Call Time.

Commissioner McLain requested the County Attorney to respond to the letter (received & filed) from Clerk of Court Maryanne Morse voicing her concern with regard to the On-Call Time.

Mr. McMillan stated Ms. Tallent has indicated the County’s Labor Attorney has given his legal opinion, advising he does not have a problem with the policy.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Henley, Ms. Tallent advised the On-Call practice has been in place for the past five years; however, it has not been a consistent practice from department to department. She said that is why they are proposing the new policy.

Upon further inquiry by Chairman Henley, Ms. Tallent advised On-Call positions are included in their job descriptions.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt changes and refinements to the Personnel Policy Manual, as shown on page _________.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Ms. Coto requested direction with regard to request to reduce the Code Enforcement Board lien on property located at 201 Eileen Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Case #92-58-CEB, Ed Terry. She briefly reviewed the history of this case, advising Mr. Terry’s request does not comply with Items 1 and 3 of the guidelines the Board approved on February 9, 1999, as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.

Commissioner Maloy stated at the previous Board meeting, staff recommended reducing the lien. He noted that Mr. Terry did not cause the violation.

Ms. Coto advised that Mr. Terry was aware of the lien when he purchased the property.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to reduce Code Enforcement Board lien to $360 for property located at 201 Eileen Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Case #92-58-CEB, Ed Terry.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated he would like staff to include, with regard to these types of requests, an estimate of the cost of staff time spent.

Commissioner McLain stated staff is telling the Board that this request does not meet the criteria and that the lien does not cover staff’s time.

Commissioner Morris suggested adding a time limit of 30 days for the $360 to be paid or it will revert back to $3,600. Whereupon, Commissioners Maloy and Van Der Weide concurred with adding that stipulation into the motion.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Coto advised in her discussions with John Dwyer, he indicated the cost for the County with regard to this case exceeds $3,600.

Motion by Commissioner McLain to amend the previous motion and direct staff to come back with a conservative estimate of the true costs involved with the case and that be the amount of reduction to the fine.

Commissioner Morris seconded the motion for discussion.

Current Planning Manager, John Dwyer, addressed the Board to advise the nature of this compliance had been on and off since 1992. He stated that staff time involved was more than the $3,600 fine.

The amendment to the motion was voted upon and failed with Commissioner McLain voting AYE, and Commissioners Maloy, Morris, Van Der Weide and Henley voting NAY.

The main motion was then voted upon and carried with District 1, 2, 3 and 4 voting AYE, and Commissioner McLain voting NAY.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to direct staff to add to the criteria for review of requests to reduce or waive CEB liens, information on the exact costs expended on the case, with notification of this to the property owner.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to approve and authorize the following:

1. Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page ________, dated February 16 and 23, 1999; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page ________, dated March 4, 1999.

 

2. Chairman to execute Satisfactions of Judgment for Court Costs as follows:

 

Paul W. Bailey, Case #95002727CFA - $253

Samuel Carlisi, Case #92000741CFA - $282.04 plus $169.87 interest

John David Daniels, Case #97002406CFA - $525 Fines & Court Costs

Richard Bernard Frederick, Jr., Case #98001450CFA - $40 Public Defender Application Fee

Larry D. Harrison, Case #98001106CFA - $40 Public Defender Application Fee

Tasha S. Holmes, Case #98000961CFA - $40 Public Defender Application Fee

 

3. Chairman to execute Satisfactions of Judgment for Bail Bond Liens as follows:

 

Linda Elaine Dowling and Roche Surety & Casualty Co. - $538

Linda Elaine Dowling and Roche Surety & Casualty Co. - $1,538

Rubin McCloud, aka Levar C. Smith and Roche Surety & Casualty - $1,038

Jorge E. Roa and Ranger Ins. Co. - $1,038

Tyrone V. Whitehead and Roche Surety and Casualty Co. - $1,038

 

4. Approval of Official Minutes dated February 23, 1999.

The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk’s "received and filed":

1. Development Order, as shown on page ________, for Wayne Densch, Inc. as approved by the Board on September 22, 1998.

 

2. Copies of letters from Chairman Carlton Henley to the following: Senator Toni Jennings, Representative Tom Feeney, Representative Bob Starks, Representative Lee Constantine, Senator Daniel Webster, Senator Buddy Dyer, Senator Anna Cowin, and Representative Stan Bainter, regarding considering funding issues involving the Florida Department of Children and Family Services (District VII).

 

3. Letter from the St. Johns River Water Management District to Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Circuit Court, enclosing a list of surplus items.

 

4. Letter from the Dept. of Community Affairs to Maryanne Morse, c/o Lonnie Groot, Deputy County Attorney, regarding public records request.

 

5. Copies of letters from Ginny Markley, Zoning Coordinator, to the following relative to the Board of Adjustment’s action at their February 22, 1999 meeting: John and Deborah Brubaker; H.M. Lerch; Andy Hawkins; Martha M. Carswell; Richard Geer; Robert J. Peterson; James R. Barnes; Jesus Brito; Hoshyar Khoshesperm; Gail Morris; John Gilbert; Ronald and Maureen Riner; Stephen Korshak; and John Wettach.

