HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 05 29 Regular E NEW Stipulated Settlement Agreement
.J
, ,
COlVIMISSION AGENDA
ITEM E
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular X
Mav 29, 2001
Meeting
~ ~f/"/Ol
,
Mgr. /
AU. /
Dept.
REQUEST:
The City Attorney requests the City Commission consider approving the Stipulated SCll!cment
Agreement with Terry Scarlata and the f10rida Department or Commtmity Affairs which would
require the City Commission to consider approving Ordinance 2001-39 amending Winter Spring~
Code of Ordinances Chapter 9 hy establishing aconeurrency management procedure for certain
publ ic facilities.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Agenda Item is to request the City Commission to consider approving the
Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Ten)' Scarlata and the Florida Department of Community
A (fairs which would require the City Commission to consider approving an ordinance amending
Winter Springs Code of Ordinances Chapter 9 by establishing a concurrency management procedure
lor certain public facilities.
APPLICABLE LA W AND PUBLIC POLICY:
S~ction 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, pennits adversely affected parties to a challenge
Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by a municipality.
Page 1 of 3
Section 163.3180. Florida Statures, requires mW1icipalities to adopt concurrency management
guidelines [0 serve new deve!clpmcnt. Guidelines must be in place for sanitary sewer, solid waste,
dminage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation facilities.
CONSroERA TrONS:
A. Ms.lerry Scarlata challenged the City ofWimcr Springs' Comprehensive Plan Amendment
99-2, as adopted by City Ordinance No. 724 on August 16, 1999. This Amendment created
the Greeneway lntcrch:lllge Comprehensive Plan designation.
B. The Florida Department of Community Affairs found the Amendment to be "in compliance."
C. The City of Winter Springs and the Department of Community Affairs negotiated a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement with Terry Scarlata on May 18, 2001. It was the intent of
the Stipulated Settlement Agreement to fully resolve all issues between the par1ies in th~
proceeding.
D. The City of Winter Springs has 60 days after execution of the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement to consider for adoption the remedial action of adopting a concurrency
management ordinance whic.h is attached to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
E. Adoption of the remedial actions shall not be. counted toward the frequency restrictions
imposed upon Plan Amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187(1), Florida Statules.
f. Chapter 163. Florida Statutes. requires that municipalities adopt concurrency management
ordinances.
G. The concurrency ordinance would establish a standard procedure for the City to determine
whether public facilities and services are available to meet the .needs of new development as
required by law.
H. Staff has reviewed and commented on the ordinance.
OPTIONS:
The City Commission h..'1S several options:
1. Adoption of the Stipulal~d Settkment Agrel:ment and the proposed concurrency
monngement ordinance:.
2. If the City of Winter Springs Commission approves the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement, but docs not adopt the concurrency management ordinance within 60
days, Ms. Scarlata reserves the right to proceed to hearing in this matter.
Page 2 of 3
3. If the City Commission does not adopt the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. an
administrative hearing will be scheduled and Ms. Scarlata's challenge will be
litigated.
STAFF RECOMl\ofENDATION:
The City Attorney recommends that the City Commission adopt the Stipulated Sctilemenr
Agreement and Ordinance 2001-39.
Tf the City Commission approves the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the City Attomey
reconunends approving Ordinance 200 1-39 un First Reading at this meeting and scheduling Second
and Final Reading of the ordinance at the City Commission meeting on Junell, 200 I or as soon as
possible thereafter.
A TT ACHMENT: Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Proposed Concurrency Management
Ordinance 2001-39.
COMMISSION ACTION:
I'.\j)()(:~',( :ily "I' Wtnfa :ipnngs\Agenda\ScarlaI3 at~lcla itt:nl.lj
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TERRY SCARLATA,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No.: 00-0698GM
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFF AIRS,
Respondents.
