BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APRIL 12, 2016
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, April 12, 2016, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Chairman John Horan (District 2)
Vice Chairman Brenda Carey (District 5)
Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
County Manager Nicole Guillet
County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerk Kyla Spencer
Pastor Wes Tanksley, Riverwalk Church of God, Sanford, gave the Invocation.
Commissioner Constantine led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Business Spotlight video for Hohman Health and Wellness was presented.
AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1 – A-1898-16
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month, 2016.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Debbie Owens, Director of Seminole Prevention Coalition and Chair of Child Abuse Prevention Task Force (CAPTF), addressed the Board to show her appreciation. She noted CAPTF is made up of volunteers from the entire county. She thanked Commissioner Carey and Commissioner Dallari for attending Light of Hope, which is the opening of Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Chairman Horan mentioned Commissioner Dallari has a large fundraising event at Kids House this weekend.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the Consent Agenda and public input was closed.
Commissioner Henley stated he will be filing a Voting Conflict Form for Item #19, an agreement with Altamonte Hospitality, LP.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s Office
2. Approve travel reimbursement to Commissioner Lee Constantine for travel during January through March of 2016. (A-1957-16)
3. Approve travel reimbursement to Commissioner Carlton Henley for travel during July 2015, November 2015, and January 2016. (A-1987-16)
Planning & Development Division
4. Authorize release of the original Paving and Drainage Cash Maintenance Bond for the project known as St. James House of Prayer, in the amount of $2,299.50. (A-1925-16)
5. Authorize release of the original Performance Bond #0182849 for the project known as Lake Markham Landings Subdivision in the amount of $281,769.49. (A-1915-16)
6. Approve the replat of lot 38 and Tract C of the Acuera Subdivision, containing one lot on 0.77 acres and Tract C on 2.40 acres zoned PD (Planned Development), located on the west side of Hawksbill Lane, west of Longwood Markham Road; Joe Jenkins, Applicant. (A-1902-16)
7. Approve the minor plat for the Miller Estates subdivision containing 4 lots on 4.236 acres zoned A-1 (Agriculture), located on the west side of Orange Boulevard, north of North Road; Zach Miller, Applicant. (A-1899-16)
8. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board Case No. 10-138-CEB, at 857 Dover Rd., Maitland, Tax Parcel #23-21-29-502-0B00-0110; Helen J. Wolk Heirs, Applicant. (A-1842-16)
9. Approve the Special Event Permit Fee Waiver in the amount of $75 for the Farm Share Special Event, 6405 South U.S. 17-92, Casselberry, on April 2, 2016. (A-2001-16)
10. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the revised Easements with Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the dedication of two Utility Easements and two Temporary Construction Easements for the installation of new power poles and realignment of existing overhead power poles at the County’s Yankee Lake Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. (A-1961-16)
11. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement with Seminole State College (SSC) for utilization of SSC's Public Safety Burn Building for new hire training with an estimated annual amount of $15,000. (A-1977-16)
Budget and Fiscal Management Division
12. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2016-R-54 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #16‑040 through the HOME Program Grant Fund in the amount of $8,212 for appropriation of HOME Program Down Payment Assistance payoff income for the property at 2832 Harbour Grace Court. (A-1928-16)
13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2016-R-55 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #16‑044 through the various Water and Sewer Funds in the amount of $181,775 to restructure and reallocate funding in Fiscal Year 2015/16 for various Water and Sewer Capital Projects. (A-1906-16)
14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2016-R-56 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #16-045 through the General Fund in the amount of $1,950 for appropriation of FDOT Revenue and allocation of Budget for Cross Seminole Trail improvements. (A-1929-16)
15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2016-R-57 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #16-050 through the General Fund Reserves in the amount of $65,000 to appropriate budget for the Aspire Health Partners, Inc. Homelessness Outreach Partnership Effort Agreement. (A-1981-16)
16. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2016-R-58 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #16-051 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to appropriate budget of $1,005,800 from Reserves for the Sand Lake Rd. at SR 434 Intersection Project. (A-1986-16)
Purchasing & Contracts Division
17. Award RFP-0672-15/TAD, Master Services Agreement (MSA), for Landfill Water Quality Monitoring Services to The Colinas Group, Inc. of Altamonte Springs; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Manager to execute the Agreement. Estimated Annual usage is $200,000. (A-1960-16)
18. Approve Work Order #30 (NEWW Collection/Transmission System) under PS-8186-13/DRR (MSA for Continuing Engineering Services for Utility Improvement Projects) with Reiss Engineering, Inc. of Winter Springs in the amount of $146,196.91; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Work Order. (A-1940-16)
19. Commissioner Henley requested the item be pulled for a separate vote due to a voting conflict.
20. Award RFP-602489-16/BJC, Purchase of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Compressor/Cascade System, to Fisher Scientific, Tampa in the amount of $50,975 for each SCBA unit; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (A-1958-16)
21. Award CC-0664-16/AEH, Douglas Avenue Rehabilitation and West Highland Sidewalk Project, in the amount of $767,780.20 to Florida Safety Contractors, Inc. of Tampa; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (A-1959-16)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Agenda Item # 19 – A-1979-16
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to Award RFP-602505-16/BJC, Food and Beverage Services for the Seminole County Sports Complex to Altamonte Hospitality, LP, Altamonte Springs; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the documents (Revenue Contract).
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Henley abstained from voting and filed a Memorandum of Voting Conflict Form (received and filed).
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to authorize and approve the following:
22. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute 6 Satisfactions of Public Defenders Service Liens for costs against Gerald L. Willmert, each in the amount of $200, which were imposed in favor of Seminole County. (A-1965-16)
23. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Amendment to County Attorney Employment Agreement for A. Bryant Applegate. (A-1946-16)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve and authorize the following:
24. Approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated March 7 and 14, 2016; Payroll Approval List dated March 10, 2016; and the BCC Official Minutes dated March 8, 2016. (A-1966-16)
25. Approve the expenditure of $1,400 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund for a contribution to SACSON, a faith-based supported community organization that provides referrals to services via an Information Card. (A-2000-16)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk’s “Received and Filed”:
1. Pet Rescue Cooperative Services Agreements with A Cause 4 Paws Rescue and Animal Advocates Florida, Inc.
2. Parks Contract for Services Agreements with Lyford Ferguson, Frank Curatolo, Joleen Mekarski, Kenneth Alston, and Manfred Schwartz.
3. Special Counsel Services Agreement with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.
4. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and sewer service with Harrison Realty & Development, Inc.
5. Bill of Sale accepting the water and sewer systems within the project known as Turnberry.
6. Partial Release of Mortgage and Warranty Deed for Clay E. Knight.
7. Maintenance Bond #58728440 for a private road for the project known as Aloma Trails in the amount of $80,563.70.
8. Maintenance Bond #58725889 for streets, curbs, and storm drains for the project known as Aloma Trails in the amount of $2,603.50.
9. Third Amendment to RFP-601328-11 with Lake Mary Veterinary Clinic.
10. First Amendment to IFB-602286-15 with Precision Power Services, Inc.
11. Amendment #2 to Work Order #1 to PS-0009-15 with Pegasus Engineering, Inc.
12. PS-0426-15 with Horizon Engineering Group, Inc. as approved by the BCC on January 12, 2016; A-1628-15.
13. Amendment #5 to Work Order #8 to PS-2051-07 with Environmental Research & Design, Inc.
14. Amendment #6 to Work Order #1 to PS-5738-10 with URS Corporation Southern.
15. Amendment #5 to M-6607-11 with The Triece Company.
16. Work Order #11 to PS-6658-11 with S2LI, Inc.
17. Work Order #45 to PS-8047-12 with Universal Engineering Sciences.
18. Work Order #46 to PS-8148-12 with Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.
19. Work Order #47 to PS-8148-12 with Keith & Schnars, P.A.
20. Work Order #31 to PS-8186-13 with CPH, Inc.
21. Work Order #59 to RFP-8312-12 with Chief Inspection Services.
22. Closeout to Work Order #7 to CC-9184-13 with CFE, Corp.
23. Work Order #21 to CC-9192-13 with Corinthian Builders, Inc.
24. Change Order #3 to CC-9859-14 with Gibbs & Register, Inc.
25. Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) Order in regard to an application for amendment of Certificate of Authorization No. 247-W, to extend water service area to include land in Seminole County, by Sanlando Utilities Corp.; Docket #01375-15; Order #PSC-16-0107-PAA-WU issued on March 15, 2016.
