BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AUGUST 27, 2013
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Chairman Robert Dallari (District 1)
Vice Chairman John Horan (District 2)
Commissioner Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)
Clerk of Circuit Court Maryanne Morse
County Manager Jim Hartmann
County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer
Dr. Dwayne Mercer, First Baptist Church, Oviedo, gave the Invocation.
Commissioner Henley led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Dallari announced that SGTV will be providing a Spotlight on Seminole County Business video. Commissioner Carey stated she believes this is a great idea and hopes they will have a video at every meeting.
Seminole Business Spotlight - Symantec Corporation video was presented.
Chairman Dallari thanked staff and stated it would be advantageous if they could spotlight a company in the upcoming meetings.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Ryan Cunningham, Kittelson and Associates, addressed the Board to present the SR 46 Corridor Safety Study presentation. Mr. Cunningham discussed the Study Corridor and the Study Purpose. He explained the Study Goal and Study Process. With regard to Historical Crash Analysis, Mr. Cunningham reviewed the Crash reports obtained from Seminole County and the Florida Department of Transportation graph; Crash Trends, Contributing Factors; and the 2007 to 2011 Roadway Departure Crashes chart.
Mr. Cunningham displayed and discussed several Corridor Crash Maps. He explained how the corridor was separated into segments and intersections for location-specific analysis. He reviewed Potential Safety Countermeasures, Crash Prediction Scenarios, Existing Scenario Crash Prediction, Future "No Build" Scenario Crash Prediction, and the Countermeasure Evaluation by Benefit, Cost and Priority. He displayed the Countermeasure Evaluation chart regarding Mullet Lake Park Road to Avenue C and explained how they use the Cost per Crash Reduced number to help organize the countermeasures into three tiers.
Mr. Cunningham noted that the "Build" Scenario - Tier I Benefit/Cost Analysis slide contains a sample of four different locations while the report presents the information for the corridor as a whole. By having a group of countermeasures, a project crash modification factor, and a location, they can come up with a project benefit for each location. They looked at that for the corridor as a whole and summed those up. When they summed those up, they put together a summary table of Tier I, Tier II and Tier III projects. Mr. Cunningham reviewed the Project Benefits slide and pointed out that the Benefits/Cost ratio continues to go down as the cost of the improvements goes up. Mr. Cunningham concluded his presentation by detailing three Recommendations.
Commissioner Carey stated that when they looked at widening Markham Woods Road, they did an analysis and determined the real issue was mostly rear-end accidents because of left-hand turn movement. By doing left turn lanes, they have hardly had any accidents on Markham Woods Road since; and they saved enough money in one section to do it for the entire section of road. She believes the Tier I approach is great and they can continue to evaluate and see if it is working.
Commissioner Horan stated the Tier I investment and the return on it actually could have a caterwauling effect in the sense this particular study is laid against an overall study that is being done right now concerning the widening and the general improvement of all of State Road 46 out to I-95. This study wanted to focus surgically on how they leverage the cost of safety improvements rather than just the movement of traffic and the connectivity of the even-numbered roads up and down the state. He believes this study graphically shows that not only do you have a great return on investment for a relevantly small investment in safety improvement but also you could postpone indefinitely the need for spending an enormous amount of money for the total cost of widening State Road 46. Commissioner Horan stated this was a great study and he hopes FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) takes a very careful look at it and understands that at the local level, they are the ones that have to take a look at what those particular dollars mean in terms of public safety.
Commissioner Carey stated that she knows the limits of this study only went to SR 426. She has requested several times that FDOT look at that section of SR 46 that goes underwater when they have a tropical storm. She stated there were some minor improvements and stabilization when the road went underwater. She requested that Brett Blackadar, County Engineer, address the issue of whether FDOT is doing anything with some of the money that is saved to do some improvements so they don't have that issue in the future.
Brett Blackadar, County Engineer, addressed the Board to explain when FDOT did resurfacing in the area, they did raise the road to above the level where the waters were for Tropical Storm Fay. If that same event happened, it would not overtop the road now. He went on to point out that if there was a widening project in the future that went all of the way to Brevard County, they would be reconstructing that entire bridge in that area and raising it up. Until then, there are not any plans to do an interim bridge. Tropical Storm Fay was the highest water they had recorded in that area as long as FDOT has been keeping records and was an unusual event. He believes the road is about eight inches higher now.
At the request of Chairman Dallari, Mr. Cunningham discussed the recommendations that came out of the quasi-study that was done by the community of Geneva.
Chairman Dallari confirmed with Mr. Blackadar that the next step is the PD&E (Project Development and Environmental) study. Discussion ensued with regard to the PD&E study. Upon further inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr. Blackadar explained they are looking at a timeframe for a public hearing. He stated this study is kind of a side study to look at the interim. The PD&E study still has to address the long-term needs. He advised they have made a recommendation, which is in the MetroPlan draft priority list, of two tiers to the project (interim safety improvements and long-term widening) so when the traffic volume does justify it down the road, they can relook at the widening. The PD&E study will make similar recommendations of Phase I and Phase II.
Chairman Dallari pointed out that in order to get to I-95, you have to go into another county. The other county has to have the will to do this as well. If they just take it to the county line, there is a bottleneck. Chairman Dallari stated he believes it makes a lot of sense to do Tier I and then to re-evaluate. To him, to widen the road at this time doesn't make sense from the information that he has seen. He believes if you are going to widen the road, it needs to be coordinated with other surrounding counties so there is not a bottleneck at the county line.
Commissioner Horan suggested with regard to the PD&E study, that if they structure it in such a way that you have a very concrete cost benefit analysis (as this study that is focused on safety shows), even though they may be focusing on a totally different type of goal and objective, he believes it is a much more useful public policy document for the Board. He suggested to Mr. Blackadar that when he is talking to these people, he hopes he expresses those concerns as well. Mr. Blackadar explained that they are doing the PD&E study by FHWA standards because they want the project to be available for federal funds through MetroPlan and there are certain requirements that they have to follow to present that.
Chairman Dallari stated this study needs to be presented to the people doing the PD&E and they need to understand that Tier I is really where the low lying fruit is.
Shad Smith, Assistant County Engineer, addressed the Board to state that the PD&E study is being done by URS, and they are including the Safety study as part of that. He explained there will be two different steps or phases of the PD&E and the first is the safety improvements. The future volumes will be the next step when it is warranted.
Dick Creedon, 1172 Apache Drive, addressed the Board to advise the community in Geneva totally supports all of the recommendations in Tier I and Tier II of the Safety study. He stated they adamantly oppose at this time anything in Tier III, especially the widening of the road. He requested a modification in Tier II and described a very sharp dangerous turn eastbound on SR 46 at Cochran Road. Mr. Creedon requested that the County consider acquiring a small piece of the triangular section of land at the northwest corner of Cochran Road and SR 46 so the turn would be more easily negotiated. He added when and if it comes to the point the road might be considered to be widened all of the way to I-95 that they use a model of what was done on the Wekiva Parkway, where the three counties came together and had the Memorandum of Understanding, so they will not end up with something that would be truncated and just hanging out like the end of a limb for many years.
Chairman Dallari requested that Mr. Blackadar take note of Mr. Creedon’s two comments, the one about the sharp turn and the other one about the MOU.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Jim Hartmann, County Manager, addressed the Board to advise that under the Consent Agenda he is pulling Item #16, Renewal of Non‑Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with Progressive Waste Solutions of FL. With regard to the Regular Agenda, he is pulling Item #35, Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with IZON, LLC.
Chairman Dallari stated he has no problem with Item 27, Supplemental Amendment Number 1 to a Locally Funded Agreement with FDOT, but he wants to be sure the item comes back to the Board for the ownership issue. Brett Blackadar, County Engineer, explained that the action by the Board today authorizes the Locally Funded Agreement with FDOT to go to the limits and they would start discussions with the property owners. The County is not actually purchasing the property yet. He stated if the property is purchased, they can talk to FDOT who will purchase the property in either their name or the County’s name. The ownership discussion and what they use the property for can be down the road after the intersection permits are done. Chairman Dallari advised he is requesting this be brought back at a later date after ownership has been established. He believes since the County is paying for it, it should be in their name.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s Office
2. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Service Agreements, as shown on page _______, for the following Civil Traffic Hearing Officers for Year 2013/2014: Christopher Morrison, Charles J. Cino, John A. Pascucci and Ava Tunstall, effective the date of execution by the County and remaining in effect until September 30, 2014, unless terminated as set forth in the Agreement.
3. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Ninth Renewal, Amendment and Restatement, as shown on page _______, of County of Volusia Interlocal Agreement for Provision of Medical Examiner Services for Seminole County.
4. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfactions of Second Mortgage, as shown on page _______, for the following households assisted under the County's SHIP/HOME Home Ownership Assistance Program and the Foreclosure Prevention Program: Milton Blanco; Eileen Brunelle; John H. and Janice L. Bryant; Agnes Caquias; Sharon A. Clark; Rafela Cortez and Secundido Camacho, Angela A. Curcio, Sheryl Ann Glover; Rajko Kojic and Nada Kojic, Doris I. Baity Mullins, Catherine M. Schiraldi, Ronnie Smith and Cynthia Smith, Curtis Watson and Jacalyn Watson, Irene Williams, and Earl Jack Williams, Jr. and Charles Collier.
Community Development Division
5. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Rental Property Donation and Acceptance Agreement, as shown on page _______, between Seminole County and Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church to provide an additional residential rental property for expanding services to Low Income and Moderate Income residents.
6. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute two Certification Forms, as shown on page _______, for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) Annual Performance Report (APR).
7. Approve and authorize the Director of Community Services to execute regulatory required HOME Agreements between qualified first time homebuyers and Seminole County when using HOME Investment Partnership Program grant funds.
Planning & Development Division
8. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-214, as shown on page _______, vacating and abandoning the East 7.00 feet of the West 14.00 foot platted Utility Easement on Lot 2, Block I, Lynnwood Revision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 16, Pages 32 though 33, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, more particularly known as 1074 Martex Drive; Audrey Mason & Ann Hasty.
Solid Waste Management Division
9. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Comfort House, Inc., effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
10. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Conex Recycling Corporation, effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
11. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for GLE Scrap Metal‑Florida, Inc., effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
12. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Keller Outdoor, Inc., effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for SP Recycling Southeast, LLC, effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for USA Services Of Florida, Inc., effective from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, as shown on page _______, for Perma‑Fix of Florida, effective from August 27, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
16. Pulled from the agenda request for renewal of Non‑Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with Progressive Waste Solutions of FL, Inc., from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
17. Renewal of Non‑Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with WCA of Florida, LLC, from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
18. Renewal of Non‑Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with Waste Management Inc. of Florida, from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
19. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-215, as shown on page _______, amending Section 18.5 of the Seminole County Administrative Code to remove the names of private companies that provide residential solid waste collection service; providing an effective date.
Greenways & Natural Lands Division
20. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the first amendment, as shown on page _______, to the Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Sanford relating to contribution of Boater Improvement funds to support design and permitting for transient slip construction and improvement of the Sanford Marina entered into on December 13, 2011. This amendment requests the completion date be extended to December 12, 2013.
Tourism Development Division
21. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement, as shown on page _______, with Orlando Sanford International, Inc. and Central Florida Zoological Society, Inc. in the amount of $2,500 per year for a period of three years for the sponsorship of the Avigator Space at the Orlando Sanford International Airport.
22. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-216, as shown on page _______, and authorize the Chairman to execute an Aesthetic, Lighting, Hardscape, Mast Arms and Fire Suppression System Agreement, as shown on page _______, between the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, and Seminole County for the Ultimate Interstate 4 Project; FDOT ‑ FM#s 242484‑6, 242592‑2‑52‑01 and 242592‑3‑52‑01.
23. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-217, as shown on page _______, and authorize the Chairman to execute an Off System Construction and Maintenance Agreement, as shown on page _______, between the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, and Seminole County in conjunction with the reconstruction of State Road 400 (Interstate 4) from the Orange County Line to one mile north/east of State Road 434; FDOT ‑ FM#s 242484‑6, 242592‑2‑52‑01 and 242592‑3‑52‑01.
24. Approve and authorize the release of a Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond #3339601 in the amount of $4,141.50 submitted for roadway improvements to Douglas Avenue and Commerce Park in conjunction with the Silver Springs Square Project.
25. Approve and authorize the release of a Private Road Maintenance Bond #584350S in the amount of $27,082 submitted for road and drainage infrastructure in conjunction with the Bella Tuscany Project.
26. Approve and authorize the release of a Private Road Maintenance Bond #58673038 in the amount of $188,922.28 submitted for roads and drainage infrastructure in conjunction with the Preserve at Eagle Lake Project.
27. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-218, as shown on page _______, and authorize the Chairman to execute Supplemental Amendment Number 1 to a Locally Funded Agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to add the acquisition of right-of-way for the construction of intersection improvements at State Road 434 and Ronald Reagan Boulevard (County Road 427); FDOT ‑ Financial Management Number 240233‑(4/5)‑(4B/41/43)‑01).
28. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute First Amendment, as shown on page _______, increasing the Provider Service Agreement with Colonial Counseling Associates, Inc. from $120,960 to $163,834 to cover the costs of providing additional services in support of the FY 2012‑13 Adult Drug Treatment Court Expansion and Enhancement Grant.
Purchasing & Contracts Division
29. Revise Award of IFB‑601738‑13/GMG, Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for Roadway Markings, Striping and Brick Texture Surfacing to Fausnight Stripe and Line, Inc., Longwood, and Oglesby Construction, Inc., Sanford; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreements.
30. Award IFB‑601770‑13/GMG, Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for Liquid Chemical Feed Systems Repair, Maintenance, Support, and Installation Services to Odyssey Manufacturing Co., Tampa for an estimated total annual amount of $426,500; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement.
31. Award RFP‑601745‑13/TLR, Term Contract, as shown on page _______, for Pest Control Services to Apex Pest Control, Inc., Orlando in the amount of $33,696 annually, and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the agreement.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve and authorize the following:
32. Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page _______, dated July 22 and 29, 2013; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page _______, dated August 1, 2013; and approval of the BCC Official Minutes dated July 23, 2013; and noting, for information only, the following Clerk’s “received and filed”:
1. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #8 to PS-1666-07.
2. Amendment #2, as shown on page _______, to RFP-601461-12.
3. Recovery House Lease, as shown on page _______, for property located at 591 Lake Minnie Drive per Purchase Agreement approval on June 11, 2013.
4. Work Order #4, as shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
5. Title Opinion, as shown on page _______, for replat of Elm Acres.
6. Conditional Utility Agreement, as shown on page _______, for Potable and Reclaimed Water Service with The Shtark Investment Group LLC for the project known as Savta Reserve.
7. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to PS-7333-12.
8. Work Order #18, as shown on page _______, to PS-5438-10.
9. BOA Development Order #13-30000028, as shown on page _______, Craig & Connie Chuhaloff variance.
10. Work Order #3, as shown on page _______, to PS-7643-12.
11. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to RFP-CS01-12.
12. Work Order #19, as shown on page _______, to CC-5075-10.
13. Work Orders #33, #34, #35, #36 and #37, as shown on page _______, to RFP-8312-12.
14. Performance Bond #SBA 851255, as shown on page _______, in the amount of $186,478.20, Surety Bond and Power of Attorney for Contract CC-8548-13 (Approved by BCC on 6/25/13).
15. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to RFP-7423-13.
16. Work Orders #5 and #6, as shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
17. Order Acknowledging Transfer to Government Authority and Cancelling Water and Wastewater Certificates before the Florida Public Service Commission regarding Docket #130050-WS.
18. Performance Bond #1020598, as shown on page _______, in the amount of $39,545 for the project known as Versailles.
19. Amendment #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #2 to PS-5473-10.
20. Memorandum, as shown on page _______, to Jim Hartmann, County Manager, from Gloria Eby through Alan Wheeler and Kim Ornberg, Public Works, regarding Unauthorized Commitment for restoration project in Lake Jesup.