 

6. Work Order #14 to PS-368, as shown on page _______.

 

7. Work Order #5 to PS-510, as shown on page ________.

 

8. Work Orders #3 and #4 to PS-520, as shown on page _______.

 

9. Seminole County and Estate of Viola H. Kastner Joint Facilitation of Public Infrastructure Agreement, as shown on page ________, relating to CR 46A, Phase II project, approved by the Board on September 22, 1998.

 

10. Executive Search Consultant Agreement (RFP-462), as shown on page _________, with Slavin Management Consultants.

 

11. Consultant Service Agreement (M-83-99), as shown on page _________, with Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc. relating to Lake Hodge Outfall Project.

 

12. Notices of Non-Compliance, as shown on page _________, with Seminole County Development Order #96-151 with Colony Construction Co. for Lots #10, #33, and #49.

 

13. Letter and Bill of Sale, as shown on page ________, for Twentieth Century Life Ins. Co. relative to conveying operations and maintenance for reclaimed water lines with the project known as Primera Phase II.

 

14. Letter and Bill of Sale, as shown on page ________, for McNeil II, Inc. relative to conveying operations and maintenance for water and sewer systems for the project known as Emerald Estates.

 

15. Notice of Satisfaction of Connection Fees, as shown on page _________, relating to Utility Agreement for Brantley Place f/k/a McNeil Road Subdivision.

 

16. Utility Agreements, as shown on page _________, for the following: Taylor Woodrow Communities (Alaqua Lakes Phase V) and Archinetics, Inc. (Lot 7 Eagles Landing).

 

17. Documents, as shown on page ________, for the following relating to Dodd Road improvement project: Title Policies for Parcel Nos. 16/765, 151, 160; Title Policy, Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 110/710, Keven Charles and Kiyoko Reed; Title Policy, Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 111/711, Wayne and Margaret Middleton; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 112/712, Augusto and Norma Alva; Title Policy, Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel #114/714, Roy George and Caroljean Clarke; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 116/716, John and Carolyn Szolosi; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 117, Ronald Gillespie; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 118/718, Donald and Kay Pruitt; Title Policy, Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 119/719, Kathleen Lein; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 121/721, Diana and Norman Schober; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 122/722, Alan and Evelyn Davis; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 123/723, William and Iris Solis; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 124/724, Jose and Alma Vega; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 125/725, Fred and Mildred Vaughan and Bernice Laurel; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, Temporary Construction Easement, Partial Releases of Mortgage for Parcel No. 127/727, Edward & Geraldine McKee; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 128/728, Sherry Knowles; Title Policy, Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 129/729, Jon and Mary Stitz; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 130/730, Dennis and Eileen Perryman; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 131/731, Dennis & Janet Sullivan; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 132/732, Billie Keller; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 133/733, Patrick and Maureen Floegel; Title Policy and Warranty Deed for Parcel No. 141, Donald and Cornelia Barnes; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 144/744, Julio and Theresa Soto; Title Policy, Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 148, Thomas and Jacquelyn Demps; Title Policy and Warranty Deed for Parcel #154, Taylor and Mary Roundtree; Warranty Deed and Partial Release of Mortgage for Parcel No. 155, Carl and Pam Barker; Title Policy and Warranty Deed for Parcel #161, Jimmy and Marlene Cunningham; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 166/766, Jun Gang and Winnie Liu Mai; Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 166/766, John and Janet Castro; and Title Policy, Warranty Deed, and Temporary Construction Easement for Parcel No. 168/768, Aspen Diversified Investments.

 

18. Private Road Maintenance Bond #1371178, as shown on page _________, with West Lake Estates Properties, Ltd. in the amount of $5,450 for the project known as Capri Cove.

 

19. Maintenance Bond #1313063, as shown on page ________, for Streets, Curbs and Storm Drains with Paquette Paving Co. in the amount of $15,000 for the project known as First Baptist Church of Sweetwater.

 

20. Maintenance Agreement, as shown on page _________, in the amount of $13,252, Private Road Maintenance Agreement in the amount of $21,476 and Letter of Credit #P100387 in the amount of $34,728, with CFG Real Estate Group for the project known as Aloma Woods, Phase 5.

 

21. Maintenance Bond #159204884, as shown on page ________, with Vannice Construction Co. in the amount of $4,300 for the project known as Tuskawilla Trace Subdivision.

 

22. Maintenance Bond #SUN331587, as shown on page ________, for streets, curbs, and storm drains with J. Raymond and Associates in the amount of $3,066 for the project known as Eckerd Drugs – Howell Branch Road.

 

23. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #P600410, as shown on page _________, with Pulte Home Corp. in the amount of $55,319.02 for the project known as Huntington Pointe 4A.