26. Audit Report No. 031516 from the Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller for Investigative Review of possible HIPAA violation by County Manager’s Office.
27. Approval Development Orders, as approved by the Board of Adjustment on March 25, 2002: #02-30000014, 920 Moton Ave., Selina Jackson; #02-30000015, 336 E. Orange St., Steven Garver; #02-30000018, Cass Ave. (Lot 5), Curtis and Janet Mann; #02-30000019, 1057 Cass Ave., Curtis and Janet Mann; #02-30000020, 970 Pine St., Curtis and Janet Mann; #02-30000021, 1731 Perch Ln., Joseph Hudson; #02-30000024, 2017 Linden Rd., Ava Tunstall; #02-30000026, 5690 Autumn Chase Cir., Larry and Nancy Houck; #02-30000027, 315 Needles Trl., Richard and Margaret Wyatt; #02-30000028, 2897 Egrets Landing Dr., Ann & Peter Petino; #02-30000029, 480 Lake Dr., Frank Salzmann; #02-30000032, 3058 Bluffton Cv., Santana Maria; #02-3000008, 1475 Retreat Rd., Robert Heckman; #02-31000009, 2520 Canvasback Trl., John and Gail Stoppelli; and #02-31000010, 785 Scooter Pt., Richard and Permelia Ehle.
28. Approval Development Orders, as approved by the Board of Adjustment: #15-30000096, 728 Silver Birch, Eric McDonald and Katherine Cacho; #15-30000098, 1920 Winnebago Trl., Gregory and Joy Leinenbach; and #15-30000003, 2336 Lake Howell Ln., Peter and Bonnie Berry.
29. Approval Development Order #16-30000011, 957 Red Fox Rd., Randall Britt.
30. Development Order #16-27500007, 306 Sunshine Express, T & M United II, LLC.
31. Denial Development Order #16-30000002, 7400 Betty Street, Andrew and Jena Cunningham.
32. Addendum #1 to the Tusc-Aloma (AKA Tuscaloma) PD, File No. PZ2015-049, Aloma Investments, LLC, Wendy’s Tusc-Aloma.
33. Addendum #1 to the Tusc-Aloma (AKA Tuscaloma) PD Developer’s Commitment Agreement #15-20500041, Aloma Investments, LLC.
34. Addendum #1 to the Bill Ray Nissan PD Developer’s Commitment Agreement #15-20500042, R&R Investments, LLC.
35. Addendum #1 to the East Red Bug PD (AKA Parkdale Place PD) Final Development Plan, Developer’s Commitment Agreement, East Red Bug Development, LLC.
Agenda Item #26 – A-1878-16
Tony Matthews, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the request for a Special Event Permit for the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra Concert. He reviewed the details as outlined in the agenda memorandum and advised that county staff recommends approval with the conditions contained in the special event permit package. He explained that the concert will be between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., with an estimated attendance of 2,000 to 2,500 guests. The applicant has secured a location for off-premise parking and also for off-duty sheriff’s deputies to provide security and traffic control.
David Schillhammer, Executive Director at the Orlando Philharmonic, addressed the Board to announce he was present for any questions regarding the event. Commissioner Carey noted it was a great event that the Board has supported for a number of years. Upon Commissioner Dallari’s inquiry, Mr. Schillhammer stated the event has taken place for 16 years.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to this item and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the Special Event Permit for the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra Concert at 400 Woodbridge Road, within the Springs Association recreation area, to be held May 7, 2016, with rain-out day on May 8, 2016; Carl Rendek, Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra, Inc., Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Agenda Item #27 – A-1846-16
Patt Hughes, Code Enforcement Project Manager, addressed the Board to present a request from Newbury REO 2013, LLC, owner, and Steven B. Greenfield, Esquire, Applicant, for a lien reduction for property located at 2607 Jennifer Hope Boulevard in Longwood. She explained that the applicant is requesting a reduction of a code enforcement lien totaling $13,250 to $3,500 for Case #14-51-CEB. Ms. Hughes expressed that on January 29, 2014, the Code Enforcement Officer observed the following violations located at 2607 Jennifer Hope Boulevard: the accumulation of trash and debris; uncultivated vegetation in excess of 24 inches in height within 75 feet of a structure; stagnant or foul water within a swimming pool; and a pool not enclosed with a barrier, in violation of Seminole County Code, Chapter 95, Section 95.4, as defined in 95.3 (g), (h), (n), and (o).
Ms. Hughes stated that on January 29, 2014, the previous owners Mark and Heather Welch were sent a notice regarding the violations and given a compliance date of February 12, 2014. Mr. Welch requested additional time to correct the violations and the Code Enforcement Officer granted the request until March 7, 2014. However, a warranty deed was issued on January 26, 2014, and recorded in the public records of Seminole County on February 17, 2014, transferring the ownership to Newbury REO 2013, LLC. Therefore, the existing case was closed and a new case was opened against Newbury REO 2013, LLC.
Ms. Hughes explained that on April 2, 2014, Newbury REO 2013, LLC was sent a notice on the violations and given until April 21, 2014, to correct the violations. A re-inspection was done on April 29, 2014, and found the violations remained on the property. She added that on May 27, 2014, a Statement of Violation and Request for Hearing was submitted to the County by the Code Enforcement Officer and a hearing was scheduled for July 24, 2014, before the Code Enforcement Board. On July 24, 2014, an order was entered by the Code Enforcement Board giving the respondent a compliance date of July 31, 2014, with a fine of $250 per day if the violations were not corrected. On August 7, 2014, an Affidavit of Non-Compliance was filed by the Code Enforcement Officer after re-inspection on August 1, 2014.
Ms. Hughes stated the property was brought into compliance in late September 2014, and Affidavits of Compliance were filed by the Code Enforcement Officer on September 25, 2014. The Code Enforcement Board issued an Order Finding Compliance and Imposing a Fine/Lien in the amount of $13,250 for a total of 53 days of non-compliance from August 1, 2014, through and including September 22, 2014. Ms. Hughes added that on September 30, 2014, a certified copy of the Affidavit of Compliance and a letter advising the respondent of the total amount of the lien ($13,250) was sent by first class mail to Newbury REO 2013, LLC. On February 11, 2016, Steven B. Greenfield, Esquire, submitted a request for a reduction of the $13,250 lien to $3,500 on behalf of the owner Newbury REO 2013, LLC.
Ms. Hughes informed the Board that staff recommends that the Board deny a reduction to the Code Enforcement Board lien from $13,250 to $3,500 or to any other amount for Case #14-51-CEB on the property located at 2607 Jennifer Hope Boulevard.
Commissioner Carey questioned whether or not the County secured the pool at the time the violation went out in January 2014, to which Ms. Hughes answered that an orange fence barrier was put up. Upon Commissioner Carey’s inquiry of the cost to send a contractor out to secure a pool, Ms. Hughes stated she is not sure of the process with the abatement. Commissioner Carey stated this is a situation where there are only five months of penalties against them, but it was nine months from the time they got noticed to the time they fixed the problem. She opined that the community needs to realize if you are going to be an investment buyer, you need to fix the problems right away so the rest of the community doesn’t have to endure those types of code violations.
Theresa Fulmer, Attorney for Newbury REO 2013, LLC, addressed the Board to state that the owner acquired the property subsequent to a foreclosure being filed, which was voluntarily dismissed. They accepted bids when they found out about the violations, and a bid was accepted in May of 2014. She explained that repairs started on the property in June of 2014. Newbury REO 2013, LLC was advised by the people they had working for them that all of the repairs were completed. When they found out that there was a problem with the screen enclosure, they contacted somebody to fix that problem; so the pool enclosure and fence were completed on August 31, 2014. Ms. Fulmer opined that Newbury REO 2013, LLC worked as diligently as they could, and they were not trying to ignore the rules and code violations. She believes it was their understanding, a mere five days after the violation on July 24, 2014, that everything was completed. She noted the property has been in compliance since September of 2014.
Ms. Fulmer expressed that Newbury REO 2013, LLC has spent $6,000 in landscaping along the driveway and side of the house and $2,200 on work on the pool including cleaning and replacement of the motor pump. They have spent a total of $8,200 to cure the violations. Ms. Fulmer stated that they are asking for a reduction in the violations.