21. M-8817-13 Basic Agreement, as shown on page _______, Paul J. Ford Company.
22. Closeout, as shown on page _______, for CC-8003-12.
23. Amendment #4, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #3 to RFQ-5888-10.
24. Work Order #7, as shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
25. Work Order #20, as shown on page _______, to CC-5075-10.
26. Developers Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _______, for L&L Acres.
27. Amendment #3, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #68 to PS-1529-06.
28. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #102 to PS-5120-02.
29. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #101 to PS-5120-02.
30. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #100 to PS-5120-02.
31. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #99 to PS-5120-02.
32. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #98 to PS-5120-02.
33. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #97 to PS-5120-02.
34. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #95 to PS-5120-02.
35. Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #94 to PS-5120-02.
36. Tennis Developmental Instructor Agreement, as shown on page _______, Hien Nguyen.
37. RFP-601734-13 Term Contract, as shown on page _______, Accomtec.
38. Work Order #6, as shown on page _______, to RFP-CS01-12.
39. Closeout, as shown on page _______, for CC-8255-13.
40. Bids as follows: RFP-601711-13; RFP-601690-13 plus CD; IFB-601778-13; IFB-601770-13; and PS-8595-13.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Tom Tomerlin, Interim Economic Development Director, addressed the Board to present the request to approve the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with Florida Marking Products, LLC, and an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Longwood addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive. Mr. Tomerlin pointed out that Florida Marking Products will be growing 25 new jobs into the community in addition to the 15 existing jobs. He explained that the job growth incentive award of $50,000 will be split evenly with the City of Longwood. The City of Longwood approved the Interlocal Agreement to fund their $25,000 part on July 15, 2013.
Mr. Tomerlin introduced Kevin Bennett, Director of Florida Marking Products.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement, as shown on page _______, with Florida Marking Products, LLC, providing an incentive in the amount of $50,000 for the creation of 25 jobs; and an Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _______, with the City of Longwood addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive ($25,000).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Mr. Tomerlin presented the request to approve the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with American Builders Supply, Inc. and the Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Sanford, addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive. He explained that American Builders currently employs 291 people and are poised to grow 103 new jobs to man a truss manufacturing facility on airport property that they will lease from Orlando-Sanford International Airport. He explained that the job growth incentive award of $206,000 will be split evenly with the City of Sanford and that the City of Sanford approved this item at their regular Board meeting last night. American Builders Supply is estimated to make a capital expenditure into the community of about $2.9 million in support of this project. Discussion ensued with regard to the $2.9 million capital expenditure.
Commissioner Carey stated that after the economic downturn, the Board encouraged staff to work with existing businesses to try and encourage them to not only stay in the community but to grow their businesses. She believes this is a perfect example of that.
Mr. Tomerlin introduced Shaun Heelan, Chief Financial Officer for American Builders Supply.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement, as shown on page _______, between Seminole County and American Builders Supply, Inc., providing a total incentive in the amount of $206,000 for the creation of 103 jobs; and the Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _______, between Seminole County and the City of Sanford, addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive ($103,000).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari announced that Item #35, Request to approve the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with IZON, LLC, and an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lake Mary addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive was pulled from the agenda.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 10:15 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 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 Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley 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.
ORDINANCE REVISING RURAL AREA BOUNDARY LINE
Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance revising the Rural Area Boundary Line as established in the Seminole County Home Rule Charter, affecting 4.51+/- acres; and associated Agreement between Seminole County, City of Winter Springs, and American Land Investments of Central Florida, LLC, received and filed.
Nicole Guillet, Development Services Director, addressed the Board to advise this request is related to the Mermel property (4.51 acres) which is the subject of the proposed ordinance. She advised the rural area boundary was established by referendum in 2004. She said she spoke to several people to try to determine the basis for the actual boundary lines, but there is nothing in the history that clearly explains how the boundary line was established. This particular piece of property is within the boundary. Ms. Guillet displayed the Home Rule Charter language and the ballot language (both received and filed) establishing the rural area. She reviewed the Board’s authority to move the boundary line. There were no criteria established in either the ballot language or the Charter Amendment establishing under what circumstances they could move the line. The rural line north of the Mermel property was moved by the Board in 2006 and that was the result of a lawsuit settlement.
Ms. Guillet stated the Mermel property is 4.5 acres and is surrounded by city properties that could be developed at a higher-intensity use. An industrial warehouse is located north of this property, and the adjacent property is a much higher-intensity use than is expected within the rural area. The other surrounding uses within the cities are higher-intensity residential uses. She explained the purpose of moving this property out of the rural boundary.
Ms. Guillet displayed and reviewed the subdivision layout (received and filed) showing the subdivision being within the City of Winter Springs and the City of Oviedo. The City of Winter Springs considered the first reading of the annexation ordinance to annex the subject parcel in July and will consider the second reading in September. She described the subdivision and advised the proposed use for this property is retention open space with no vertical construction. The tri-party agreement contains clause that specifically prohibits the use of the 4.5 acres as part of the density calculation. It has no impact of adding additional lots and it doesn’t give them any additional density if the property is moved out of the rural area to be incorporated into the subdivision. The allowable density is about 3.5 units per acre; and at 2.5 units per acre, they are significantly below where they would be permitted to develop in the cities of Oviedo and Winter Springs. They could take this piece of property off the table and accommodate their retention and recreation elsewhere on the site in order to accomplish the same yield of lots. They would have to reduce the lot size and it would be a smaller-lot subdivision than what is proposed now if they moved the retention off this site.
Ms. Guillet displayed and reviewed a list of Permitted Uses (received and filed) on this site if the property stays in the rural area. She referred to the tri-party agreement and stated there is not a lot of guidance of how to deal with moving the rural line. Ms. Guillet stated she took a look at this property so she could understand what value it adds to the rural area, why it would be important to keep it in the rural area, and any special circumstances that would have a bearing on the Board’s decision regarding moving the line. She displayed an aerial view (provided in the backup) of the Mermel property and explained why she feels the rural boundary was configured in a way that it wraps around the city limits of Winter Springs. The property owner has agreed to some significant limitations on this property through the tri-party agreement. She reviewed the limitations as outlined in the agenda memorandum. The property owner has also committed to recording restrictive covenants in addition to the agreement that would incorporate the limitations.
Ms. Guillet stated under the tri-party agreement, the property owner and the City of Winter Springs have also committed to assign land use and zoning designations consistent with those restrictions. The County’s obligation under that agreement is to consider moving the rural boundary line. She stated the City of Winter Springs approved the tri-party agreement on August 26, 2013, and the City of Oviedo approved the Preliminary Subdivision Plan (PSP) on August 5, 2013. She said based on the circumstances that she discussed with the Board, the surrounding uses, the configuration of this property in relationship to the rural area, and the restrictions agreed upon for this site, staff is recommending approval of the tri-party agreement as well as the ordinance removing this parcel of land from the rural area.
At the request of Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet reviewed the list of restrictions. She explained how the deed restrictions are going to be handled if the agreement and ordinance are approved.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet advised there were no criteria when the rural area was amended in 2006. She stated she understands that that was accomplished to settle a lawsuit. She stated she doesn’t think it will set a precedent in the sense that if the line is moved the Board will be obligated to grant any other request to move it. The most significant set of circumstances in this case are the restrictions, the proximity of this to urban development, the configuration and the value of this piece of property to the rural area.
Upon further inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet explained that if the Board elected to move the line under these circumstances, they would be giving significant guidance with regard to any future requests for movement of the line.
Chairman Dallari stated he feels it is interesting to see that they are finally putting together criteria of what would happen if the line is considered to be moved.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet displayed and reviewed a breakdown (Site Data Sheet) of the overall density and the lot sizes in Oviedo and Winter Springs. Commissioner Carey stated she has said for years that they have the rural line and nobody has thought about transitioning from four units per acre to one per three acres or even one to one. She said it was clear to her that in reading the ballot language, the voters recognized that there may be a requirement for change in circumstances. She stated she feels that ponds and the like enhance the rural area.