/
STIPULA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the
Petitioner, TERRY SCARLATA, and Respondents, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS and
DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, as a complete and final settlement of all claims
raised in the above-styled proceeding.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Terry Scarlata, (petitioner), filed a Petition challenging the City of Winter
Springs' Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-2, as adopted by City Ordinance No. 724 on
August 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, (DCA or
Department), is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter
163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Winter Springs, (Local Government), is a Local Government
with the duty to adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance"; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-2,
(Plan Amendment), by Ordinance No. 724 on August 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Amendment proposes to create a new Future Land Use Category,
Greenway Interchange District; and
WHEREAS, the Department issued its Notice of Intent regarding the Amendment on
November 24, 1999; and
WHEREAS, as set forth in the Notice of Intent, the Department contends that the
Amendment is "in compliance"; and Petitioner contends that the Amendment is not "in
compliance" as stated in their Amended Petition filed with the Department on January 24, 2000;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has
initiated the above-styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government and the Department dispute the allegations of the
Amended Petition regarding the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of lengthy
litigation and to resolve this proceeding under the terms set forth herein, and agree it is in their
respective mutual best interests to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promIses
hereinbelow set forth, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby represent and agree
as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the
following meanings:
a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act, as codified in Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
b. Agreement: This Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Plan Amendment: Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 99-2 adopted by the Local Government on August 16, 1999, as Ordinance No. 724.
d. DOAH: The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.
2
e.
In compliance or into compliance:
The meamng set forth In Section
163 .3184( 1 )(b), Florida Statutes.
f. Notice: The Notice of Intent issued by the Department to find the Plan
Amendment in compliance. A copy of the Notice of Intent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A,"
which is fully incorporated herein by this reference.
g. Petition: The amended petition for administrative hearing and relief filed by the
Petitioner in this case.
h. Remedial Action: The adoption by the City Commission of Winter Springs of an
ordinance substantially similar to the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "B", which is hereby
fully incorporated herein by this reference, and other action described in this agreement which
must be completed to bring resolution to the issues in the pending Petition. Notwithstanding,
Petitioner and the Local Government agree that they may mutually agree to substantial
amendments to the ordinance during the ordinance adoption process.
I. Remedial Plan Amendment: The Department has previously issued a Notice of
Intent to find the Plan Amendment in compliance, therefore, no remedial plan amendment is
necessary to bring the Plan Amendment into compliance.
2. Department Powers. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the power
and duty to administer and enforce the Act and to determine whether the Plan Amendment is in
compliance.
3. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the Plan
Amendment in compliance. Petitioner filed a petition challenging the consistency of the Plan
Amendment. Subsequent to the filing of the Amended Petition, the parties conferred and agreed
to resolve the issues in the Amended Petition through this Agreement. It is the intent of this
Agreement to fully resolve all issues between the parties in this proceeding.
4. Dismissal. If the Local Government completes the Remedial Actions required to be
considered by this Agreement, the Department will file an appropriate pleading with DOAH
advising that this action has been settled between the parties and that the Petitioner has
3
voluntarily consented to dismiss the Petition with prejudice. The parties will also file a request
to relinquish jurisdiction to the Department for dismissal of this proceeding or for realignment of
the parties, as appropriate under Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes.
5. Remedial Actions to be Considered for Adoption. The Local Government agrees to
consider for adoption by formal action of its governing body all Remedial Actions described in
Exhibit "B" no later than the time period provided for in this Agreement. The governing body
shall not be obligated in any way to adopt the Remedial Action.
6. Adoption or Approval of Remedial Actions. Within 60 days after execution of this
Agreement by the parties, the Local Government shall consider for adoption all Remedial
Actions. This shall be done by ordinance duly adopted by the City Commission in accordance
with law. A copy of the adopted ordinance shall be delivered to Petitioner. A copy of the
adopted ordinance shall also be delivered to the Department with a letter indicating that the
Remedial Action has been fully performed by the Local Government and that the Department
shall dismiss this proceeding as required by this Agreement. If Local Government does not
adopt the Remedial Actions within the time prescribed herein, Petitioner reserves the right to
proceed to hearing in this matter.
7. Effect of Remedial Action. Adoption of the Remedial Action shall not be counted
toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon Plan Amendments pursuant to Section
163.3187(1), Florida Statutes.
8. Purpose of this Agreement; Not Establishing Precedent. The parties enter into this
Agreement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and unnecessary
litigation and in recognition of the desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of disputes
arising out of or related to the Plan Amendment. The acceptance of proposals for purposes of
this Agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many factual and legal issues and is
not an endorsement of, and does not establish precedent for, the use of these proposals in any
other circumstances or by any other local government.