Commissioner Carey asked if Newbury REO 2013, LLC got the property in January, why it took them until May to get bids. Ms. Fulmer answered she cannot include any more facts as to why it took that long. Chairman Horan stated that the letter issued from the Code Enforcement Board reflects that it is for 53 days of non-compliance from August 1, 2014, through and including September 22, 2014, which is calculated out to be $13,250; however, there is an Affidavit of Compliance filed by the Code Enforcement Officer indicating that the re-inspection was performed and the property was in compliance as of September 18, 2014. Ms. Hughes explained that the Affidavit of Compliance filed September 18, 2014, was for some of the violations and the one for the pool was not done until September 23, 2014. Chairman Horan clarified with Ms. Hughes that there was a re-inspection. Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Ms. Fulmer that there is no hardship, the applicant is just simply asking for a reduction.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to this item and public input was closed.
Commissioner Constantine stated one of the things the Board needs to look at is the amount of the lien in comparison to the value of the property. He pointed out that the assessed value is $383,308, so the lien is less than 3 1/2 percent of the value of the property. He noted he listened intently to hear some sort of hardship, and he did not hear any.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the request to deny a waiver to the Code Enforcement Board lien from $13,250 to $3,500, or to any other amount, for Case #14-51-CEB, on the property located at 2607 Jennifer Hope Blvd., Longwood, Tax Parcel #05-21-29-5EL-0000-0670, owned by Newbury REO 2013, LLC; Steven B. Greenfield, Esquire, Applicant.
Chairman Horan stated with regard to reviewing the facts, there was an unsecured pool for 114 days, which is a public safety issue; so without some kind of material evidence to the extent as to why the pool was not secured, he believes the lien amount is reasonable.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS
Agenda Item #28 – A-1943-16
The Board noted, for information only, the Informational Budget Transfer Status Report for Fiscal Year 2015/16 (February 2016).
The Board recessed the meeting at 10:03 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Kyla Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer, who were present at the Opening Session.
PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL
Special Exception for Communication Tower in
Sweetwater Oaks PD/Allison Yurko, Appellant
Agenda Item #30 – A-1869-16
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a request to appeal the Board of Adjustment’s decision to approve a Special Exception for a Communication Tower in the Planned Development district for property located on the north side of Wekiva Springs Road, approximately 280 feet east of Miami Springs Road/North Hunt Club Boulevard, Allison Yurko, Applicant, received and filed.
Kara Siple, Court Reporter with Orange Reporting, was present (business card was received and filed).
Kathy Hammel, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board to state there is no presentation today because it is her understanding that there will be a request to continue the item.
Lauralee Westine, on behalf of Florida Tower Partners, addressed the Board to state they had an approval at the Board of Adjustment and the Homeowners Association closest to them appealed the approval. Ms. Westine explained that there was a meeting last week with Commissioner Constantine to get everyone in a room and talk things through. They were able to agree on a “build box” or a general location of where the tower can be shifted to where it makes the HOA happy and her clients are willing to do it and the church is willing to do it as well. She stated they do not have any objection to the 60-day continuance; but with the continuance, they would request the waiver of Section 30.46 which would allow them to put in a second application while the appeal is pending. She added that they are grateful to Commissioner Constantine for pulling all of the parties together into one room and opening up the dialogue again.
Allison Yurko, attorney on behalf of the Sweetwater Springs Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to thank Commissioner Constantine for having the meeting last week. Ms. Yurko stated they have agreed on the parameters of a “build box.” She began to read into the record what the parameters were and was interrupted by Chairman Horan who advised that all the Board is dealing with is the continuance. He questioned if Ms. Yurko agreed that she would like to have a continuance of the matter. She responded that there is some language for the motion and she would like it if the motion could incorporate the parameters and believes it would be good for everyone.
Commissioner Dallari raised a point of order and Bryant Applegate, County Attorney, stated that all that is before the Board is a motion to continue and he does not want to get into specifics about locations or any other matter because if the continuance is granted, this will go back to the Board of Adjustment and be set for another hearing. Commissioner Carey pointed out that it might possibly go back to staff. Mr. Applegate agreed.
Ms. Yurko stated the only reason she would want it read is on the off chance that it does not come back for a public hearing, there is at least one forum where they have the language. Mr. Applegate stated his understanding is that both parties, including Ms. Yurko, have agreed to the wording of the continuance. Ms. Yurko stated that there was at least one group that was not at the meeting last week and she is suggesting this in an abundance of caution so it is on the record.
Commissioner Dallari stated that he has only met with two residents that were part of the Homeowners Association. He has not met with any attorney and was not a part of the meeting that was held.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that all they are dealing with here right now is the continuance. She stated this would not typically come to the Board and the only reason it is here is because of the appeal. Conditions and other matters are really to be settled outside of the Board as she understands it. She stated she has met with the attorney and some of the residents but she has not met with the Appellant who originally applied for the permit.
Mr. Applegate stated if the plan of the two parties is to continue this matter to either allow time to negotiate a final settlement approved by staff or if needed, go back to the BOA for a public hearing, he would strongly recommend the motion be based on the continuance and not get into any of the merits of the case.
Ms. Yurko stated she is fine with that and thanked Commissioner Constantine and staff. She looks forward to getting this resolved and believes they are “pretty much” there.
Joe Scarpa, 3427 Peace Valley Way, addressed the Board to state he is closer to the cell tower than the HOA but he is not a part of the HOA. Mr. Scarpa stated he has been notified twice of this hearing. He went the first time and it was continued. He is now coming the second time and it is being continued. He stressed that if there are going to be discussions amongst the parties, he is more than happy to attach himself to that appeal so he can be a part of those discussions as well.
Chairman Horan reiterated that the only issue in front of the Board right now is whether or not they are going to grant a continuance of the hearing.
Mr. Scarpa stated he has no objections to the continuance, but he wants to know why it has been continued twice. He noted that discussions have occurred and he has received notices from the County saying to come here today, but he has not been a part of any settlement discussions. Chairman Horan questioned if it is correct that even if this is settled, there will be another public hearing; Mr. Applegate stated there might not be another public hearing. Chairman Horan pointed out there will still be a public record and suggested that if Mr. Scarpa wants to be part of the settlement discussions, he should engage the primary parties who are involved and the staff to keep abreast of what the resolutions are.
Mr. Applegate stated other people had the right to appeal the hearing as well. Chairman Horan explained that the parties are the Appellant and the Applicant. Mr. Scarpa reiterated his original question, how does he attach himself as an Appellant.
Commissioner Carey stated in layman's terms, this matter went to the Board of Adjustment and was heard, both sides, and was approved by the BOA. It was then appealed by Ms. Yurko on behalf of the Homeowners Association. She suggested Mr. Scarpa give his name and telephone number to Ms. Yurko and Ms. Westine, the attorneys sitting behind him, because they are the ones that will be talking about this settlement.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.
A Speaker Request Form and a Written Comment Form were received and filed.
Commissioner Constantine explained that earlier he called the Applicant and the Appellant and asked them to sit down to talk one more time since they had worked on this since 2013. He thanked Ms. Evelev and Ms. Thornton from the Homeowners Association and Ms. Yurko and Ms. Westine and Mr. Reinhold from the church for their hard work. He noted they spent 2.5 hours working on language and both Ms. Yurko and Ms. Westine have agreed to the language and he expects they will comply with that language.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, that the appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s decision of the Sweetwater Cell Tower, File A-1869-16, be continued to the June 28, 2016 Board of County Commissioner meeting at 1:30 p.m. The purpose of the continuance is to provide additional time to the Appellant (Sweetwater Springs HOA) and the Applicant (Florida Tower Partners, LLC) to 1) provide sufficient documentation to County staff to analyze the location of the cell tower on the property located at 3800 Wekiva Springs Road for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code; and 2) submit a new application for either the alternative location to be considered by the Board of Adjustment appeals or for a camouflage tower to be considered by the Planning Manager. Commissioner Constantine further moved that a waiver to LDC Section 30.46 be granted to enable the Applicant to file the new application within 12 months of the original application, and in the event a new application is not provided to the County and approved prior to June 28, 2016, the Board shall hold the continuation of the appeal hearing on that date, June 28, 2016.
Under discussion, Commissioner Dallari stated that in the motion it talked about location and it talked about the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned how that applies to the continuance. Mr. Applegate responded that the main purpose of the continuance is to allow staff time to determine whether or not what the parties agreed to complies with all of the County's requirements. Commissioner Dallari pointed out that depending on what has changed, it may have to go back to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Applegate advised that determination will be made by staff. Commissioner Dallari stated he wanted to ensure that everyone is aware of that.