Ms. Guillet displayed an informational section (received and filed) of the Charter Amendment Ballot issue that discusses creating a process for the Board to consider revisions to the boundary line.
Dwight Saathoff, American Land Investments of Central Florida, addressed the Board to provide a little background of the Southern Oaks project. He displayed an aerial map (received and filed) of the site and stated the site is approximately one mile from SR 417 and adjacent to SR 434 and is surrounded by urban-style development except for the 4.5-acre rural parcel. The balance is within the city boundaries and zoned for at least 3.5 units per acre. He explained how he measures density and how they got where they are today with this project. He displayed copies of photographs (received and filed) showing the heavy vegetation from the street. He said he has no intention of touching the vegetation along the street and the 3½- to 4-acre lake that he is planning to construct behind the vegetation will start about 20 feet from the edge of the street. He added he doesn’t expect that there will be a lot of difference in visibility or view of the property from what is seen in the pictures. This parcel is not adjacent to a rural homestead and will not be impacted by someone living in the rural area. There are no wetlands on the property. The studies that were submitted to the cities reflect that there are no threatened or endangered species on this property.
Mr. Saathoff stated this property does not lie in an area of archeological potential, it is not in a cone of influence that affects the drinking well, and it is not in the environmentally sensitive lands overlay. This property is serviceable by central water and sewer. This property is neither in the preservation/managed lands area nor in the Geneva freshwater lens. They are not in a high recharge area or in the Econ Protection Area. He reviewed some background regarding how they came about purchasing this property and how it got in the rural area. He stated he believes he has the right to use the property in a fashion that is consistent with the current County Future Land Use, which is R-3. He reviewed the allowable uses and what can be built on the property. Mr. Saathoff displayed and reviewed the aerial map and discussed the designations in the rural area. He displayed an aerial map (received and filed) showing single family homes near the Black Hammock reserve. He discussed the deed restrictions and stated that of the 10 to 15 current uses, they are restricting down to just two or three uses. The use of this rural piece will end up being less intense and less impactful than many of the people living in the rural area. He said he feels that this will be a high-end project and the houses will be around $500,000 or $600,000. He added he has redesigned the parking spaces near the tot lot to take them out of the rural piece of the property. If the City of Winter Springs will allow them to use pervious material for any parking that might be along the edge or inside the rural piece, they will use it.
Paul Partyka, 292 Solaris Wharf Street, addressed the Board to speak in favor of revising the rural boundary line. He said he is a former mayor and commissioner of Winter Springs and the President of the Oviedo/Winter Springs Chamber of Commerce. It was a matter of time that that exit on SR 434 would instigate and start to be the catalyst for future development. The Black Hammock rural area is a fine community with Class A schools. What the citizens are looking for is quality development that is compatible with the area. It has to be where they can use the countryside to take care of the nature aspects of the area. They want a wonderful community that is going to be an asset to the entire area, a magnet for future people to move in. He asked the Board to approve the project, but make sure it is done properly.
Marc Zipper, 297 Chiswell Place, addressed the Board to state he has lived in Seminole County for almost 30 years and he is in complete support of the project. He said he feels that the people living around the area will be very happy with the end result.
The names of David Buckmaster, Heather Fatz, Robert Skubial, Diana Skubial, Mark Ricketts, Linda Landau, Keith Landau, and Phyllis Rose were called to speak in favor of the project and it was determined that they were not in attendance.
Sandra Schantini, John Shantini, Vince Woile, Heather Woile, Julie Webb, Donald E. Downs, and Teresa Downs addressed the Board to state they are in support of the project.
The names of Matthew Tafoya, David Shook, Larry Scherer, Christopher Fiorenza, and Meussa Beyer were called to speak in favor of the project and it was determined that they were not in attendance.
Jerry Hardesty, 3016 Harbour Landing Way, addressed the Board to state he has lived in the area for 62 years and he has seen a lot of changes during this time. He said he is interested in what is going on in this county. He added he has looked at this project and believes the developer is trying to build something that will be good for the future.
John Daloise, 2020 Citrus Cove Dr., addressed the Board to state he strongly supports this project as this is the type of project he wants in his community. He asked the Board to approve the project.
Gary Singer, 205 Spring Lake Hills Drive, addressed the Board to speak in support of this project. He urges the Board to support this project as well as the tri-party agreement. The project doesn’t have any negative impacts and he urges the Board to approve same.
Jeffrey Gindi, 550 Lake Markham Road, addressed the Board to state he is in support of the project. He said he feels the Board has a responsibility to provide this kind of housing and development because there will be a demand for these types of homes as companies in Lake Mary will be adding thousands of jobs in this area.
Fred Lonsdale, 1025 Wellington Court, addressed the Board to state he has been a Seminole County resident for over 30 years and he is in support of the project as long as things are done according to commitments made today.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 2:30 p.m., reconvening at 2:37 p.m.
Michael Presutti, 980 Elm St., addressed the Board to state the rural boundary was established so there would be no more development. He said he has heard today is that there are two reasons to avoid the rural boundary and those are out of necessity and the other is out of change of circumstances. He said he has not heard anything at all based upon on those reasons. There is no indication that those have changed since the rural boundary was established. He said this project will be built with or without the change of the rural boundary. A precedent should never be established because there is a purpose for that. The Board’s purpose is to make sure that everything goes according to plan. The purpose of the Rural Boundary is to keep from having any more urban sprawl going on in the area. If the rural boundary is changed, it will cause all kinds of problems in the future.
Richard Groskey, 2465 Stone Street, addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the request. He discussed the developers growing in Altamonte Springs, getting away from the development by moving to Black Hammock, why build more when the County has thousands of buildings that are empty, and to stalemate the development until the economy picks up.
Angie Williams, 1320 Hammock St., addressed the Board to state she lives in the Black Hammock area and has lived there for 25 years. She stated she voted in 2004 for the rural boundaries as there was a purpose to keep it rural. There is something special about this place and they need to keep it that way.
Edward Brancaccio, 1610 Barr St., addressed the Board to state he also lives in the Black Hammock. He stated he believes that it will set a precedent if the developer is given this property and it will balloon out.
Lisa Zembower, 127 Big Oak Bend, addressed the Board to read a letter (not received and filed) on behalf of her husband, William J. Zembower, Chuluota Community Association, speaking in opposition to the project.
Don Kiolbasa, 600 Pine Grand Ave., addressed the Board to state his feelings on this are mixed. He stated his conclusion is why would they need 4½ acres for retention, tot lot and parking along the side of the road. He added he has neighbors that have to wait 20 minutes to get across SR 434 and he would like to know how much more they are going to add to that road. He asked the Board to protect residents and not help the developers.
Greg Gammage, 2300 Orange St., did not speak but is in opposition.
Nancy Harmon, 752 Pioneer Way, addressed the Board to state she agrees that this is a good opportunity for the County to establish a process that would, in the future, be able to allow them to make decisions of this nature regarding the rural boundary. She stated she feels that a precedent is set if the County creates a process changing the rural boundary to allow the developer to make a part of the land non-rural for the benefit of the community. She said there is a lot of benefit being in the rural environment and it keeps their community balanced. She added she doesn’t understand why this property is being requested to be taken out of the rural boundary when everything that they are asking to do is based upon what is allowed in the rural boundary. She said she is having a problem understanding why this property has to be taken out of the rural boundary.
Deborah Schafer, 1740 Brumley Road, addressed the Board to state they have fought for the rural boundary for 18 years. She read a quote from the newspaper that was made by a commissioner. She displayed a site plan (received and filed) and stated a boundary is now in place after a long, drawn-out process and there is nothing flawed about the rural boundary. When all of this was trying to be developed, the residents tried to get more in the rural boundary in the 2006 amendment. She pointed out on the site plan the location of the pond and reviewed the proposed development. She added she doesn’t think any of the residents are against property rights in the rural boundary. She concluded that she doesn’t believe that the voters didn’t understand the necessity to move the rural boundary. She asked the Board to vote no.
Paul Ozolnieks, 1450 Florida Ave., addressed the Board to state he doesn’t understand what part of “no” that the developers don’t understand. He stated they do not need development in the Black Hammock area. He referred to the type of animals that are in the Black Hammock area and stated they will not have them if this development goes through.