9. Approval bv Governing Bodv. This Agreement has been approved by the Local
4
Government's governing body at a public hearing advertised at least 10 days prior to the hearing
in a newspaper of general circulation in a manner similar to general ordinances set forth in
Section 163.3184 (16)(c), Florida Statutes. This agreement has been executed by the appropriate
officer as provided in the Local Government's charter or other regulations.
10. Changes in Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve either party
from adhering to the law, and in the event of a change in any statute or administrative regulation
inconsistent with this Agreement, the statute or regulation shall take precedence and shall be
deemed incorporated in this Agreement by reference.
11. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to affect the
rights of any person not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to benefit
any.third party.
12. Attorney Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney fees,
incurred in connection with the above-captioned case and this Agreement.
13. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution by
the Petitioner, the Department and the Local Government.
14. Filing and Continuance. This Agreement shall be filed with DOAH by the Department
after execution by the parties. Upon the filing of this Agreement, the administrative proceeding
in this matter shall be stayed by the Administrative Law Judge in accordance with Section
163.3184(16)(b), Florida Statutes.
15. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. The parties hereby retain the right to have a final
hearing in this proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement or failure of the Local
Government to adopt satisfy the Remedial Action, and nothing in this Agreement shall be
deemed a waiver of such right. Any party to this Agreement may move to have this matter set
for hearing if it becomes apparent that any other party whose action is required by this
Agreement is not proceeding in good faith to take that action.
16. Construction of Agreement. All parties to this Agreement are deemed to have
participated in its drafting. In the event of any ambiguity in the terms of this Agreement, the
5
parties agree that such ambiguity shall be construed without regard to which of the parties
drafted the provision in question.
17. Entire Agreement. This is the entire Agreement between the parties and no verbal or
written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document.
18. Governmental Discretion Unaffected. This Agreement is not intended to bind the Local
Government in the exercise of its governmental, proprietary, and legislative discretion which is
exercisable in accordance with law.
19. Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of
which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need is produced for any purpose.
20. Captions. The captions inserted in this Agreement are for the purpose of convenience
only and shall not be utilized to construe or interpret any provision of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Stipulated Settlement
Agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly authorized.
TERRY SCARLATA, Petitioner
Date
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondent
Approved as to form and
legality:
By:
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs
By:
J. THOMAS BECK SR, Director
Division of Community Planning
Date
Print Name
Date
6
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, Respondent
Approved as to form and
legality:
By:
RONALD W. MCLEMORE
City Manager
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE
City Attorney
City of Winter Springs
Date
Date
F:IDOCSICity of Winter Springs\Scarlata\Pleadingslstipulated settlement.kj
7
.Je, STATE OF FLORlDA -t..iI,
~p AR ThIENT OF COMMUNITY AFF M"
NOTICE OF INrENT TO FIND TIrE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COtv1PREHENSlVE PLAN AMENDivrENT fN COt'v1PLfA.L'\[CE
DOCKET NO. 99-2 NOf-5908-(A)-(1)
The Department gives notic:: of its intent to find the Amcndmenc to the Comprehensivo Plan for the
Cicy ofWinte( Springs, adopted by Ordinance No. 7'14 on August 16, 1999, IN COM1'UA.l~CE, pursuant
to Sections 163.j 134,16].3187 and 163.3189, F.S.
The adopeed Cicy of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Department's
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. (if any), are available for public inspeceion
Munday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during nonnal business hours, at the City of Winter
Springs, Cicy Harl, City Clerk's office, 1126 Ease State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida ]2708-2799.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, f.S., has a righl to petition for an
administrative hearing to chal/enge the proposcd agency determination that the Amendment to the City of
Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan 3re In Compliance, as defined in Subsection [63.3184(1), F.S. The.
pecicion must be filed within twenty~ne (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of
tlle information and Contents described in Uniform Rule 28-106.20 I, F.A.C. The petition must be filed
with the Agency Clerk, Departmenc of Community Affairs, 25S5 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2 [00, and a copy mailed or delivered to the local gov.ernmenc. Failure [0 timely tile a.
pecicion shall conseituce a waiver of any right eo requesc an administr<ltive proceeding as a pctitioner
ur.der Sections 120.569 and [20.57, F.S. rf a petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing
will be to present evidence and :escimony and forward a recommended order to the Department. If no
petition is filed, chis Notice of Intent shall become final agency action.