Commissioner Carey clarified if they decide to go with the camouflage tower, it will not go back to the Board of Adjustment because the BOA has already approved it as it was submitted. Mr. Applegate stated there are two options. If it is a camouflage tower, it goes back to staff. If there is a major change, it will go back to the BOA. With regard to the definition of a camouflage tower, Ms. Guillet advised it is defined in the Land Development Code. Commissioner Dallari noted that other residents still have the right to review this.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL
303 Brantley Harbor Drive/Kevin Tippett, Appellant
Agenda Item #29 – PH-2016-285
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a request to appeal the Board of Adjustment’s decision to deny a side yard (west) setback variance from ten feet to zero feet for a boathouse in the R‑1AA (Single Family Dwelling) district, and more particularly known as 303 Brantley Harbor Drive, Sheila Cichra, Streamline Permitting, Inc., Appellant representing Kevin Tippett, Owner, received and filed.
Denny Gibbs, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. Ms. Gibbs displayed the Proposed Boathouse and Previous Dock Approved with Variance illustration (copy received and filed) and gave a brief background of the property. She pointed out that in 2006 the BCC overturned a similar variance where the Board of Adjustment (BOA) denied a zero setback for a dock on the same property line that is being discussed today. The dock that was approved at that time was 18.5 feet in length and the boathouse that is the subject of this appeal is 24 feet in length.
Ms. Gibbs explained that at the 2016 BOA hearing for the boathouse, Mr. O'Grady, the most affected neighbor, spoke in favor of the Tippetts' variance request. She explained that the subject boathouse will be constructed immediately adjacent to Mr. O'Grady's boathouse and will be the same length. Ms. Gibbs reported that speaking in opposition at that BOA hearing was Jim Shepherd, who represents Mr. and Mrs. Smith who live to the west of the Tippett property. He spoke about potential impacts to the Smiths' property. There were also discussions at the Board hearing regarding ownership of the canal. Ms. Gibbs advised that Mr. Solitro is record owner of the canal and he submitted a letter of no objection to the variance request.
Ms. Gibbs displayed an aerial photo of the homes on the canal (page 549 in the Agenda Memorandum) and discussed three side yard setbacks that have been granted. She advised that based on the information, findings and conclusions included and referenced in the Agenda Memo prepared in association with the original action taken by the BOA on January 25, 2016, and the testimony presented at that meeting (the minutes are attached as Exhibit C), staff is recommending that the Board uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustment to deny the variance.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Gibbs clarified that because of the way a dock is situated on the property, they only have a side setback.
Sheila Cichra, Steamline Permitting, addressed the Board to state she is representing the Tippetts, the property owners. Ms. Cichra indicated that all they were applying for was a variance for the side setback. The only truly affected property owners are the O’Gradys and what is being proposed is a mirror image of what Mr. O’Grady has. She explained that even though the boathouse is 32 feet, most of that is up on shore. The slip itself is 22 feet deep and starts right off the edge of the seawall. Ms. Cichra added that when the proposed boathouse is built, it would only be a few feet away from the Smiths’ seawall but it would be at least 14 feet away from their actual property line because their seawall was extended artificially out into the canal over 10 feet.
At Commissioner Dallari’s request, Ms. Cichra indicated the seawall on the aerial photo. Commissioner Dallari asked who owns the seawall; and Ms. Cichra stated that it is on Mr. Solitro’s property but it was permitted, built, and “finaled out” and is there and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Commissioner Dallari questioned how the seawall could be in conflict if it is not on their property. Ms. Cichra stated it is definitely not on their property but is on Mr. Solitro’s property and she believes that is a civil issue. Commissioner Carey confirmed that the side yard setback is not from the Smiths’ property but is from the O’Gradys’ property.
Ms. Cichra stated the Smiths are claiming that the construction of the boathouse would hurt their view but she contends she would rather look at a boat hanging in a nice boathouse with a cover than look at a boat sitting in the water with trash floating around. She emphasized that it is definitely going to look better in that corner once it is built. She referred to a picture (page 520 in the Agenda Memorandum) and stated that what they are looking at right now is the big side wall of Mr. O’Grady’s fence and the end of the canal which gets a lot of settling trash and weeds. Ms. Cichra explained that the boat can be there anyway; the boat can be parked in the water and will be in the same position that a boathouse would, just hanging and covered and cared for.
Ms. Cichra stated the variance for the zero side setback has actually already been granted so the Tippetts could rebuild a dock like the one that was there before in the same footprint that was approved before and that would be closer to the Smiths’ property than what is being proposed. The slip that was originally approved was shorter but they took the dock away and relocated the seawall and dredged back into the property to make a functional-sized slip. That was done before the Tippetts took over the property. Ms. Cichra explained that now that the seawall is a little further back, the boat slip can slide a little bit further back, terminate at the same point that the O’Gradys’ boathouse does and it would not obstruct the canal any further.
With regard to the argument that the boathouse would obstruct the Smiths’ access, Ms. Cichra indicated on the Previous Dock Approved with Variance illustration where there is a kayak tied up along the wall and pointed out that the kayak was only placed there after the variance was applied for. She stated the Tippetts are not blocking access to anything and in fact the Smiths are blocking the Tippetts’ access because there is a lot of stuff at the end of the canal. Ms. Cichra explained how the Tippetts’ proposed boathouse is not an oversized structure.
Patrick O’Grady, 301 Brantley Harbor Drive, addressed the Board to state he owns the property just to the south of the Tippetts. Mr. O’Grady stated his property is really the only one that has any impact from this requested variance and he is fully in support of the variance and allowing the Tippetts to build their proposed boathouse. He explained that the proposed boathouse is virtually a mirror image of what he has and it will allow the Tippetts to care for their boat and have access to the canal and then the lake. The boathouse will not interfere with the navigability of the waterway and will not impact the Smiths.
Mr. O’Grady stated that the items like the Sea-Doo lift and the kayaks that were recently placed there were put there to create difficulty for the rest of the neighbors from using the canal. He indicated that the Smiths do not own a Sea-Doo and he does not believe they have paddles for the kayaks; the items were put there to make it appear that there is a potential for damaging the Smiths’ access to the lake. Mr. O’Grady urged the Board to support and allow the Tippetts to build their boathouse, allow them to access the canal and lake, and take care of their boat just like all of the other homeowners on the canal.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Horan as to whether Mr. O’Grady was the owner of the property when the BCC granted the variance, Mr. O’Grady stated he was not the owner when his boathouse was built and noted that he has been there about ten years. Ms. Gibbs stated she believes it was in 1999. When asked by Chairman Horan if there are any particular facts, conditions, or circumstances concerning his property that are different than the Tippetts, Mr. O’Grady stated that he is not aware of any. Chairman Horan questioned if Mr. O’Grady knows when the filling of the canal occurred on the Smith property that filled out to the seawall and Mr. O’Grady stated he does not. Ms. Gibbs stated it was about 1986.
James Tawn Vigie, 100 Cherry Hill Circle, addressed the Board to state his property is located on the south side directly across the canal from the Smiths and next to the O’Gradys. Mr. Vigie stated he is in support of the boathouse as it was proposed to him. He pointed out that he works from home; and for six to eight hours a day, he looks out the window at that corner and feels like he is qualified to answer any questions. The County plotted the properties to be a mirror image. Mr. O’Grady has about 25 feet of waterfront and so do the Tippetts. Mr. Vigie stated when he heard what the Tippetts were building, a mirror image of Mr. O’Grady’s boathouse, it seemed like the best option for everyone. What has been done previously is far worse than what is being proposed. He worries that the Smiths are not considering the alternatives (which are legal and can be done tomorrow) which are a floating dock or there could be two boats.
Mr. Vigie stated the opposition letter that he read appears to approve the O’Gradys’ dock and object to the Tippetts’ dock because it is not similar to the O’Gradys’ but it appears to extend the same distance out into the canal. He pointed out that the one difference between the south end and the north end of the canal is that the property line and seawall in no way, shape or form mimic each other. He stated the Board will hear that Mr. Tippett is being unreasonable and obstructing but the most obstructive property on the canal is the Smiths’. Mr. Vigie explained that the Smiths have extended into the canal as much as 11 feet and that from the property line to the seawall is 11 feet. The Smiths’ wall is supposed to be the shape of his but it is not. He concluded by stating this seems to be a reasonable and fair request and similar to everything else that has been granted.