Simon Laming, 2901 Elm St., addressed the Board to speak in opposition to changing the rural zoning.
Wanda Laming, 2901 Elm St., addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the project. She stated her main concern is the traffic in the area and the impact it will have.
William Turman, 1310 Hammock St., addressed the Board to state Winter Springs is going to do whatever they want with the property. He referred to the subdivision site plan and stated the real issue is whether the blue portion on the map retains the rural boundary or is given to Winter Springs through annexation or the Rural Boundary is removed. He said he is against the project as he feels they are setting a precedent. He added all they are talking about is removing the natural areas and developing subdivisions. The real issue is whether they can build this subdivision in the yellow portion on the map and still retain that property within the rural area and still do what they want to do. He displayed a Future Land Use map showing the rural boundary area and stated it was amended in 2010 and it is totally different from what is being discussed.
Carol Patenaude, 966 Florida Ave., addressed the Board to state the issue she has is what’s inside the rural boundary (retention pond and tot lot). She said she believes that under the rural boundary charter, the boundary remains in place unless there is necessity to move that boundary. The developer is requesting that a retention pond be placed in that area so they can keep the number of houses that they intend to build in Southern Oaks and she is not sure if she understands how that benefits the residents. She said a precedent will be set and cautioned that erosion starts with a little trickle and then it continues and continues until a river is raging through. She stated approving this request will not serve the interest of the residents and she urged the Board to vote no.
Lori Hildmeyer, 3585 Canal St., addressed the Board to state that she is not in support of the request.
Don Peterson, 3585 Canal St., addressed the Board to display a large aerial map (received and filed) showing properties abutting the Urban Rural Boundary. He stated he is here to ask the Board to not change the rules to benefit one person or a group. He said this is not about one tiny piece of the rural boundary, it is about the whole rural boundary. He discussed four properties and the property to the north within the rural boundary. The residents are not against the development but against changing the rural boundary. He made comments relative to whether or not the surrounding areas are going to be developed with retention ponds put on the rural side, how changing the rules will affect the density in Southern Oaks, a letter from the County Manager stating certain uses are not allowed, the ordinance and tri-party agreement only affecting their specific site, and transition taking place outside the boundary. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page _______, from area residents who do not want the rural boundary changed. He asked the Board to vote no on this as it is the right thing to do for the rural constituents. Mr. Peterson explained the boundary line meanders because people opted out or opted in, but very few of them opted out. He said he would like to know what the change is that is so important that mandates moving the boundary.
Roberto Gaier, 2220 Orange St., addressed the Board to state he represents the Black Hammock Association and he is here to voice the concerns of the residents in the rural area. He stated he is here to provide additional guidance and wisdom to the elected officials. The rural boundary is here to stay and it is as sacred as the boundary of the County line and the U.S.A. borders. Changes to the rural boundary can only be done in the interest and benefit of all the citizens of Seminole County. Changes for the sole benefit of a very few or private entities are not admissible and are intolerable. Lifting the line of the rural area will just create a slew of problems and consequences with ripple effects, and it will open the flood gates of unimaginable destruction and consequences. The residents that voted to be in the rural boundary like that lifestyle.
Fabiana Zollo, 2170 Elm St., addressed the Board to express her concern about this small tract of land in the rural boundary being deemed outside the boundary. She stated over 60% of the residents voted for the rural boundary and they will be upset that the Board did not abide by their vote.
Victoria Dubia, 1650 Barr St., addressed the Board to state she just settled in the rural area believing that it was protected and the boundaries would not change. She asked the Board to not change boundary as a precedent will be set.
Gary Vest, President of Seminole Woods Community Association, addressed the Board to speak against changing the rural boundary. He said he represents approximately 256 homeowners of 5-acre parcels or larger in Seminole Woods. He stated he doesn’t have a problem with the development, but he feels the Board does not need to change the boundary. He added any change made to the rural boundary will a have dramatic precedent effect in the future.
Daniel Levitt, 1000 Rich Point Cove, addressed the Board to state he is in favor of leaving the rural area the way it is.
Kevin Bernard, 209 Chestnut Ridge St., addressed the Board to state if the Board votes in favor of the applicant, then they need to be prepared to change the slogan of Seminole County as he feels that a price of $500,000 to $600,000 homes is not a natural choice.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Randy Morris, 756 Keeling Pike, addressed the Board to explain how he got involved and to discuss the motivation for requesting the change in the boundary. He stated the applicant to put six to eight houses on the Mermel property and it was changed by the applicant to use the property appropriately in a way which he thought would work within the rural boundary. He stated the applicant, nor the City of Winter Springs, concur with Ms. Guillet’s letter to the City that objected using the property as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD). This property will annex into the City of Winter Springs in two weeks. When this property is annexed, the applicant will go forward with the Preliminary Site Plan (PSP) approval. The only way it will be stopped is with a lawsuit. Every use going into the new plan, after meeting with staff and residents, has been taken out that is objectionable and not permitted in the rural area now. If this goes to court, it will become a very difficult legal argument in relation to the zoning uses. The applicant has worked for over two months with staff to come up with an interlocal agreement that would set a precedent in the future. The tri-party agreement would move the boundary under certain conditions that goes with the title of the land and it cannot be undone. This property will be used for the purposes that it can be used for right now.
Mr. Morris stated if the applicant moves the pond in the current PD, it will lower the valuation of the houses, the community will be radically changed, and it won’t be a Class A development. This type of development is going to add to the tax base and not take away from it. There were 19 public hearings held with the Cities of Oviedo and Winter Springs and the votes have mostly been unanimous in both jurisdictions.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Mr. Morris explained why they need to annex this into Winter Springs.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Bryant Applegate, County Attorney, explained why the property can’t be left in the rural boundary with the applicant using it as a retention pond.
Ms. Guillet informed Commissioner Carey that staff’s starting point was to try to protect the integrity of the rural area. In relation to the overall project, which is a two-unit- per-acre residential subdivision, the retention pond and tot lot are components of that and are not permitted individual separate uses. They are a component of the overarching residential use, and a two-unit-per-acre residential subdivision wouldn’t be consistent with the rural designation. Ms. Guillet stated that the Charter Amendment doesn’t establish a boundary that can never be moved, but vests the authority over land-use approvals with the BCC, whether it is in a city or in unincorporated Seminole County. Staff’s concern is if the Board interprets the rural area and the Rural Land Use Designations to permit a retention pond and a tot lot that would accommodate a two-unit- per-acre subdivision, they would be corrupting the rural designations and creating a more damaging precedent.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised that staff feels that they will be protecting the rural boundary integrity by taking this piece of property out and putting on deed restrictions. Mr. Applegate stated he and Ms. Guillet determined that the best way to protect the integrity of the rural area was to ensure that this development was considered as a whole and not piece it out. He added he feels that this is an incredible agreement to protect the rural area. Ms. Guillet added regulating the use of this land has to be reasonable and fair in the least restrictive means. This is compatible with the rural area under this proposal.
Mr. Morris stated they have tried to present a very rational compromise that goes with the land that defends the rural boundary rather than any other option.
Commissioner Henley asked staff if they felt that the conditions placed in the agreement will protect the rural boundary more than not changing it. Ms. Guillet explained why she feels the agreement will protect the boundary.
Ms. Guillet explained for Chairman Dallari why staff feels this is unique.
Commissioner Henley stated the County always faces the threat of being sued over decisions. He stated if it is true that this is a unique situation that will probably never be duplicated, he fails to see how that is going to strengthen them on a situation that is not similar to this. Mr. Morris explained what action would be taken if the applicant is stopped from going forward.