If a pecition is filed, ocher affeceed persons may pecition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A
peeieion for intervention must be filed ac least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must include
all of the infonnation and concentS described in Uniform Rule28-1 06.205, F .A.c. A petition for leave 10
incer/cne shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hea<ings, Departmenc of Managemene Servic::s,
[130 Apatachec Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-[550. Failure to petition co intervene within the
allowed time frame conscicutes a waiver of any right such a person has eo request a hearing under
Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to participace in the administrative hearing.
After an administrative hearing petition is timely filed, mediation is available pursuant Co
Subsection 163.3189(3)(.1), F.S., to 30Y affected person who is made 3. party to the proceeding by filing
eb.e request with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administ'rative He:u-ings. The
choice of me:d iation shall not affect a par:y's right to an administrative hearing.
Ci\.~J.O~~~
Charles Gauthier, AlCr
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning
Department ofCommunicy Affairs
Division ofCommuniry Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
TJ.lIah.usee, Florida 32399-2100
II Ill, ll1
~J
v;:;;
EXHIBlT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-39
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS CODE OF ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 9 BY ESTABLISHING A CONCURRENCY
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC
FACILITIES MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THIS
ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, states that each local government
should adopt a concurrency management system to ensure that issuance of a development order
or development permit is conditioned upon the availability of public facilities and services
necessary to serve new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to adopt the concurrency management system
set forth herein and hereby deems this Ordinance in the best interest of the public health, safety,
and welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGSHEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Winter Springs Code Chapter 9, Land Development, is hereby amended
as follows: (underlined type indicates additions).
Article X. Concurrency Administration and Evaluation Procedure
'Division 1. Overview and Exemptions.
Sec. 9-500. Purpose of Concurrencv Evaluation. The purpose of this Article is to implement
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
the concurrency prOVISIOns of the City's Growth Management Policies consistent with the
provisions of Chapter 163. Part II. Florida Statutes. and applicable administrative rules. It is also
the purpose of this Article to establish an ongoing concurrency evaluation system which ensures
that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with
the impacts of such development and that development orders and permits are issued in a manner
that will not result in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service
standards adopted by the City for public facilities and services. The concurrency evaluation
system shall measure the potential impact of any proposal for a development permit or order
upon the established minimum acceptable levels of service for sanitary sewer. solid waste.
drainage. potable water. parks and recreation. and transportation facilities. unless the
development permit or order is exempt from the concurrency review requirements of this Article.
No development permit or order which contains a specific plan of development. including
densities and intensities of development. shall be issued unless adequate public facilities are
available to serve the proposed development as determined by the concurrency evaluation set
forth in this Article.
Sec. 9-501. Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this Article shall have the
meanings ascribed below unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
(a) Citv's Growth Manaf!ement Policies. The ~rowth management policies of the Citv of
Winter Springs that are set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and land development
regulations which regulate land development and established levels of service of ~ublic facilities
and
servIces.
including sanitary sewer. solid waste. drainage. potable water. parks and recreation. and
transportation facilities.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
2
(b) Concurrency Certificate. A certificate issued for a specific development or property
that indicates available capacity for each public facility reviewed based upon adopted levels of
service standards established in this Article at the time the certificate is issued and does not
guarantee capacity in the future. nor does the certificate encumber capacity for a specific period
of time.
(c) Concurrency Evaluation. Evaluation by the Development Review Committee based
on adopted levels of service standards to ensure .that public facilities and services are available
concurrent with the impacts of such development as defined in this Article.
Cd) Develooment Order. Any order granting. denying or granting with conditions an
application for a development permit.
(e) Development Permit. Includes any building permit. zomng permit. subdivision
approval. rezoning certification. special exception, variance. or any other official action of the
City having the effect of permitting the development of land.
(D Development Review Committee. Shall be a committee established by the City
Manager to review and approve applications for the development of land. At a minimum. the
committee shall consist of the directors of utilities/public works. community development. and
parks and recreation or their designee. . The City Manager or City Commission may also appoint
residents of Winter Springs to serve on the committee.
(g) Level of Service Standard. The measurement indicating the degree of service
provided by. or proposed for a facility based on operational characteristics of the facility.