James Shepherd, attorney on behalf of Terry and Diane Smith, addressed the Board to state the Smiths’ property is the property to the east of the Tippetts. Mr. Shepherd stated that his clients have not extended the property line and that the property line was in existence when they bought the house back in 1984, over 30 years ago. He displayed Exhibit E in his packet of information (copy received and filed), which is a copy of the survey that the Smiths received shortly before purchasing their property, and describes how the Smiths bought the property with the seawall already constructed. Mr. Shepherd pointed out that several years later, the Smiths got a permit to build a boathouse and to refurbish the seawall. He referred to the survey being displayed and indicated a portion of the property that was excavated out by the prior owners of the property so they could build a seawall. He reiterated that the Smiths have not done anything to unnaturally extend their shoreline. He added that Mr. O'Grady bought his house with an existing boathouse.
Mr. Shepherd stated the reason this matter is different is because of the way the lots were platted. He displayed the aerial photo and indicated the property line for the neighbor next door to the O'Gradys' boathouse. He noted the boathouse doesn't really impact the neighbor's use of his shoreline. He then indicated the property line for the Smiths and explained how a boathouse put in the proposed location would impact part of the Smiths' shoreline. Mr. Shepherd stressed that is why the Smiths are objecting to the building of the boathouse that exceeds beyond the Applicants' property line. He referred to the aerial photo and indicated the Tippetts' property line and advised the Smiths do not object if the boathouse is backed up further into the yard because then that doesn't impact their use of the shoreline.
Mr. Shepherd discussed the 2006 Board of Adjustment decision and stated that decision dealt with a dock; and more importantly, the Applicant at the time had bought the property with an existing dock already on it. He referred to Exhibit D in the Agenda Memorandum, which are the 2006 BCC minutes, and stated the Applicant clearly advised Commissioner Morris that this would be a dock, not a boathouse. That was his concern at the time, that it would stay a dock. He referred to Exhibit E of the Agenda Memorandum, Decision on Appeal, and stated they reference the fact that the Applicant had purchased the property with the existing boat dock so they allowed a boat dock. The drawing that is attached to Exhibit E clearly states "existing dock to be re‑decked," not to build a boathouse. He believes this is different because the boathouse is a structure and will impede more of the view than a dock would.
Mr. Shepherd stated their position is that this is not a mirror image. The next door neighbor, Mr. O'Grady, had to excavate back into his property to make sure the boathouse that was built did not unduly impact his neighbor and the same thing should be required by Mr. Smith. Mr. Shepherd referred to the letter from Mr. Solitro, where they claim Mr. Solitro approved or had no objection to the variance, and advised that is not what the letter says. It says he has no objection to the variance but he does object to a boathouse being built on his property and that is what the Applicant proposes to do.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that the letter objected to all of these boathouses that have been built on his property. Chairman Horan stated they do understand that the "punitive owner" of the canal has stated some kind of an objection to all of these various structures that have been built in the canal and the Board understands that may be the subject of either proposed or pending litigation. Mr. Shepherd stated there may have been some threats of litigation but he is not aware of any pending litigation. He stated his clients, back when they built their boathouse, did get approval from whoever owned the canal. Chairman Horan pointed out the crystalline issue in front of the Board is whether the variance should be granted to the side yard setback.
In rebuttal, Ms. Cichra stated she knows that the Smiths did not artificially change the shoreline of their property; but the fact remains that it is there. If the Smiths’ property was sea-walled at their property line, it would 13 feet to 14 feet away from the boathouse and there would be no obstruction. Chairman Horan stated that what is obvious to everyone looking at this is that the benefit of that particular fill is to the benefit of the Smiths' property and probably not to the benefit of anybody else's.
Ms. Cichra stated if the Tippetts cannot build a boathouse, they have by every right the ability to rebuild the dock and deck that were there, which will cover most of that open area. She pointed out that with regard to the slip, the Tippetts did excavate back as far as the O'Gradys; so that has been done. They have excavated back in so the slip can sit back in that area.
At Commissioner Carey's request, the Proposed Boathouse illustration was displayed. She questioned what the distance was from the pylon to the corner. Ms. Cichra stated they have a new survey but it is still just a scale, so she estimated it would be three feet from the pylon to the edge of the seawall. She advised if the Tippetts rebuild what was there before and "deck" in the whole area, it will trap trash underneath the deck. Having a boathouse there gives the area some movement and keeps it from becoming completely stagnated and allows them to clean it up and take the weeds and trash out.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Forms and a Written Request Form were received and filed.
Commissioner Carey noted that the variance is not from the Smiths but is from the other side. The most impacted person is Mr. O'Grady. She stated this is at the end of a canal and is a mirror image of what Mr. O'Grady is doing. She doesn't see how it really impacts the Smiths although she understands they don't like it. Commissioner Carey pointed out that if the seawall was actually built on the Smiths' property line, there would be plenty of room and they wouldn't be having this discussion. She believes the Smiths got the benefit of having this seawall built there, whenever it was built; and now Mr. Tippett is having the issue of trying to deal with a very unique shaped piece of property at the end of the canal. She believes that is the hardship for Mr. Tippett, trying to deal with that.
At Chairman Horan's request, Ms. Gibbs pointed out the Smiths' boathouse on the aerial photo. Commissioner Carey noted that the Smiths' property was not excavated back to get to their property line, which would have left the canal more open. She remarked that this is another example of where a developer replatted lots without coming through the process and they end up with odd shapes. In looking at the survey, between Lots 24 and 25, which would be the Smiths and the Tippetts, there is an overlap in the remnants of the lots that are all over the place of the original plat. There are a lot of platting issues.
Chairman Horan agreed that Commissioner Carey is raising a good point. He stated in terms of the legal requirements for this, one of the things that you look at is the special conditions and circumstances which exist which are peculiar or particular to the land that they are dealing with. What they are dealing with here is a historical confluence of a number of different things; replatting of property, a seawall being built into the canal beyond the property line, and a number of different things which he believes would augur in favor of the granting of the variance especially in light of the fact that the variance only affects the side yard that is contiguous to Mr. O'Grady and is not a variance that affects the property of the Smiths in this situation. He added that he does not mean to suggest that the Smiths do not have standing to raise the issue; he is saying that it seems to him that the material fact here is that the variance is granted contiguous to the property that is not objecting to the variance. Commissioner Carey stated she believes that is what creates the hardship and reiterated that if the seawall was built on the property line, there wouldn't be a hardship. If the plats hadn't been replatted without a legal process, there wouldn't be a hardship. She believes there have been a lot of things that have happened that have left this in an odd situation.
Chairman Horan stated one of the legal requirements is that the conditions that exist were not the results of the actions of the Applicant. He added in fact, the conditions were not the result of any of the complainants in this particular situation but are the result of the people who actually owned the Smiths' property before.
Commissioner Constantine stated he hears the dialogue between Commissioner Carey and Chairman Horan and pointed out that he could argue either case. Since this is in his district, he advised he looked at the Board of Adjustment and the appeal. He stated he believes the BOA hearing lasted about two to two and a half hours. Today, they have heard from three different homeowners although there were a number of homeowners who were opposed to this. Commissioner Constantine stated the Tippetts have the ability to build an 18.5‑foot dock as opposed to a 24‑foot boathouse. He advised that being that this is very close and that the Board of Adjustment spent more time than the BCC has, he is inclined to uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision and deny the request.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine to uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision, thereby denying the request for a side yard (west) setback variance from ten feet to zero feet for a boathouse in the R‑1AA (Single Family Dwelling) district, and more particularly known as 303 Brantley Harbor Drive. Chairman Horan called for a second to the motion, without response, whereupon the motion died for lack of same.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Chairman Horan, to overturn the Board of Adjustment’s decision, thereby granting the request for a side yard (west) setback variance from ten feet to zero feet for a boathouse in the R‑1AA (Single Family Dwelling) district, and more particularly known as 303 Brantley Harbor Drive, as described in the proof of publication; Sheila Cichra, Streamline Permitting, Inc., Appellant representing Kevin Tippett, Owner; Approval Development Order.
Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Constantine voted NAY.
DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Commissioner Dallari stated he believes they all received an email (copy not received and filed) from Mr. Richard Nunis referencing a public/private partnership. He explained that the Board has talked about this in the past but unfortunately the price points were over $1,000 per pound for cleanup of the Lake Jesup area through Aquafiber. Now they are saying it is less than $100 a pound for nutrient removal. Commissioner Dallari requested that staff research that and get back to the Board.
Ms. Guillet stated since receiving the email, staff has reached out to Aquafiber to try and understand what they were looking for and try to determine what sort of action is needed. Commissioner Dallari stated he is not soliciting or approving anything; he just wants to know what is going on. He asked when Ms. Guillet believes the Board will hear something. Ms. Guillet stated she will get back with the Commissioners this week.