Commissioner Henley stated he feels that some of the restrictions are good, but it seems to him that if the Board approves this, they will weaken their position. The more something is done, the easier it becomes. He said he is afraid that they are watching the beginning of a demise of the rural area and he hopes that is not true. When the Board first discussed the rural area boundary, representatives from Winter Springs and Oviedo had concerns with the statement that would allow the BCC to change the boundary if it was in the benefit of the public. Both cities are now asking that it be changed. Commissioner Henley explained that the language was placed in the ballot so that if it became necessary for the good of the people to change the boundary, the BCC could make that adjustment without having to pay for another referendum. He said he appreciates the efforts the applicant has made in trying to come up with something that is acceptable. It is not the responsibility of the BCC to make all the businessmen profitable. He stated it concerns him that the Board may be weakening themselves more by agreeing to the second change than if they send a message that this Board is not going to voluntarily change that line unless it benefits the citizens and he fails to see how it benefits them. He added he feels the Board is obligated to defend the decision of the voters.
Commissioner Horan stated he feels it is important that people understand, strategically and tactically, what they are trying to do within the law and within the Charter. He read Section 5.2c of the Charter and stated based on that language, he can understand staff’s interpretation. He said he feels that the position would be different if a municipality was trying to take that provision and parley it into an annexation of 400 acres, connecting it to four acres. He added he agrees with the strategy that is being proposed. He said he feels this is a good solution to the problem and he will be voting for approval of the agreement and ordinance.
Chairman Dallari stated he takes the rural boundary extremely serious and he has every intention of protecting it. He said if the Board votes against this project, they will have a short-term win as this is extremely unique. He added his concern is if the Board denies this, they will have to go to court and sue the City of Winter Springs. He said he believes they will lose as he doesn’t feel that the Judge is going to see that this is going to be in conflict. In looking at the geographic boundary of the road, it does make sense that it should be squared off. The rural area does have retention ponds, but because that pond is associated with that development, it has to have the same density as the whole development. Therefore, they are putting the rural area in jeopardy by not allowing this pond to be outside that rural area.
Commissioner Carey stated she does think that this is a unique situation and what staff has proposed is a reasonable solution. She said she doesn’t want to do something that is going to cause them to open up the whole boundary for discussion as that could potentially happen. She added she feels that by taking staff’s recommendations, putting deed restrictions on it, by not allowing this piece of property to be used for the density calculation, and everything else that everyone has agreed to in the agreement is a reasonable solution. This is a reasonable way to allow this project and not end up in a lawsuit. Therefore, she will be supporting the request.
Commissioner Henley stated he feels that Mr. Saathoff is right that the easy land is gone and that is why all eyes are on the rural area because that is where the opportunities are. He said whether or not the Board is concerned about a lawsuit, eventually it is going to get there one way or the other. He added perhaps the Board’s intent in the beginning was wrong when they put the language in that allows them to change it, if necessary, in the future. It might have been better protected if they left that out to where it would take a referendum to change it.
Commissioner Constantine stated he was a citizen in 2004 when he voted for the rural boundary. He stated he feels the developer is going to do the best job he can to make the best project he can. The question is what will they gain by moving the boundary. He said he personally feels that moving the rural boundary will do nothing for the county or the citizens. He added he feels the developer will put together a quality project that they can be proud of, but it doesn’t help them in moving the rural boundary. Therefore, he will be voting against the project.
Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Agreement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County, City of Winter Springs and American Land Investments of Central Florida, LLC, related to the Mermel property, as described in the proof of publication, American Land Investments of Central Florida, LLC.
Districts 1, 2 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners Constantine and Henley voted NAY.
- - -
Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt Ordinance #2013-25, as shown on page ________, revising the Rural Area Boundary Line as established in the Seminole County Home Rule Charter, affecting 4.51+/- acres, as described in the proof of publication, American Land Investments of Central Florida, LLC.
Districts 1, 2 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners Constantine and Henley voted NAY.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 4:16 p.m., reconvening at 4:26 p.m., with Clerk of Court Maryanne Morse entering late.
FLORIDA AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE
Continuation of a public hearing to consider request to vacate and abandon a portion of the public right-of-way known as Florida Avenue; approximately 1/8 mile north of SR 434 and west of DeLeon Street, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page ________, Dwight Saathoff.
Brian Walker, Development Services, addressed the Board to advise the subject right-of-way is not needed for public access and the proposed vacate will not hinder access to adjacent properties. The applicable utility companies and staff have no objections to the request.
Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Court, reentered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Walker stated staff recommends approval of the request to vacate.
Dwight Saathoff, applicant, stated they applied for this request in August and staff asked them to make a donation of five feet of right-of-way along the boundary of DeLeon Street. Those deeds have been executed and recorded. The 25 foot right-of-way was created in 1910 and a railroad may have used it at one time. The railroad is no longer there and the right-of-way goes in the back of Barrington Estates HOA. Roughly half of the right-of-way is wetland along the western side as well as 50% of the area in question.
Commissioner Horan confirmed with Mr. Saathoff that the easement is approximately 4,200 square feet, the ditch is supposed to provide flood control for the benefit of the Black Hammock area, and over half of the vacate area is within the jurisdiction of Winter Springs.
Don Peterson, 3585 Canal Street, stated he doesn’t see any benefit of flood drainage on that canal that will help Black Hammock. He stated he found out that the actual measurement of the Florida Avenue extension is 1,274 feet long and has a 50-foot width with two 20-foot swales equaling a 90-foot right-of-way. He stated the right-of-way used to be the Atlantic Coastline railroad and discussed the track requiring 50 feet of bed with two swales, some of the rails still being in the ground, the extension for future use as a road and not for utilities, the wetlands in the area, and the developer needing this road to make his subdivision work so he can sell it to a builder for top dollar.
Mr. Peterson stated giving this right-of-way to the developer will allow slope for the retention pond on the south side and this will allow the developer to make five premium lakefront lots. Increasing the lot depth by 20 or so feet will allow the developer to place 1.5 houses on the road. He explained there is already a traffic problem at SR 434 and DeLeon and it is fixable now, but it won’t be later. A traffic signal is not the answer, but changing the layout of DeLeon and Hammock Lane and SR 434 is an answer. A drawing on poster board showing the change of the layout was received and filed. He stated using the Florida Avenue extension as a road is the perfect solution. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the City of Winter Springs liked that idea. He added as more and more development occurs to the east, more traffic will be coming to the intersection. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page ______, from citizens opposing the vacate request. He displayed another poster board (received and filed) showing a drawing of the layout of Florida Avenue extension going to SR 434. He concluded that there are no wetlands at the end of Florida Avenue to the west. He asked the Board to not give the road away for free.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Peterson advised he has a document from the County stating that the right-of-way is 50 feet and he can provide it to the Board. Commissioner Carey stated the survey indicates that the right-of-way is 25 feet. If this vacate goes forward, they will be vacating 25 feet.
Upon inquiry by Commissioners Henley and Carey, Brett Blackadar, County Engineer, addressed the Board to advise staff has discussed the layout with the City of Winter Springs. The County doesn’t own the property south of Florida Avenue and there would have to be a taking of private property to make that connection. Significant wetland mitigation would have to occur. Staff had discussions with the City of Winter Springs and FDOT, and most likely FDOT would not approve another connection on SR 434. A lot of hurdles would have to be made to make that connection happen.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Blackadar advised the one thing that the City of Winter Springs is working on with FDOT is a traffic signal at DeLeon. That would probably be justified in the future. Putting in another connection may hinder the chances of getting a signal at DeLeon.
Roberto Gaier, 2220 Orange Street, recommended postponing this item so it can be looked into thoroughly. He stated he feels the Board is giving away a piece of land worth in excess of $600,000. He asked that the Board not give the property away but to price it fairly so they can give back to the citizens the money they deserve.
Lisa Zembower, 127 Big Oak Bend, read a letter that deals with vacating the easement.
Carol Patenaude, 966 Florida Ave., displayed a map (received and filed) showing the Florida Avenue extension. She stated she doesn’t condone giving away something that belongs to the citizens without full consideration. She asked the Board to leave the right-of-way open.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised she understands that there might be a perception that this is part of the right-of-way for the Florida Scenic Trail because there is an old map indicating this is part of that system. She indicated that the current alignment for the Florida Scenic Trail is south of this particular vacate, and representatives from DEP said that the southern route, not the one that runs along Florida Avenue, is the preferred route. They have abandoned the concept of using smaller loops for an existing concept that would take it out of this right-of-way. At one time, it was considered to be part of the system but is no longer in DEP’s plan for the Florida Scenic Trail.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised that staff confirmed with DEP that they have no interest in this piece of property if it is vacated.