(h) Public Facilities and Services. Those public facilities and services for which level of
service standards have been established in the City of Winter Springs Growth Management
Policies.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
and are recognized in this Article, and which include (1) roads, (2) wastewater, (3) storm water,
(4) solid waste, (5) potable water, (6) parks and recreation.
Sec. 9-502 Aoolication Submittal. The Development Review Committee shall be responsible
for carrying out the requirements of this Article and shall make determinations regarding
concurrencv applications and issue certificates according to the procedures established by this
Article. An application for a Concurrency Certificate shall be filed with all applications for a
. final development order or permit, unless otherwise exempted by this Article. A preliminary
review application may also be submitted for an informational and non-binding concurrency
review by the Development Review Committee. All applications shall be made on a form
prescribed by the City. which should require. at a minimum and as applicable:
( a) Date of submittal.
(b) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant and property owner.
(c) Parcel J.D. number, street address, and legal description.
(d) Proposed land use(s) by land category. square feet and number of units.
(e) Phasing information by proposed uses. square feet and number of units.
(D Existing use of pro pert v, acreage of property, name ofDRI. PUD, Subdivisions.
(g) Site design information.
(h) Previously issued concurrencv certificates.
(i) Possible limitations in the manner in which the proposed use will be conducted.
including
restrictions on use, resident population, density and intensity of use.
CD Possible limitations on the height. size. location. density or intensity of a building or
other structure.
(k) Possible phasing schedule.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
(l) Possible alternative with respect to size. number. location or nature of vehicle access points.
(m) Possible increase in the amount of street dedication. roadway width. or construction
of roadway improvements within street right of way.
(n) Plans for the protection of existing trees. vegetation. water resources. wildlife habitat
and other significant natural resources.
(0) Any information regarding possible solutions or alternatives which would permit the proposed d
(p) Data and analysis relevant to the concurrency facilities and services evaluated under
this Article. whereupon the Development Review Committee can conduct and make an
informed
concurrency determination.
An application which is not technically complete shall be returned to the applicant with a
correspondence detailing the deficiencies in the application. Failure to submit the required
information in accordance with this Section shall result in the denial of the concurrency
application. Applications deemed complete by the City shall be handled on a first-come first-
served basis. Once an application is accepted by the City as complete. any changes in uses.
densities and intensities for the subiect property that result in an increased capacitv requirement
for any concurrencv facility shall be subiect to a new concurrency review. An application fee
may be established by the City Commission by resolution. All completed applications shall be
reviewed in accordance with the procedures contained in this Article.
Sec. 9-503.
[Reserved]
Sec. 9-504 Chanf!e of Use.
(a) Any change. redevelopment or modification of use shall reqUire a concurrency
evaluation under this Article. provided the proposed change. redevelopment or modification of
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
use has more than a de minimis impact on public facilities and services than the previous use that
was actively maintained on the site during the six (6) month period prior to the date of
application for concurrency evaluation. Concurrency credit shall be given for the previous use
that was actively maintained on the site during the six (6) month period prior to the date of
application for concurrency evaluation. If the proposed change, redevelopment or modification
of use has a lesser impact on public facilities and services than the previous use during the six (6)
month period prior to the date of application for concurrency evaluation. then no concurrency
evaluation shall be required. Ifno use existed on the site for the six (6) month period prior to the
date of application. no concurrency credit shall be issued and the proposed use shall be subiect to
concurrency evaluation.
(b) The impact of such change. redevelopment or modification shall be measured III
terms of level of service criteria including. but not limited to. vehicular trips per day. estimated
increases in water and sewer flows. increases in resident population. increases in on-site
impervious surfaces. and estimated solid waste generation.
(c) The burden is on the applicant to provide reasonably sufficient evidence that the
previous use has been actively maintained on the site during the six (6) month period prior to the
date of application for the concurrency evaluation. Such evidence may include utility records.
records reflecting the use sought to be proven. and other relevant documents. An occupational
license is not of itself sufficient proof of a particular use. but may be used to support other
evidence of a use maintained on a site.
Sec. 9-505. Demolitions.
In the case of a demolition of an existing use or structure. the
concurrency evaluation for the redevelopment shall be based upon the net increase of the impact
for the new or proposed land use as compared to the most recent land use existing prior to
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
demolition, provided that such credit is utilized within six (6) months of the date of the issuance
of the demolition permit. Such credits are non-transferrable.