Commissioner Constantine stated there is an alternative that he believes they have discussed before. Lake Jesup is so daunting that they could sit there for 40 years and take out muck, phosphate and nitrates and nobody would see a whole lot of difference. He stated while he does not comprehend this type of science, he does understand that Mr. Nunis and Aquafiber feel that they have a product that works and they want to showcase that product.
Commissioner Constantine discussed a similar project in the 80s when Altamonte Springs was trying to sell the Apricot Project. He wondered if they have collectively, as a County, reached out to Aquafiber and asked what they would do as far as a demonstration project in some of the smaller lakes to see that it works. Ms. Guillet stated Aquafiber has a mobile unit that the County has talked to them about using in some instances. She pointed out that the County's watershed management folks have had numerous conversations with them about different options and different opportunities. She is not sure where they are going with the latest proposal but she will provide more information. Commissioner Constantine stated he would like to see that proposed.
Commissioner Carey noted that Aquafiber actually had a demonstration project on the shores of Lake Jesup. She suggested that if it is still operating, Commissioner Constantine ought to go take a look at it because it is clear water coming out. Commissioner Carey agreed that Lake Jesup is possibly one of those lakes that unless someone goes in and dredges it, which is not going to happen, and does some significant things to it, there is not enough time in a lifetime to clear it up.
Commissioner Constantine stated he is looking more at a question of marketing and public relations. He remarked if you take that to a small lake in the backyard of citizens that live there and see the physical results as opposed to a small portion of Lake Jesup, he believes you would have more of a ground swell of people that want to use it and try it and be part of it. They have had discussions and he knows there are some test lakes that would work in Seminole County, and he just wants the County to pursue that opportunity potentially and see if they can get some people to see the results in their backyards.
Commissioner Dallari suggested they have staff research the issue and bring it back to the Board. With the TMDL requirements, if they can get the price point as low as possible, it may be something the County is interested in just for additional information. He stressed that he is only looking for additional information. Chairman Horan stated he believes that is an excellent suggestion. He does not believe anyone ever contended that the process didn't work. Everyone saw the demonstration project on Lake Jesup, and the problem was the cost and price point and the credits. He stated that as far as this technology is concerned and having somebody from the private sector that wants to be a willing partner, let's lend them a helping hand and look at their technology just like they would look at the technology of anybody else to see if there are applications within the County, either in the public or private sector, to do it.
Commissioner Dallari referred to an April 11, 2016, memo (copy received and filed) from Tony Matthews which talks about the crossing or potential crossing of the Econlockhatchee (Econ) River from a development south of the county, Lake Pickett North, in Orange County. He stated he would like to talk about that today and ensure that everyone is still opposed to that. He explained that when Commissioner Carey was the chairman, she sent a couple of letters to the mayor of Orange County and he believes Chairman Horan has as well. There are some questions out there about how that project can move forward. Commissioner Dallari emphasized that he is totally opposed to crossing the river and would like to have that stated. He thinks they need to send another letter and send a copy to the St. Johns, DEP, Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County, State of Florida, and even the City of Oviedo. He stated he has heard some mixed dialogue from them and he wants to make sure they are on the same page as the Board and would like to have the County Manager reach out to the City Manager of Oviedo to ensure they understand all of the issues and what the County's standpoint is as has been articulated in the past. Discussion ensued with regard to previous letters.
Commissioner Carey advised that the discussion has been going on for many years about the Econ. She knows that the Board talked about it in a meeting and asked that MetroPlan look at these developments and talk about what the impacts are on Seminole County. She pointed out that Commissioner Dallari has asked, as well, that they look at McCulloch Road for improvements to McCulloch Road that could relieve this. Commissioner Dallari clarified that he did not say McCulloch Road but rather said that region, not specifically McCulloch Road.
Commissioner Carey advised that she would like to understand what that whole area looks like and how they are going to deal with the traffic, which is what they asked Mr. Barley to look at. Chairman Horan requested that Ms. Guillet describe what discussions are taking place with regard to MetroPlan on that.
Ms. Guillet advised that the Board should have gotten an updated memo yesterday. She explained that staff is monitoring the activity relative to development in that area pretty closely and they have been trying to provide the Board with the most updated information as they receive it. Ms. Guillet stated a year ago the Board requested that MetroPlan take a look at this issue because there are extra jurisdiction impacts with respect to transportation improvements in Orange County, especially in this area. She advised that she met with Mr. Barley about a month ago and he informed them that Orange County is undertaking a larger transportation study in this area and it was Mr. Barley's understanding that they would have a technical committee in which Seminole County would be invited to participate. She stated they talked about MetroPlan's potential role in that overall study.
Ms. Guillet advised that if Orange County is doing a study, it does not make sense for MetroPlan to do a study as well. They are talking with MetroPlan about how they might be engaged in a different way possibly dealing with some of the extra jurisdictional impacts of any improvements in that area of Orange County not only affecting Seminole County but perhaps affecting Brevard County. Ms. Guillet emphasized they are trying to get their hands wrapped around what is happening. She knows Orange County is looking at dealing with these transportation issues and reviewing them very seriously. They are providing the County with information as requested and the County will continue to coordinate with Orange County. There are some policies in Seminole County’s comprehensive plan and in Orange County's comprehensive plan relative to crossings of the Econ that will have to be addressed for any activity that might involve a crossing. There are some mechanisms in place that address this within Orange County's own regulations. She stated they will continue working with Orange County and working with MetroPlan; and as they have more information and a more solid plan, they will bring that information forward. Ms. Guillet explained that she believes the best that the County can do at this point is reiterate their concerns and just remind Orange County that they are concerned and also coordinate with some of the other affected entities such as the City of Oviedo. Discussion ensued with regard to the City of Oviedo's vote to support the crossing of the Econ.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet stated the County restrains the crossing of the Econ by policy and added that Orange County also does. Commissioner Carey confirmed that unless the policy is changed, there will not be a crossing of the Econ in Seminole County. She expounded that unless the majority of the Board thinks that it is a good idea to change the policy, they will not be crossing the Econ into Seminole County. Chairman Horan pointed out that it is in the comp plan. Commissioner Dallari stated that for the record, it is also in the City of Oviedo's comp plan. Chairman Horan stated he thinks the City of Oviedo may want to nuisance its prior proclamation.
Commissioner Constantine stated the fact of the matter is they are ignoring the fact of momentum here. The momentum has been building on and on in Orange County to not only cross the Econ but build right up against Seminole County's borders which is clearly in opposition of where they see Chuluota and that area of Seminole County with the Rural Boundary and everything else. He stated he understands that staff sent a letter and did this and that; but continually, it seems that Seminole County is being ignored. He does not see changes. In fact, he sees more and more aggression coming from Orange County to do this. He pointed out that Seminole County's citizens are there all of the time trying to put in their "two-cents worth" to say this is not what we want.
Commissioner Constantine stated they have to make a strong stand. He emphasized that continuing to send letters and staff going there is like looking in with their noses up against the window pane but not being listened to. He stated this is not against Seminole County staff but is what he sees to be momentum building slowing but surely over the course of time that will allow this project and then use that as an excuse to allow the crossing of the Econ. He stressed that they, as a Commission, need to protect their citizens and take a strong stance on this.
Chairman Horan stated that again the issue is whether the Board should send a letter reiterating their position.
Commissioner Dallari stated the reason he is bringing this up is because on April 14, this project goes to the P&Z in Orange County. He wants to make sure they not just have standing in the past, since this is a new application, but that they have staff there to defend their standpoint and to articulate it into the record so Orange County understands where Seminole County is.
Tony Matthews, Development Services, addressed the Board to clarify that the Orange County’s P&Z meeting is on April 21, next Thursday. Ms. Guillet added that there is a community meeting tomorrow, April 13.
Commissioner Carey reminded everyone that the Board has sent a strong message and not just by sending their staff. She pointed out that she, along with the County Manager, met with Mayor Jacobs and with Orange County's Manager and staff and then detailed those discussions. Commissioner Carey stated the best way to put it on the record from Seminole County's perspective is to rewrite that letter and have it read into the record on behalf of the Seminole County Commission at their P&Z meeting. She does not believe the facts have changed and the Commission is still opposed to them coming right up to Rural Boundary. She wants to have transition and discussed that transition. It was laid out for Orange County in that meeting and with the letter that was read into the record. She stated it isn't like they have had "their nose up against the glass." They are pushing it as far as they can because the Board only has authority here in this County, and all they can do is try to appeal to their colleagues in Orange County.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that the responses from some of those in Orange County have been pretty ugly, especially the district commissioner. She explained that while the Board can ask Orange County to work with them, that is all the Board can do at this point. She believes they get a lot more done by trying to work with them rather than telling them “this is what you will do.” She noted they can all reach out to their colleagues on the Orange County Commission because she believes that has more impact than just trying to reach out to one district commissioner.