 

24. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #FGAC-98043, as shown on page ________, for Water and Sewer improvements in the amount of 5,968.49, and Private Road Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #FGAC-98042 in the amount of $8,375.66, with U.S. Home Corp. for the project known as Chapman Lakes Phase 2.

 

25. Maintenance Bond #OFL0475500, as shown on page ________, with Advance Design & Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $1,852 for the project known as Neptune Road Extension.

 

26. Material and Workmanship Bond, as shown on page ________, with Hubbard Construction Co. in the amount of $151,614.44 for the project known as Red Bug Lake Road widening.

 

27. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #524767, as shown on page _________, with Heathrow Land Co. in the amount of $7,679.90 for the project known as Tract 28 Burlington Oaks.

 

28. Maintenance Bond #5912681, as shown on page ________, for water and sewer facilities in the amount of $25,863.90 and Private Road Maintenance Bond #5912680 in the amount of $123,400.25 with The Viera Co. for the project known as Oviedo Crossing Phase 3.

 

29. Maintenance Bond, as shown on page ________, with Lake Mary Residential Joint Venture in the amount of $44,330 for the project known as Chase Groves 4A.

 

30. Water and Sewer Improvements Cash Maintenance Bond, as shown on page _________, in the amount of $123.00 and Escrow Agreement for Road Improvements in the amount of $162.00, with Eagles Point Development Ltd. Partnership for the project known as Eagles Point Phase VI.

 

31. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #0631 13772 97-24, as shown on page _________, with Eagles Point Development Ltd. Partnership in the amount of $36,139 for the project known as Eagles Point Phase 5.

 

32. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #S145688, as shown on page _________, with Heathrow Land Co. in the amount of $6,323.60 for the project known as Tract 29A Keenwicke II.

 

33. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #524011, as shown on page _________, with Heathrow Land Co. in the amount of $30,928.90 for the project known as Heathrow Tract 30, Phase I Keenwicke.

 

34. Maintenance Agreement and Letter of Credit #524768, as shown on page _________, with Heathrow Land Co. in the amount of $18,119.60 for the project known as Heathrow Woods Phase III.

 

35. Maintenance Bond #18-94-88, as shown on page ________, in the amount of $36,182.50 for water and sewer facilities and Private Road Maintenance Bond #18-94-86 in the amount of $24,553.54, with Taylor Woodrow Communities for the project known as Alaqua Lakes Phase II.

 

36. Maintenance Bond #18-94-87, as shown on page _________, for water and sewer facilities in the amount of $90,625.18 and Private Road Maintenance Bond #18-94-85 in the amount of $81,136.55 with Taylor Woodrow Communities for the project known as Alaqua Lakes Phase I.

 

37. Maintenance Bond #5921779, as shown on page ________, for water and sewer facilities with Centex Homes in the amount of $41,490.90 for the project known as The Glades on Sylvan Lake Phase II.

 

38. Maintenance Bond #5921778, as shown on page ________, for streets, curbs and storm drains with Centex Homes in the amount of $96,491.10 for the project known as The Glades on Sylvan Lake Phase II.

 

39. Maintenance Bond, as shown on page _________, for water and sewer facilities with Wallace B. Hinshaw, Jr., Trustee, in the amount of $9,948.70 for the project known as Eden Park Estates.

 

40. Private Road Maintenance Bond, as shown on page ________, with Wallace B. Hinshaw, Jr., Trustee, in the amount of $12,213 for the project known as Eden Park Estates.

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 11:29 a.m., reconvening at 1:35 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.

Continuation of a public hearing from February 23, 1999 to consider adoption of Ordinance amending the Land Development Code for Outdoor Advertising Sign Regulations (Billboards); as described in the proof of publication.

Current Planning Manager, John Dwyer, addressed the Board to present the request for adoption. He reviewed the revisions that were requested to be made to the Ordinance by Commissioner Morris and advised a copy with these revisions is provided in the agenda identified as the Alternative Billboard Ordinance. He explained that this copy was not advertised. He added that staff has no objections to the changes proposed by Commissioner Morris.

Mr. Dwyer submitted to the Record letters received from Richard Casselberry, Zimmer Poster Service, John Bitterman, Peterson Enterprises of Orlando, Inc., Steak ‘n Shake, Inc., and Larry Littrell in favor of adopting the Ordinance as proposed. He also submitted letters in opposition from Charles Smoyer, Ralph Ritter, Helen Clarke, Jane Winner, Oviedo Assistant City Manager Montye Beamer (and Resolution adopted by the Oviedo City Council), and Chairman Thomas A. Hagood, Jr., Oviedo City Council.

Commissioner Morris confirmed with Mr. Dwyer that the fact the ordinance with his suggested changes was not advertised has no relevance on the hearing, because the changes are a diminution of the issue, as discussed previously by the County Attorney. Mr. Dwyer stated if the Board wished to approve the ordinance with these recommended changes, they can do that because the changes are less than what was advertised and not more.