Sec. 9-506 to 9-509.
fReservedl
Division 2. Level of Service Standards (LOS)
Sec. 9-510. Introduction. The levels of service set forth in this Division 2 are intended to be
the minimum levels of service which are acceptable under the City's Growth Management
Policies for: (1) potable water; (2) solid waste; (3) wastewater; (4) parks and recreation; (5)
storm water; and (6) transportation. The City shall monitor cempliance with the minimum levels
of service set forth in this Division by ensuring that public facilities and services needed to
support development are available concurrent with the impacts of development. as required by
law.
Sec. 9-511. Potable Water LOS
fReservedl
Sec. 9-512. Solid WasteLOS
fReservedl
Sec. 9-513. Wastewater LOS
rReservedl
Sec. 9-514. Parks and Recreation LOS
A parks and recreation concurrency evaluation shall
be required for any residential development on a citywide and per development basis. Citywide
minimum levels of service for parklands shall be determine on a two level basis for communitv
parks and neighborhood parks. In addition to the citywide minimum levels of service, new
residential development shall supplement the. system of neighborhood parks and recreation
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
services by providing parklands (or fees in lieu of) consistent with the level of service criteria
and requirements established for parks and recreation under the City's Comprehensive Plan and
this section.
(a) The parks and recreation level of service standards for community parks shall be
monitored by the City through concurrency evaluations to ensure that the minimum level of
service standard for cityWide community parks remains at or above 1.6 acres per 1000
population. In performing the concurrency evaluation for communi tv parks for a proposed
residential development, the Development Review Committee shall determine the number of
acres of community parkland which would be necessary to serve the number of citywide
dwelling units existing or approved prior to the development plus the number of proposed new
dwelling units. If the development satisfies the level of service standards for community
parkland, then the development shall be deemed concurrent for community parks and a
certificate shall be issued consistent with section 9-533 of this Article. If a residential
development causes or continues to cause the level of service for community parks to be not
concurrent, the developer shall pay the City a fair share community parks and recreation impact
fee, as established by the City Commission by resolution. All such fees collected shall be
allocated and appropriated to the City's recreation budget to be expended to enhance the City's
community parks system with priority given to expend such funds to acquire parkland.
(b) The parks and recreation level of service standards for neighborhood parks shall be
based on the application of the level of service standards established for each residential
development by particular region of the City as follows:
Northwest region - 5.9 acres per 1,000 population
South-central region - 5.3.acres per 1,000 population
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Southeast region - 6.9 acres per 1.000 population
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
10
In performing the concurrency evaluation for neighborhood parks and recreation for a proposed
residential development, the Development Review Committee shall determine the number of
acres of parkland which would be necessary to serve the number of dwelling units on-site
(minimum one-half (.5) acre). If such amount of parkland can be provided while meeting the
level of service standards set forth in this section, then the development shall be deemed
concurrent for parks and recreation. If such amount of parkland can not be provided while
meeting the level of service standards set forth in this section, then the development shall be
deemed not concurrent for parks and recreation and a certificate shall not be issued. However, if
a development can not provide -the required on-site parkland, the Development Review
Committee shall permit the developer to satisfy the parks and recreation standard by providing a
combination of on-site and off-site parkland and a fair share neighborhood parks and recreation
impact fee as established by the City Commission by resolution. In such cases, the Development
Review Committee shall require on-site parkland to the maximum extent feasible and
practicable, off-site parkland shall be located in the same region as the proposed development,
and said impact fee shall only be paid if on and off site parkland can not be provided as required
herein. Any and all such fees collected shall be allocated and appropriated to the City's
recreation budget to be expended for public recreational purposes and priority shall be given to
expend such funds to acquire parkland. At such time the development satisfies the level of
service for parks and recreation, a certificate shall be issued consistent with section 9-533 of this
Article, with the condition that the necessary parkland and recreational services (including any
impact fees) shall be in place or paid when the impacts of the development occur or shall be
guaranteed to be in place through an enforceable development order or agreement not more than
one year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
II
(c) For purposes of determining levels of service for parks and recreation facilities within
the City under this section, the term "parkland" shall mean a public or private use of land that is
dedicated or exclusively set aside as a neighborhood or community recreational area including,
but not limited to, a playground, playing field, swimming pooL , tennis court, fishing hole or
pier, nature traiL landscaped city square or green for the pursuit of leisure activities, stadium,
conservation area suitable for passive recreation. water sport area, or other similar type areas
suitable for bona fide recreational activities. A storm water retention pond shall not be
considered parkland unless the retention pond includes uplands suitable for bona fide
recreational activities or incorporated bv design into a bona fide recreational area (e.g., a place
to install a water fountain and littoral plantings in a park like setting). If a storm water retention
pond is used for parkland purposes, the pond shall include abutting uplands for park purposes at
least equal to the size of the pond and the pond shall not be fenced and shall be designed in a safe
manner to protect the public (e.g., gradual pond slopes). All parkland required by this Article
shall be a minimum of one-half (.5) acre.