Commissioner Constantine advised that as they continue to ask them to look out for us and ask them to do this and ask them to do that, they continue to move forward with what they are proposing. He agreed with Commissioner Carey in that they have gotten some ugly responses, especially from the district commissioner. The fact of the matter is that the citizens of Seminole County as well as many of the citizens of Orange County are very concerned about that development, and Seminole County has not asked for a joint planning agreement before anything moves forward. Commissioner Carey advised that is not correct. Chairman Horan stated for decades, Seminole County has tried to pursue an agreement. He stated he has mentioned it to representatives of Orange County, including the district commissioner, dozens of times. Commissioner Constantine pointed out they should continue to do it.
Chairman Horan suggested that they not just reiterate the fact that it is policy and drafted into the County's comprehensive plan that they not cross the Econ in Seminole County but also add to it that the time and momentum at this particular time is ripe for serious addressing from a regional planning point of view all of those transportation issues. He does not know why there is a problem moving on what is known as the Crotty Expressway. He presumes Orange County is going to seriously take a look at the East/West Corridor. Chairman Horan stated if the Board does not mind, he would like the letter not to just be a strong reiteration of that policy but also a further invitation for them to seriously engage with the Board to address these mobility/connectivity issues so that they can ameliorate the County's policies and their particular interests because so many of the interests of the people in Orange County, especially in the eastern part of the county, are consistent with the interests of the people in the eastern part of Seminole County.
Commissioner Dallari agreed that they should not only repeat what they have said but with a stronger message and bring up the two other facts, the Richard Crotty Parkway as well as the comp plan issues and the policy issues. He added that more importantly, the bridge over the Econ would devastate not only Seminole County's part of the county but Orange County's part as well.
Commissioner Dallari thinks it is important that they also have been asking for the past year for a joint planning session. Commissioner Carey stated they have officially asked for a joint planning agreement and what they got was a consideration for looking at the comp plans and the land plans and aligning those for protection.
Chairman Horan stated he will send a draft of the letter to each of the Commissioners. Commissioner Dallari advised this should all be read into the minutes at the P&Z meeting on the 21st and there should be a staff member there to read it.
Commissioner Dallari stated they have all signed on the dotted line regarding "How Shall We Grow" and this project is in direct conflict with that. Commissioner Carey pointed out that Seminole County is the only one that adopted any comprehensive plan to affect that. Commissioner Henley stated there was a committee set up in order to work jointly on that continuous green area. He doesn't know whether the committee is functioning or not. Commissioner Carey stated she does not think anybody did anything with "How Shall We Grow" except this County Commission.
Commissioner Dallari reiterated he would like the letter sent to both St. Johns and DEP. He added that they have been working to try and get a joint planning agreement with Orange County for the past year. Chairman Horan stated he thinks the time has come for them to seriously address not just transportation and the environment but all of the other issues like stormwater.
Commissioner Dallari acknowledged that they have all talked about transit in Seminole County, and in one of the work sessions they talked about the "last mile" and getting people to and from the SunRail station. He stated he would like to ask the County Manager to reach out not just to MetroPlan but to the cities that have one of these SunRail stations to talk about how they can partner with either Mears or an organization like Mears to offset some of the costs using District Directed Revenue (DDR) funds, which can only be used for premier transit service. Commissioner Dallari requested that the County Manager reach out to MetroPlan to see what the next step could be as well as LYNX and maybe Mears as well to see how that can be moved forward with the cities that are affected. No objections were voiced. Discussion ensued with regard to DDR funds.
Commissioner Constantine announced that he will be attending a meeting tonight regarding the rest area along I‑4 at 6:00 p.m. at the Neighborhood Alliance Church on Markham Woods Road. Commissioner Dallari will also be attending. Commissioner Constantine reported that the Altamonte Springs Women's Club had their 70th Anniversary on April 6 and the County's Proclamation was well received.
Commissioner Henley announced that beginning tomorrow the LYNX board will begin interviewing the five finalists for the CEO job. He added that they have some outstanding candidates and he believes they will probably have it nailed down by Thursday.
Commissioner Carey advised that she received a call from Diane Scaccetti, the CEO and Executive Director of the Turnpike Authority, to confirm that they have decided to step back from the “toll within a toll” express project on SR 417. She reported that Ms. Scaccetti said they are not cancelling the project, just stepping back to evaluate it and look at other projects that would have community support, and that they had some unusual requests from their office. Commissioner Carey stated she would suspect that is Frank Collins, the Governor's staff person, who was asking a lot of questions about who should have the ownership of these facilities and that type of information in an effort to continue to have the discussion about who ends up with SR 417.
Commissioner Carey gave a brief update regarding the Orlando Sanford International Airport. She requested that at the next meeting they have a resolution or proclamation recognizing April as Aviation Appreciation Month. That was a request from the Airport Board. No objections were voiced.
Commissioner Carey discussed her participation in the Midway Safe Alarm campaign on Saturday, March 26, which was a partnership with the firefighters and American Red Cross Home Fire Safety Program. She noted they installed over 300 smoke alarms and 12 carbon monoxide detectors. She thanked the firefighters, the Red Cross, and the volunteers that came out to help and advised they hope to move the program to other communities as well.
Commissioner Carey discussed the candlelight vigil she attended with Commissioner Dallari to bring awareness to child abuse in the community. She announced there is a Kids House event on Saturday night to raise money and awareness. Commissioner Carey reported that the Boy Scout event that she has been doing with the Sheriff for many years was held last Thursday and they raised over $24,000 for Scouting in Seminole County and thanked everyone for their participation. She stressed that all of those funds stay in Seminole County to provide opportunities to young men that wouldn't have the opportunity otherwise.
Chairman Horan advised there have been discussions because the Turnpike Authority needs certain approvals from the City of Oviedo and Seminole County on the project that may have been deferred right now. One of those approvals generated a discussion with regard to sound attenuation that is particularly of interest to people in the Tuscawilla area along the proposed improvement. The residents have expressed an interest in sound attenuation walls; however, what seems to be more effective in that particular area is an appropriate buffering and foliage and swales and so forth, which look better and are cheaper. He stated he does not know where those discussions go now in light of the fact that this project may not be going forward.
Commissioner Carey stated from the Expressway Authority's standpoint, if they were to have the road, there is no need for expansion of it at this time and possibly well into the future. She added if they were the policy makers for that road, they would just be building an additional lane; and landscaping and those kinds of things are always a priority for buffering from the neighbors. She stated that as long as she is on the Expressway Authority Board and it comes up, she will make that a known fact. Chairman Horan stated he will make sure he copies Commissioner Carey's office with any communications related to those particular things.
Chairman Horan reported that there is a strange situation in the Geneva area of either wild dogs or possibly coyotes attacking livestock. He pointed out that so far the conclusion is that it is wild dogs because of the nature of the attacks but they still don't have an answer for the problem. He described how the animal control people have been working with the people to try and figure out what is going on.
Chairman Horan stated he has two appointments that he would like to get confirmed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to appoint Matt Davidson to the Sanford Aviation Noise Abatement Committee.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to appoint Jim Duby and reappoint Shannon Wetzel as the primary and alternate representatives respectively to Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Horan confirmed with the other Board members that they received the follow‑up (copy not received and filed) from the financial update and advised that if they have any questions, they can bring them up with staff.
With regard to the Boys and Girls Clubs, Chairman Horan announced that for a number of years Seminole County has desired to replicate an evening event to supplement its Faces of the Future event, which is its primary fundraiser. He described last year's event and reported that this year's event will be at the Alaqua Country Club on June 4, 2016. He welcomed everyone to attend. Chairman Horan stated other good news regarding the Boys and Girls Clubs is that they are in serious discussions right now for the possibility of having a third Seminole County club in the Oviedo area.
Chairman Horan questioned whether there is a Kittleson and Associates RFP going out regarding mobility and transportation. Ms. Guillet requested that Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, discuss that. Chairman Horan stated he knows this has been in the works for several months, and they have finally finalized the scope of work. Mr. Jreij addressed the Board to state they will be signing a work order next week to go ahead with it. Chairman Horan advised this was discussed months and months ago where the Board approved a study for a consultant to work with growth management and transportation finance strategies. This will be going out next month and Kittleson and Associates will be doing the report. Chairman Horan asked Mr. Jreij when the report will be back; Mr. Jreij stated it will take about six to eight weeks and that will give some options as to which way to go, with mobility or with the regular impact fees.