Chairman Henley clarified that the hearing is on the advertised ordinance and Commissioner Morris’ recommendations can be brought up as part of the discussion.

Commissioner Morris read from a form letter received from five constituents which states, "the County Attorney has already determined that the current ordinance has legal issues which cannot possibly be resolved without litigation." Whereupon, Mr. McMillan stated he was not aware of making that statement. He said he had not seen the letter. Commissioner Morris gave Mr. McMillan the letter for his review.

Bryan Parker, representing Eller Media, addressed the Board to state in talking with Mr. McMillan prior to the hearing, the changes they proposed from the February 9 draft ordinance would require readvertising as a separate ordinance. He submitted information (Proposed Sign Ordinance, Proposed Sign Ordinance with Eller Media Company’s Recommended Actions, and Supporting Documentation) and reviewed from same, stating they do not seek to make a lot of changes to the ordinance. He explained if the County were to move on their signs and the landowners as a code violation because the amortization period had expired, that would cause litigation on their part. He said this may be the reference in the form letters received from citizens as discussed by Commissioner Morris. He asked the Board to adopt the ordinance presented on February 9 with the Junior Poster Boards deleted.

Commissioner Morris explained on the amortization issue that his proposal was for amortization of cutouts and not amortizing the same boards or taking them down on Federal or primary-affiliated roads. Discussion ensued with Mr. Parker.

Commissioner Maloy discussed with Mr. Parker their proposal for voluntary trading-in of their existing signs.

Lou Musica, Eller Media, addressed the Board to state the 30’ height does not work. He showed pictures (included in information submitted) of signs confirming that and said they found that the 40’ height would provide a better visual environment. He also showed pictures (received and filed) of signs at that height. He said elimination of the 150’ separation would add flexibility to Seminole County businesses when they are doing their site planning. He referred to the bar graph information submitted showing a 17% net reduction in the number of sign permits issued over the last 10 years. He said their company alone has removed 9 signs along I-4 due to construction and road widening.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Debbi Leigh, Violations Inspector, addressed the Board to state there have been a reduction of 11 boards in unincorporated Seminole County since 1993. She explained Eller Media’s graphs show the reduction by faces and not actual board structures.

Rocky Sisson, 5333 Old Winter Garden Road, representing Eller Media, addressed the Board to state regarding cutouts, they are looking for the ability to break the plane of the board for creative execution. He submitted additional letters (not received and filed) to the Board from those in support of the ordinance. He showed pictures (received and filed) as examples of how they are trying to be creative and not with the idea of trying to make the boards larger.

Jim Weinberg, Lake Mary, representing Outdoor Signs, addressed the Board to state as far as he knows there are no illegal signs in Seminole County. He explained these are all permitted signs by law. They are nonconforming but not illegal. He said the County has a lot of nonconforming roads and there are a lot of other issues in this County that are nonconforming. He pointed out much of the proposed ordinance is very subjective. He stated going from 30’ to 40’ height does not create new billboards in the County and the 150’ rule is not going to cause more billboards. He said everybody advertises on billboards; they provide a lot of jobs and opportunities for advertisers and consumers.

Attorney Jennifer Sloane, representing Chancellor Media, addressed the Board to state they are in favor of the advertised, proposed ordinance. They are opposed to some of the recommended changes to the Sign Ordinance, for example, deleting the language which allows the Current Planning Manager to approve the alternative options to the landscape buffer; deletion of the language for cutouts; and the way the ordinance is written will allow junior poster boards to be at a shorter distance and if they are located on an interstate or Federal-aided primary, this will be against what the State allows.

Commissioner Morris explained that there is no problem with the Current Planning Manager having the ability to allow changes in landscaping, but he is not sure it’s even legal to give variance ability (setback requirements, tree replacement and billboard relocation requirements) to staff and he believes these issues need to come to the BCC for action.

John B. Book, Maitland, addressed the Board to state a business without a sign can be a sign of no business. He distributed information on Leningrad to the Board (copy received and filed). He said for years he has defended the sign board companies because he has utilized them. He referred to the pictures of Leningrad and asked the Board to benefit from the hindsight of history and not allow this country to declare war on private business. He challenged the Board to support the present laws as stated and do not do anything to restrict the First Amendment rights.

Frank Shelton, 14 Stone Gate North, representing Markham Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to state he has done quite a bit of travelling the last few years, and Seminole County is outlandish in their signage compared to most places in the world. He said he helped to start the sign law as he thought it was needed to get rid of the visual blight that existed. He thought the intent of the sign law was to control the new signs and eventually improve or eliminate many of the existing signs so Seminole County would maintain a beautiful county and place to live. He said he and Markham Woods residents are very much against the increase in sign height from 30’ to 40’; and he is against the junior poster boards, the reduced separation, the cut-outs on the larger signs, and the reduced setbacks. He said it is significant to reduce billboards, if possible, and not increase them. He hopes the Board’s efforts will be to tighten the code and enforce it.