Nancy Harmon, 752 Pioneer Way, stated her taxes and the value of her house goes up every year. If the County wants the developer to have this land, then they should pay for it. She said she has no problem with the applicant having a development, but she resents the fact that the Board would give away property that is a value to them and not to her.
Melanie Freire, 3063 Freedom Trail, addressed the Board to read a letter that she wrote into the record. She requested that this item be continued as she doesn’t feel the Board has accurate information to make an informed decision at this time. She said she has seen a traffic report that was paid for by the developer. This area is going to be profoundly impacted by the Southern Oaks development. She added Florida Avenue is very dangerous when turning left from Hammock Lane onto SR 434 at certain times of the day. She said she is trying to get the UCF Civil Engineering Department to donate a traffic study of this area that the developer has not studied.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request and Written Comments Forms were received and filed.
Randy Morris stated it is 25 feet of right-of-way. The applicant has done surveys, title work and legal-description work.
Upon inquiry by Mr. Morris, Mr. Applegate advised the title work and survey are clear and staff has reviewed them.
Mr. Morris displayed and reviewed a site plan (received and filed) showing the dry area. He stated a traffic study was done and was reviewed by FDOT, the Cities of Winter Springs and Oviedo as well as the County. He displayed and reviewed a Traffic Crash Summary (received and filed) for SR 434/Hammock Lane; Hammock Lane/DeLeon Street, and Florida Avenue/DeLeon Street. He submitted and reviewed the Florida National Scenic Trail Routing Analysis Overview and an aerial map showing the Daily Traffic Volumes on Florida Avenue-DeLeon Street. This is a standard request and the applicant will not gain anything on this. He stated the purpose of the vacate request is to close off the subdivision. He said he spoke to the past president of the Florida Trail Association and the engineer who did the study for the Cross Florida Trail. He referenced a 2004 document on the County website that shows an alternate proposal that was never accepted. It was rejected by the consultant and the State as they were doing the Florida Scenic Trail. The Florida Scenic Trail became the Cross Seminole Trail to the south. They would never build parallel trails within ¼ of a mile of each other. The overlay for the Cross Seminole Trail became the Cross Florida Trail as well as the Florida Scenic Trail and it runs all the way through the county until it becomes a natural scenic trail.
Commissioner Henley stated there have been several presentations by the trails organization to MetroPlan and there is a lot going on dealing with the connectivity of all the trails. The Governor vetoed the proposal for funding them. He stated he feels that if they vacate property, it is generally around 25 feet to 30 feet and it is divided between two adjoining land owners.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Morris advised there are a lot of trees and vegetation on both sides of Florida Avenue and it is half wetlands. He said they will not be disturbing any of that. He stated there will be one lot on the upland and the rest would be backyards.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Saathaff advised both cities have strict tree ordinances and they will be in full compliance with them. Mr. Morris stated the property is less than ½ an acre and they will be using a small portion of it for one lot. Mr. Saathoff stated they are also granting the County a drainage easement. He added this is not surplus property and nothing is being given away.
At the request of Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet reviewed the memo from DEP relating to the trail. She also addressed the issue of the County selling rights-of-way and owning property fee simple.
Commissioner Carey commented that the County vacates rights-of-way and utility easements all the time in order to benefit the citizens.
An e-mail from Richard Durr relating to the Florida Trail was received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt appropriate Resolution #2013-R-219, as shown on page ________, vacating and abandoning a portion of the public right-of-way known as Florida Avenue; approximately 1/8 mile north of SR 434 and west of DeLeon Street, as described in the proof of publication, Dwight Saathoff.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Ex parte communications from Commissioner Carey for Items #36, Revising the Rural Boundary Line, and #37, Florida Avenue vacate, were received and filed.
BOA APPEAL/Meritage Homes
Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s (BOA) decision to deny the request for a (1) side- yard (east) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet and (2) a side yard (west) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet, for a single-family home in the PD (Planned Development) district for property located on the north side of Bella Vista Circle; approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Roma Lane and Sand Lake Road, and particularly known as 1108 Bella Vista Circle, Meritage Homes, received and filed.
Jeff Hopper, Development Services, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. He stated the BOA denied the request based on information presented at the hearing. He reviewed some background regarding the variance request. Staff recommends that the BCC uphold the BOA’s decision to deny the request.
Joseph Antequino, appellant, addressed the Board to explain why he is here today and why this request is so important to his family. He displayed and reviewed a plot plan (received and filed) of the proposed construction. He said this variance will allow his family to comfortably park their cars, protect them from the rain and elements, and allow them to have visitors without having them park on the street. He added he believes that this will increase the property value of his home. He said he spoke to some of the residents in the community and the first thing they talked about was drainage issues. He talked about all single-family homes in the community having larger footprints than his. Mr. Antequino discussed traffic issues. He affirmed that there will be no further variance requests sought by Meritage Homes. He explained the reason why he feels the variance failed at the BOA hearing. He read a letter from Jeff Bissey speaking in favor of the request. An e-mail from Jeff Bissey speaking in support was received and filed. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page _______, from area residents supporting the variance. Maps showing the proposed site and the neighborhood were received and filed.
Tracy Reid-Thompson, 1631 Stargazer Terrace, addressed the Board to state she represents Meritage Homes. She stated she has seen the appellant go through a lot of challenges and it is her desire to close this community out quickly. She requested the Board approve the variance.
Lynn Kuschmann, 104 S. Interlachen Ave., addressed the Board to discuss the amount of time she spent with the appellant to find property for them. She stated as a Realtor, she feels that it would be better to have a car enclosure than a driveway at the side of the house. This home is a higher-end property and is consistent with other homes in the area. She discussed the different things that the Antequino family has gone through. She requested the Board consider approving the variance request.
Tally Helman, 1116 Bella Vista Circle, addressed the Board to state he lives on the eastern side of Lot 82. He stated he opposes overturning the decision regarding the variance as he believes that no other homes have been allotted this variance. He spoke with regard to the constant drainage issues in this area and Mr. Bissey speaking to him about what was going on with the variance.
Edward Pineiro, 1123 Bella Vista Circle, addressed the Board to point out that the house fits on the lot without the garage, no other house in the area requiring variances, drainage issues in the area are due to the swale, this variance could set a precedent, everyone in the neighborhood has abided by the setbacks, and there is no sinkhole near the residence but unstable soil. He stated he is totally against the request.
Jill Ogden, 1120 Bella Vista Circle, addressed the Board to state that generally, the two priorities in selecting a home are the location and the features of the home. She stated she is almost certain that every family that picked Bella Vista to live in picked the location because of the school district and probably had to compromise on some features.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Mr. Antequino displayed the plan and reviewed what a tandem garage is. He addressed the drainage issues, the footprints of other homes and the sinkhole issue.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Reid-Thompson advised this lot is not 100% covered in pavers. She stated when this home is built the pavers will be removed and grass will replace them.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Guillet advised this is the first time she is aware of drainage issues in the area. Chairman Dallari requested staff to check into that issue at a later date.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Ms. Guillet advised the setback requirement varies from zoning district to zoning district. She stated this is a PD and the setback standards are set as negotiated zoning criteria. The comparable straight-zoning district is R-1A and the side yard setbacks are 7½ feet.
District Commissioner Constantine stated he feels this is not about drainage but about the applicant not satisfying all six criteria under Section 30.43 of the Land Development Code (LDC).
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley to uphold the BOA’s decision thereby, denying the request for a (1) side-yard (east) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet and (2) a side-yard (west) setback variance from 6 feet to 5 feet, for a single-family home in the PD (Planned Development) district for property located on the north side of Bella Vista Circle; approximately 200 feet west of the intersection of Roma Lane and Sand Lake Road, and particularly known as 1108 Bella Vista Circle, as described in the proof of publication, Meritage Homes; Decision on Appeal, as shown on page ________.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari stated a financial fitness seminar was held on August 16, 2013 and he would like to thank the employees for putting that together.