Chairman Horan stated it is going to address a number of different related and affiliated issues, not just mobility fee versus impact fee but also related issues that deal with the technologies that they all have been talking about and how they fit in.
Chairman Horan advised that he attended the I‑4 Task Force meeting together with Commissioner Dallari and Commissioner Constantine that was led by Mayor Jacobs. He stated the Task Force decided to form a series of subcommittees; and he then discussed the first subcommittee, which will be a subcommittee that deals with revenue and financing resources and options.
Chairman Horan confirmed with the Commissioners that they received a copy (copy not received and filed) of the follow‑up items from the March 22, 2016, BCC meeting and suggested if anyone has any questions, they can ask staff or the County Manager.
Chairman Horan stated he would like to recognize a wonderful organization in Seminole County called the Beta Sigma Phi Sorority that has done some great work. Commissioner Carey stated she was a member for many years and they are going to be contacting her for a Proclamation. This is a women's service sorority which has been in existence since World War II. It is an international group with a local chapter here in Seminole County. Commissioner Carey stated she will forward the request for the Resolution when she gets it. Chairman Horan stated that without objections, they will do the Resolution.
Chairman Horan reported on the Central Florida MPO Alliance meeting that he and Commissioner Constantine attended where there was a discussion concerning the coordination of the proposed improvements on SR 417 and how it coordinated with the work plan of CFX. He stated he was pleased to learn today the FTE (Florida Turnpike Enterprise) is rethinking going forward with that project.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. Letter dated March 14, 2016, from Jeffrey R. Oakes, FDOT Project Oversite, to Government Partner re: Construction Public Meeting on March 30, 2016, at 5:30-7:30 p.m. regarding widening U.S. 17-92 between Shepard Road to Lake Mary Boulevard.
2. Notice dated March 21, 2016, from Donald W. Kinard, Chief, Regulatory Division, to Sir/Madame re: Department of the Army Notification of Publication of Public Notice to discharge 58.58 acres of clean fill material into waters for the widening and alignment of State Road 46 from Old McDonald Road to Wekiva River Road, also known as Wekiva Parkway Section 6.
3. Copy of a letter dated March 23, 2016, from William L. Colbert, Colbert-Cameron Mitigation Bank, to Tom Mings, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers re: Request for Withdrawal of Mitigation Credits from Colbert-Cameron Mitigation Bank for Howell Creek Project.
4. Copy of a letter dated March 23, 2016, from D. Ray Eubanks, Administrator, Plan Review & Processing, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to Chairman Horan re: Thanking Seminole County for submitting comprehensive plan amendments. (Original letter transferred to Development Services.)
5. Letter dated March 31, 2016, from Kayla Meyer, Pro Bono Coordinator, Seminole County Bar Association Legal Aid Society, Inc., to Commissioner Horan re: New free legal services for low income constituents with housing matters.
COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT
Nicole Guillet, County Manager, announced that they have tentatively set their Memorial Day celebration for Friday, May 27. Right now they have a working time of 11:00 a.m. and are trying to coordinate their efforts with the Sheriff's Office because he typically does a ceremony the Friday before Memorial Day as well and it is typically in the morning. She noted the Sheriff's Office haven't finalized their plans yet but she would like to immediately follow them since there are many people who want to attend both events. Ms. Guillet reiterated that as of now, the working time is 11:00 a.m. and she will let the Commissioners know when that is finalized with respect to when the Sheriff may be doing his ceremony as well.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that it was very warm last year when the Sheriff was doing his ceremony; so hopefully, they will be starting earlier in the morning and Seminole County will be prepared, if the event is at 11:00, with putting up shade structures for public. Ms. Guillet advised they have a little more latitude this year since last year they did the event on Memorial Day and there were a lot of other competing events that day. She stated they will keep the event as early in the day as they can.
Chairman Horan noted that can be coordinated depending on how late they go. If they start at 10:00 or 10:30, the County could try to fit theirs in before because they are actually doing it in a different location and will have shade available.
Commissioner Carey asked Ms. Guillet where they were on the "space plan" and getting that started so they know how much planning they need to do. Ms. Guillet indicated Ms. Lung is working with Mr. Jreij in Public Works to try to put together a whole game plan for what they need to do to get a plan put together for Five Points with the "space plan" being one of the first things that needs to be accomplished. She stated she hopes in the next couple of weeks she will be able to give the Board a timeline and outline of what all of the steps are as staff sees them and to discuss that with each of the Commissioners to see if there is anything that they are missing and whether they are heading in the right direction.
Commissioner Carey stated they need to be looking at the Sheriff's space as part of that because the Public Safety building needs to be analyzed as far as space planning. Ms. Guillet stated they have been in conversations with the Sheriff over the last year about what their long‑term needs are and that will be part of the discussion.
Chairman Horan asked Ms. Guillet if she wanted to talk about the budgeting program and the CIP as far as Facilities and the space and how that is going to be melded into the budgeting process. Ms. Guillet explained that with respect to Facilities, the long‑term Five Points plan will be a factor in how they proceed with a longer range CIP plan for Facilities. She noted their investments might be different if they decide they are absolutely going to make the move to Five Points. Ms. Guillet advised that with regard to the CIP and planning with respect to sales tax, this year she will be working with the Board a little differently on the CIP for the sales tax projects than they have done in the past. They would like this year's CIP program to be a prioritization of projects from the Board with respect to the sales tax and also to provide a more definitive timeline as to when they can expect activity with each respective project. They have had a more generalized CIP in the past that addressed sales tax projects, and they want something to be a little more definitive, and they want to give the Board and the public an idea of what they can expect to occur each year with respect to the sales tax projects. She added that will involve the Commissioners working with staff to prioritize the long list that they had of projects related to the sales tax and ranking them with respect to priority and timing as well as discussing other projects that they may need to consider. Chairman Horan explained they will be integrating that CIP process more with the budgeting process than they have in the past.
Commissioner Dallari stated he understands that but there was a commitment that a lot of projects were supposed to be done this year. Ms. Guillet stated she is talking about the third gen sales tax projects. Commissioner Dallari stated that is what he is talking about. Ms. Guillet stated they have projects that were in the mix for that. Their focus right now is wrapping up first and second gen projects. She pointed out they haven't had historically a whole lot of discussion about sales tax projects during the budgeting process. They have given the Board a CIP in the past and would like the Board to be more engaged during the budgeting process with respect to setting priorities and setting schedules for when they want to tackle each of the different projects that were listed as sales tax initiatives.
Commissioner Dallari stated they still have to do the annual report and asked if it is correct that that is still scheduled for July. Ms. Guillet responded correct. She added that Mr. Jreij is scheduling quarterly reports to give the Board updates on a more frequent basis as to where they are with different sales tax projects.
Commissioner Carey stated she thinks one of the credible pieces that is needed is just because a project is starting doesn't mean that someone will see activity. So what the public wants to know is when are they actually getting the job done. She offered an example of Southwest Road. Commissioner Carey stated they have to have some type of estimate of when construction will start so that the people are not expecting to see people out there showing up because the County says they have a project. Ms. Guillet stated that is exactly what they want to provide. They want to provide a schedule for design, any acquisition that is necessary, and construction.
Chairman Horan stated what really generated the desire to integrate that process with a little more surgical exactitude was the fact that it became apparent when they did the first work session on the sales tax that what the staff understood and what was being communicated to the Board was not the same. Chairman Horan stated it was very apparent to the County Manager and she came up with the idea and he thinks it is a really good process and is going to make the Commissioners better communicators to their constituents and make the staff better communicators to the Commissioners by doing the process this way. Ms. Guillet emphasized that they really want to be transparent with respect to how they are managing the sales tax funds.
Ms. Guillet stated they will get a schedule and an outline together for not just the "space plan" but all of the elements that they think they need to undertake with respect to the long‑range plan for Five Points. Chairman Horan discussed some of the other aspects for doing it this way. He pointed out that if you don’t integrate that process with your budgeting process, you either don’t know or you don’t have the ability to communicate with the constituents in a way that is positive.
Commissioner Carey stated that back when times were good and the Board started setting this up with the Facility money and several other categories, they were putting several million dollars a year away for those projects and programs. She pointed out that when times got tough, they stopped doing that and she understands that is also coming back this year. Ms. Guillet stated they would like to do that especially with respect to Fleet and Information Technology.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m., this same date.