Stan Bessmer, 1301 Glastonberry Road, addressed the Board to state he looks at the billboard industry as a cancer--they are going to be with us. He said when he looks at 17-92 with 43 signs in four miles, he believes that is too much. He recommended the Board find a way to eliminate the signs.

Valerie El-Jamil, 1230 MacTavandash Drive, addressed the Board to state she has been in contact with Bill Brinton, Attorney who specializes in billboards. She requested to be allowed to show a 15-minute video and the consensus was for this to be shown during the Board’s discussion time. She gave comments as cited in the letter from Attorney William Brinton to Mr. Dwyer dated February 22, 1999, concerning the statute of limitations on the billboard industry’s taking claims, and she commented on how the billboards draw drivers’ attention from the roadway. She submitted Attorney Brinton’s letter to the Record (received and filed).

Lois Fairbrother, 973 Stonewood Lane, representing Christians on Citizens Awareness, addressed the Board to state the negative impacts the billboards have on the 17-92 area. She distributed to the Board two pictures (copies received and filed) of billboards of a greyhound dog and a female as examples of this negative impact. She said the sign of the female insults every woman who goes down the street.

Commissioner Maloy advised the Board that the sign of the female which Mrs. Fairbrother commented on has been removed.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy on what restrictions the County can place on billboards of an adult entertainment nature, Commissioner Morris said there were handshake agreements with the AEE’s industry that they would not advertise in any shape or form things of the adult entertainment nature.

Commissioner Van Der Weide said if the cities have not opted out, then they are under the County’s Adult Entertainment Ordinance and staff can see if there is a section that addresses the contents of a sign. He suggested the County Attorney check this and address this issue later.

Susan Doerner, 211 Sembrey Drive, addressed the Board to state the main issue to her is that the Board is not addressing what is going on along 17-92. She said billboards are just one of the issues. She said it’s not a matter of having no billboards but controlling what is happening.

Ralph Ritter, 1810 Torrington Circle, addressed the Board to state Seminole County has a documented history of pursuing excellence and every one of its successes started with a dream to do better. It all started with someone who had a vision. He said billboards have a track record of driving down property values. He asked that the issue of billboards be put to the voters in a referendum.

Regina Bereswill, 1190 MacTavandash Drive, President representing MacKinley’s Mill Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to state they oppose the changes to the Land Development Code. She asked what is the driving force behind the change. She referred to Attorney Brinton’s letter and posed those points as questions to the Board. She asked the Board to oppose the changes to the ordinance.

Grey Wilson, 1468 Shadwell Circle, addressed the Board to state he has visited areas of the country with successful businesses and great tourism without billboards. He said the tourist cities in Central Florida with the highest property values, Winter Park and Maitland, have total bans on billboards within the city limits. He said he hopes the Board considers the citizens’ concern with this issue and come up with something they can be proud of.

Dee Speirs, 105 Sunset Drive, addressed the Board to state since the last meeting on February 9, she has been thinking about the word variance. She asked what good is the ordinance, if they are going to hand out variances like coupons in the grocery store. She said shouldn’t it be a privilege that a legitimate business is allowed to operate under the rules. She doesn’t believe the billboard industry has the right to dictate County zoning policies and request variances, trade-offs and other concessions. She said she is very disappointed in the elected officials’ inability to say no. She asked the Board to do the right thing to preserve the natural beauty of Seminole County.

Win Adams, 105 Springwood Place, addressed the Board to state to his knowledge, there was no consensus to loosen the standards on the billboard industry when he was a Commissioner. He asked with this being such a controversial issue, why wasn’t the meeting held at night. Chairman Henley responded that there will not be a full Board in attendance tonight. Mr. Adams asked how are these changes in comparison with adjacent cities, like the Casselberry’s ordinance; and how will these changes affect the CRA. He stated this business has accepted pornographic advertising and how is the County going to address that. He said the bulletin boards are a safety issue also.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Maloy referred to past minutes in 1996 and noted that Mr. Adams was in favor of the ordinance at that time when he served as Commissioner. Mr. Adams responded that the safety issue is the reason for changing his opinion on the ordinance.

Commissioner Morris advised Commissioner Maloy that the Board then was coming up with a number of changes that would trigger the industry to do something to reduce the proliferation of bulletin boards. He said the actual ordinance in 1996 did not go forward. He said the original, past ordinance is now being changed and liberalized, but with no extraction by the industry; and that’s the whole issue.

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to adopt the advertised Ordinance 99-5, as amended, as shown on page __________, amending the Land Development Code for Outdoor Advertising Sign Regulations (Billboards); as described in the proof of publication, with the following changes: strike lines 9-12, Junior Poster Board, page 4; remove cut-outs completely on page 7, line 19 through page 8, lines 1-3; page 10, delete all of Item (4), lines 5-9; and page 7, lines 1 and 2, add back in the 150’ separation.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris asked Commissioner Van Der Weide to consider the amendment to strike the height increase from 30’ to 40’; however, Commissioner Van Der Weide said he was in favor of leaving that in.