Chairman Dallari stated he was asked by the Central Florida Sports Commission to write a letter of support for an application to bring in the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Championship.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Horan to authorize the Chairman to execute a Letter, as shown on page ______, to the National Collegiate Athletic Association supporting the Central Florida Sports Commission’s efforts in bringing the NCAA Division II & III Men’s and Women’s Tennis National Championships to Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari stated he received a request from Earnest Products to go after the tax credit program for PACE.
Nicole Guillet stated Earnest Products is asking the County to send a letter to Congressman John Mica supporting their desire to utilize a new market tax credit program.
Commissioner Carey stated when it was presented to the County to adopt the language that would allow people to utilize the PACE program, the County Attorney’s recommendation was that the County not adopt that. It is a federal program that already exists, but the County would need to adopt it to allow people to be able to utilize the program. She said she doesn’t understand why the County would write a letter of support to Congressman Mica if they are not going to adopt it.
Chairman Dallari requested that Ms. Guillet and the County Attorney’s Office review this further and bring it back at a later date.
Commissioner Horan stated there are two programs, one is the State program and the other is a Federal PACE program. He said he believes the one the County is being asked to opine on is the State program.
Chairman Dallari stated he believes the County will potentially be looking at some bonds in the next couple of months. He stated the investment banking team (Citigroup, Fifth Third, JP Morgan, Luke Capital, and Raymond James) have changed quite a bit and he would like to bring that back possibly putting it out to bid again.
Commissioner Carey stated the County trusts people to give them good financial advice and as people move around, they do not have a relationship with several of them.
Chairman Dallari requested the County Manager bring that back to the Board.
Mr. Hartmann stated the Board selected the teams for the current bond issue and they have been working on creating bond documents.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. Letter with attachment dated August 12, 2013, from Blanche Sherman, LYNX, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE: LYNX Quarterly Reports – as of June 30, 2013.
2. Copy of letter with attachment dated August 15, 2013, from Cathy Galavis, Department of Revenue, to David Johnson, Seminole County Property Appraiser’s Office, RE: Changes to the Property Appraiser’s budget. (C: BCC, County Manager, Resource Management)
3. Letter with attachment dated August 16, 2013, from Erin O’Donnell, City of Altamonte Springs, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE: Annexation of property into the City of Altamonte Springs located at 740 Orange Avenue. (C: BCC, County Manager, Development Services)
4. Letter with attachment dated August 16, 2013, from Erin O’Donnell, City of Altamonte Springs, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE: Annexation of properties into the City of Altamonte Springs located at 671 Hillview Drive and 685 Gateway Drive. (C: BCC, County Manager, Development Services)
DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Commissioner Henley stated he and staff are still discussing water issues at Myrtle Lake as they haven’t been able to meet the criteria. They have been discussing this issue with the City of Longwood and the City is willing to provide it if they annex into the city. Everyone does not totally support the annexation.
Commissioner Henley stated he has met with a group of citizens from Winwood near Merritt Street and they are desirous of trying to improve their neighborhood, particularly the location to the SunRail Station. He said he discussed with citizens about doing a CRA and he told them that he felt it was a little premature for them to come to the Board. He added they have been meeting with the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) and they have helped the residents a great deal.
Commissioner Carey stated she submitted all of her ex parte communications into the record for this afternoon’s public hearings.
Commissioner Carey stated a woman came into her office indicating that she had been trying to obtain a mortgage modification. She said the lady received first-time home buyer assistance to buy her home. The lady has been trying for six months to obtain a sign-off from Community Services staff saying they would subordinate the County’s position, and it was finally elevated to a supervisor after six months. She stated it has just been sitting there for the past six months as the County’s policy isn’t clear if they can or cannot subordinate on a mortgage modification. If someone is doing a mortgage modification and they are not taking any cash out of their home, and it is putting them in a better situation to stay in the home and not be foreclosed on, then there should not be an issue with the County subordinating the first-time homebuyer loan. She said she found out a lot of people have gone through this process. The woman has a medical hardship and she is now in a situation where the mortgage company is saying that this has been going on for over a year, and now she has to either reapply or they are going to foreclose on her home. Commissioner Carey said she has asked Mr. Applegate to intervene. She added if the County needs to clarify their policy, then that needs to be done immediately. Chairman Dallari requested that this issue be placed on the next agenda if the policy needs to be changed.
Commissioner Carey stated she attended the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Board of Directors Strategic Planning session last week and this is the update to their Five-Year Plan. She complimented John Streitmatter for doing an excellent. She added Mr. Strietmatter will continue to work with the Strategic Planning Committee to finalize the next Five-Year Plan. The goal is to have a one-page Strategic Plan completed by June 2014 and to be voted on by the FAC Board of Directors at their annual meeting. She stated many of the counties have asked about FAC taking a position in federal focus. There are a lot of unfunded mandates that have come from the Federal Government. She added FAC has discussed this and she feels that what will come out of the committee is that FAC would be a legislative advocate on the Federal level and pick up to three issues that would affect the counties throughout the State and to coordinate outreach at the national level through the Governor’s office. Brian DeLoach is currently the President of FAC and is going to be running for the National Association of Counties Second Vice President next year. They have requested that one commissioner from each county consider attending the NACo Conference to support that. She said the swing states in those elections on a national level are Florida, California, Texas and New York.
Commissioner Carey stated there are a number FAC Enterprise Programs and she would like staff to take a hard look at these programs. She said she believes the counties that are participating in them are seeing great savings by utilizing some of these programs. She said she would like staff to review that further.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Commissioner Carey advised she can provide the Board members a list of the Enterprise Programs.
Commissioner Carey stated there has been a lot of discussion relating to the impact of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) Program on the County’s budget. She stated Senator Webster is planning to bring up the FRS reform during the upcoming session. She reviewed some of the interesting facts of the retirement system. She said the one interesting thing is an employee has five months to make their selection and if they do not choose a selection, they default into the Pension Plan. She added she believes the default should be in the Investment Plan rather the Pension Plan. She said it is interesting to know that approximately 54% of the new employees that are part of the FRS never make a choice and they automatically default into the Pension Plan, 25% choose to go into the Investment Plan, and 21% choose to go into the Pension Plan. The FRS Pension Plan is one of the most solvent in the country. She suggested that the Cities, School Board and the County look at teaming up as a small group of representatives to go to Tallahassee to discuss the community issues at the same time.
Commissioner Carey stated starting October 1, 2013, a statewide Walk for Wellness Program will be promoted through the Florida Department of Health and the ultimate goal is to walk 2,000 miles. She said she has asked for additional information on that and she will provide that to everyone in the County.
Commissioner Constantine reported that FAC believes one of the issues that will create the biggest stir is medical marijuana.
Commissioner Constantine informed the Board that CALNO is meeting at the airport on September 4.
Commissioner Constantine stated Charity Challenge earned $220,000 and the one thing that had never occurred before was the teams and sponsors were allowed to tell them where they wanted the money to go. A great deal of the money went to the North Seminole charities such as the faith-based African American Organizations.
COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT
At the request of Mr. Hartmann, Ms. Guillet stated she doesn’t believe the new market tax credit program is akin to the PACE program. This program targets investment- and low-income census tracts and they get a credit back over a seven-year period. Earnest Products is just outside of the census tract and is asking Congressman Mica’s office to support their waiver.
Commissioner Carey stated she would like more information on this. Ms. Guillet stated she will bring it back in two weeks.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA
Michelle Burnett, 510 Hwy 466, addressed the Board to introduce herself as the Community Service Representative for Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) and explained how they can maybe partner with Public Works and the utilities and what she is doing in other counties. She discussed the FGUA acquiring 71 water and wastewater systems across twelve Florida counties, being governed by interlocal agreements among member governments, that it is a unique public authority, what the FGUA Board is comprised of, and how they work closely with local governments and private utility owners. She said her role is to create relations with government bodies, community forums and the public, explained her availability to make educational presentations.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Burnett advised she will contact the Board members to provide them with her information. She stated she will be working with other counties in conjunction with the Outreach Program.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m., this same date.