Chairman Henley recessed the Board at 3:27 p.m. and reconvened at 3:37 p.m.

The Board discussed and Commissioners Van Der Weide and Maloy consented to strike Junior Poster Boards wherever that appears in the ordinance.

Commissioner Morris discussed the height increase from 30’ to 40’, stating the variance process can be used for this as done in the past and that will eliminate any objection. He said in some places 40’ may be appropriate and in other places, it may not be.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he thinks this is something the industry can live with and he prefers to leave in the height increase.

Commissioner Maloy said he thinks 40’ is a standard and there is some logic to get the boards high off the ground for less ground clutter. He said he is in favor of the revision to 40’.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to amend the motion to strike from the ordinance the height increase from 30’ to 40’.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris discussed that the provision to go from 30’to 40’ would be by a variance request before the Board of Adjustment and appealed to the BCC.

Chairman Henley said he doesn’t object to either height, and he feels the higher the boards the less he notices them and that allows more latitude for foliage and things of that nature.

Commissioner Morris asked if the Board would agree to a compromise of 35’ since the building height for the County is 35’.

Commissioner McLain said he thinks 35’ would be a reasonable compromise.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to amend his motion to amend the height increase from 30’ to 35’.

Under discussion, Commissioner Van Der Weide said he doesn’t think this makes sense as it is just an arbitrary figure.

Commissioner McLain said for years, the County has had 35’ height for buildings and why not have it consistent across-the-board.

Mr. Dwyer reviewed the affect of going from 40’ to 35’.

Ms. Leigh said this will only affect a couple of boards.

Commissioner Morris stated Ms. Speirs stated it best that the ordinance is after controlling the proliferation, they are not proposing to take these boards down. He thinks it is a good day for the industry, Commission, and citizens.

Commissioner Maloy stated the economics of it is that people are not going to be raising signs five feet because it costs too much, and he thinks the line of sight when the boards go up a little reduces the ground clutter.

Commissioner Van Der Weide said he challenges anybody to drive down any of the highways at normal speed limit and tell him which boards are at 40’ and which are at 35’.

Chairman Henley said he will support the 35’, so he will support the amendment.

The Board voted upon the amendment to the main motion with Districts 2, 4, and 5 voting AYE, and Commissioners Van Der Weide and Maloy voting NAY.

Chairman Henley asked for the votes on adoption of the Ordinance, as amended. Whereupon, Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Chairman Henley recessed the meeting at 4:00 p.m. and reconvened at 4:10 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting’s scheduled public hearings.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Commissioner Morris suggested moving up on the agenda Item (c), Vacate and Abandon drainage and utility easement, as it appears to be a shorter issue. The Board had no objections to hearing that item at this time.

Proof of publication, as shown on page __________, calling for a public hearing to consider vacating and abandoning a portion of a 20’ wide drainage and utility easement between Lots 17 and 18, Alaqua Lakes Phase 1, located on Rockcliff Place, Kenneth W. Wright and Robert R. McNelis, received and filed.

Matt West, Planner, addressed the Board to state the property owner wishes to move lot lines and construct a home. He is proposing one single family home. There were no objections by the utility companies. Staff is recommending approval of the vacate and abandonment.

Attorney Meredith Harper, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to state the remaining easements that border the property will remain in effect.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-36, as shown on page _________, vacating and abandoning a portion of a 20’ wide drainage and utility easement between Lots 17 and 18, Alaqua Lakes Phase 1, located on Rockcliff Place; as described in the proof of publication, Kenneth W. Wright and Robert R. McNelis.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Proof of publication, as shown on page __________, calling for a public hearing to consider Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception for an Alcoholic Beverage Establishment (a package store) proposed for an existing beverage store located at the southwest corner of SR 46 and Upsala Road, Mita Patel, received and filed.

Zoning Coordinator, Ginny Markley, addressed the Board to present the request. She advised staff received a letter that raised objections to the package store, but did not state the objections. Ms. Markley reviewed the standards for granting a special exception. She stated staff recommends, based on staff analysis, prior to all public hearings, that (1) An alcoholic beverage establishment for off-premise consumption (package store) would not be detrimental to the character of the area or neighborhood and would be consistent with the trends of development in the neighborhood. The alcoholic beverage establishment would be located in an existing beverage store that currently sells beer and wine under the 10% rule. The trend of development and character of the area fronting SR 46 is for commercial uses such as a convenience store with gasoline pumps located across the street from the beverage store, several restaurants, a pool contractor and a produce stand; (2) The proposed alcoholic beverage establishment would not have an unduly adverse affect on existing traffic patterns, movements or intensity. Alcoholic beverage establishments for the off-premise consumption of alcohol would not generate more traffic than the existing beverage store; and (3) The land use designation on the County’s Comprehensive Plan is HIP, High Intensity Planned District, which allows Alcoholic Beverage Establishments to locate in an established commercial business by the granting of a Special Exception. Therefore, staff recommends that the decision of the Board of Adjustment be overturned and the Special Exception to permit an alcoholic beverage establishment for off-premise consumption be approved.

Ms. Markley advised Commissioner Morris that she did not know if the appellant was currently in violation of the 10% rule. Commissioner Morris said the Board needs to know that.

Commissioner Morris stated he did not understand that if the appellant is increasing sales, there would not be a net increase in traffic. Ms. Markley stated her comments are based on the number of trips assigned to that type of use.

Commissioner McLain stated that was of concern to him also and he is very concerned about issuing a variance prior to knowing what the applicant is going to do to address the overlay district on SR 46.

Mr. Dwyer stated he believes on March 23, staff will be briefing the Board on the overlay.

Whereupon, Commissioner Morris suggested it might be advisable to continue this item for two weeks so staff can obtain the information on whether the applicant is in violation or not, establish the radius of the driveway, and establish the overlay impact.

Ms. Markley answered that the access to the driveway on 46 is greater than 24’ in width and does not meet the current Code requirements.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide, to continue the Appeal to April 13, 1999, to allow staff to obtain further information.

Under discussion, Attorney Dawn Harrison, Stenstrom, Davis & McIntosh, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to state her clients oppose the continuance as they have waited since last year for the hearing.

Commissioner Morris advised Mrs. Harrison he believes it’s a protection of her clients’ rights to have the continuance so the Board can have this additional information.

Commissioners McLain and Van Der Weide withdrew the motion and second to the motion as the applicants wished the hearing to go forward tonight.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide, to continue to April 13, 1999, 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception for an Alcoholic Beverage Establishment (a package store) proposed for an existing beverage store located at the southwest corner of SR 46 and Upsala Road, as described in the proof of publication, Mita Patel.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:

Chairman Henley advised he met with a City of Altamonte Springs representative regarding the North Orange County and South Seminole Regional Wastewater Transmission Authority Study. He distributed copies (received and filed) of same to the Board and asked each Commissioner to review the study. He asked the County Manager to schedule Altamonte Springs for a briefing request to the Board for proposal of a subregional ITS Study.

-----

Chairman Henley distributed copies of information (received and filed) from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council on a study of the Wekiva River. He said he will report back to the Board on this.

-----

Chairman Henley advised the Board that Mr. Kaiser has said he would like to leave employment earlier than originally indicated and that would be effective April 2, 1999. He stated at the next meeting, he would like to discuss interim replacement for the County Manager in order to allow Mr. Kaiser to leave at that time.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide, to approve the resignation date for County Manager Gary Kaiser to be effective April 2, 1999.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris advised he will give a full report to the Board at the next meeting on his trip to Spain.

-----

Commissioner Morris questioned about the hearing tonight with two Commissioners to be absent. Whereupon, Commissioner McLain said he would like to continue the hearings to April 27.

County Attorney, Robert McMillan, advised there is a time frame to act on the DRI.

Chairman Henley asked staff to contact Attorney Fitzgerald and have her response for them tonight.

Mr. Book advised the Board for the Record that Mr. Lynn Pat has admitted to him that for over a year, he has been operating over the 10% limit with 90% plus booze.

Mr. McMillan reported that adult entertainment was banned from advertising on billboards, and if there is a code violation, that would be something that Code Enforcement would deal with.

-------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 4:43 p.m., reconvening at 7:07 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials (with Commissioners Van Der Weide and Henley being absent), with Deputy County Attorney Lonnie Groot replacing County Attorney Robert McMillan, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider the Heathrow Planned Unit Development Amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned Development, and associated Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to Planned Unit Development (PUD); property located south of Markham Road and 2,000 feet west of Orange Blvd., as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald.

Vice Chairman Maloy stated that Commissioner Henley is serving on the Canvassing Board and Commissioner Van Der Weide is absent and will not be attending the meeting this evening. He stated there was discussion at the 1:30 p.m. meeting whether to continue the two public hearings this evening due to two Commissioners being absent.

Commissioner McLain recommended going ahead with the public hearings tonight and the Board can decide at that time whether to continue these items.

Cindy Matheny, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to advise the applicant has submitted a Notice of Proposed Change to the Heathrow Development Regional Impact (DRI). She stated Florida Statutes exempt plan amendments associated with DRIs from the twice-yearly amendment cycle limitation. The site is within the Wekiva River Protection Area (WRPA), which extends south of Markham Road and encompasses a portion of the existing Heathrow PUD. At the January 26, 1999 meeting, the Board voted not to transmit any plan amendments within the WRPA to DCA until January 2000. However, that action exempted plan amendments associated with DRI’s. Staff is recommending approval of the Planned Development land use, subject to the zoning conditions, and with findings that Planned Development Land Use would be (1) Consistent with the locational criteria of the County’s Comprehensive Plan relating to the Planned Development Land Use designation; (2) Compatible with development trends in the immediate vicinity; (3) Consistent with adjacent Suburban Estates and Planned Development Land Use; and (4) Consistent with Plan policies identified at this time and, therefore, is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the rezoning request is: (1) In compliance with the applicable provisions of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan and the Seminole County Land Development Code related to Planned Unit Development; and, (2) The request would be compatible with surrounding development. Therefore, staff has no objections to the rezoning to PUD, subject to residential development subject to the existing standards of the Heathrow Developer’s Commitment Agreement. The Local Planning Agency (LPA) recommended approval of the plan amendment and rezoning.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Matt West, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to advise staff received the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) letter during the last meeting. He stated unfortunately, the DEP was left out of the routing by the Regional Planning Council. A lot of the issues stated in that letter had been addressed prior to writing the letter and the DEP was not privy to that information. He said what staff is requesting the Board to do tonight is to authorize transmitting the plan amendment so that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and Regional Planning Council can submit their review of the request. This will allow the DEP time to review those comments.

Upon further inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. West advised that with this development, the number of units in the protection zone will be reduced by 138 even if 15 acres is added to the project.

Miranda Fitzgerald, representing Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed, addressed the Board to address the gopher tortoises. She advised that all of the tortoises have been relocated from the DRI property and the environmental consultant has confirmed that there are no tortoises on that site.

Ms. Fitzgerald explained to Commissioner McLain what the logic would be in reducing the number of units within the DRI and adding the 15 acres to that, advising it is due to the market.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Joe DoBosh, representing Heathrow Land Co., addressed the Board to state this property has about .8 acres of wetlands with an upland buffer on it and they have elected to leave that undisturbed. Since they are going with larger lots, they will have more green space on the southeast corner of the property and northeast of the lake.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Fitzgerald advised the additional 15 acres does not drain into the Wekiva River.

Keith Schue, 30641 Edgewood St., addressed the Board to state he represents the Sierra Club. He stated it sounds like the total number of units in the protection area has gone down and he would like clarification on that.

Mr. West advised the 1,941 units on 388 acres would be reduced to 1,803 units on 401 acres.

Mr. Schue displayed a picture (not received and filed) showing the additional 15 acres and he stated he would like to know what will happen to the trees in that area.

Mr. DoBosh requested Mr. Schue to visit the site to the west so he can see that they have tried to save as many trees as they possibly could. He stated he has spent thousands of dollars in Heathrow to save almost all of the trees in that area. He said he feels the property value is worth a lot more with the trees than without them.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. DoBosh advised he would be happy to give him a tour of the area. He stated because of the islands and buffers in that area, they have the largest count of sandhill cranes out there.

Mr. Schue displayed a picture of the 15 acres and discussed the grassy area, the trees and the habitat. He stated he would like to see the density reduced to no more than one unit per acre. Discussion ensued.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated he is glad that the Heathrow representatives are willing to work with the Sierra Club in showing them what their plans are. He stated this development will be reducing the units and it will be doing a good justice to the protection zone.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to transmit the Heathrow PUD Amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned Development, and associated Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to Planned Unit Development (PUD); property located south of Markham Road and 2,000 feet west of Orange Blvd., as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald.

Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated when this issue comes back from DCA, he would like to see more details as to what the site plan will look like.

Districts 1, 2, and 5 voted AYE.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Notice of Proposed Change/Substantial Deviation Determination; property generally bounded by Markham Woods Road to the west, Lake Mary Blvd. to the south, International Parkway to the east and Markham Road to the north, as described in the proof of publication, Heathrow Land Co.

Mr. West stated the Amendment to the Development Order of the Heathrow DRI does not require Board action, but staff wants this item scheduled at the same time the Land Use Amendment comes back from the DCA. He stated staff is requesting that this item be continued to May 25, 1999. A memorandum to the Board from Matt West and letters from Miranda Fitzgerald relative to the Notice of Proposed Change were received and filed.

Keith Schue briefly discussed the wildlife issues and infill.

District Commissioner McLain stated when Mr. Schue visits the site with the developer, he would also like to visit it with them. He asked Mr. Schue if he had any objections to him visiting the site with them.

Mr. Schue stated he would have no objections.

District Commissioner McLain stated he would like to listen to Mr. Schue’s comments while visiting the site, so he can get a better understanding of his issues.

Sam Kendall addressed the Board to state he feels this would be a good opportunity to address the question of acreage of one unit per acre and the design standards.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to continue to May 25, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible; Heathrow DRI Notice of Proposed Change/Substantial Deviation Determination; property generally bounded by Markham Woods Road to the west, Lake Mary Blvd. to the south, International Parkway to the east and Markham Road to the north, Heathrow Land Co.

Districts 1, 2, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST__________________________Clerk_____________________Chairman

slw/cc/er