(d) For purposes of complying with the concurrency requirements of this section,
properties zoned Town Center on June L 2000 shall satisfy concurrency by providing the
parkland required by the Town Center Zoning Code and applicable development agreements.
Sec. 9-515. Storm water LOS
rReservedl
Sec. 9-516. Transportation LOS
rReservedl
Sec. 9-517 to 9-529.
rReservedl
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
12
Division 3.
Concurrency Administration.
Sec. 9-530. Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee shall
review each completed application for a concurrency certificate or preliminary review and
determine, as soon as practicable, whether the application is sufficient.
Sec. 9-531. Concurrency Review.
No application shall be deemed sufficient unless it
contains all information which, in the professional iudgement of the Development Review
Committee, is reasonably necessary to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development on the
public facilities and services subiect to review under this Article. During the review process, the
Development Review Committee shall either deny, approve, or approve with conditions, the
application for a concurrency certificate.
Sec. 9-532. Conditional Approvals. If the Development Review Committee determines that
the application can be approved with conditions, the Development Review Committee shall
recommend to the city commission a written concurrency agreement. The applicant may accept
the conditional approval by written concurrency agreement approved by the city commission, or
the applicant may consider the application denied, in which case the applicant may appeal the
denial to the city commission. When the Development Review Committee recommends and the
. city commission approves any conditional concurrency agreement, the city commission, with the
recommendation of the Development Review Committee, mav prescribe aPlJropriate conditions
and safeguards in conformity with the intent and provisions of this Article, including any of the
following:
(a) Limit the manner in which the use is conducted, including restricting density and
intensity of the use.
(b) Limit the height, size, location, density or intensity of a building or other structure.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
13
(c) Require phasing of the proiect.
(d) Designate the size. number. location or nature of vehicle access points.
(e) Increase the amount of street dedication. roadway width. or require construction of
road improvements within the street right-of-way.
(f) Protecting existing trees. vegetation. water resources. wildlife habitat or other
significant natural resources.
(g) Specify other conditions to permit development in the City in conformity with the
intent and purpose of this Article and the adopted City Growth Management Policies.
All conditional approvals shall be incorporated in a written development agreement which shall
be subiect to City Commission approval.
Sec. 9-533. Concurrency Certificate. A Concurrency Certificate is a "snap shot" of available
capacity for each public facility. evaluated under this Article. at the time the certificate is issued.
The Concurrency Certificate does not guarantee capacity in the future or encumber or vest
capacity for any period of time. At a minimum. the Concurrency Certificate shall contain:
1.
Name. address. and telephone number ofthe applicant and property
ow
2. Parcel LD. number and legal description.
3. Date of issuance.
4. Proposed use(s) by land use category. square feet. and number of units.
5. Phasing information by proposed uses. square feet. and number of units. if
applicable.
6. Total current available capacity within service area(s).
7. Proiect impact based on LOS Standards.
A Concurrency Certificate shall expire .one (1) year after issuance unless the applicant
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
14
commences construction of the development under a valid Iv issued building permit. A one (1)
. year extension may be granted by the Development Review Committee provided circumstances
have not adversely diminished the capacity of public facilities and services to support the
development. The development shall be subiect to a new concurrency evaluation.
Division 4. Appeal Procedures.
Sec. 9-540. Notice of Appeal. The applicant may appeal the denial of a certificate of
concurrency by the Development Review Committee by filing with the city manager a written
notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days after the date of the concurrency denial.
Sec. 9-541. Appeal Notice and Hearine:. Upon receipt of a written notice of appeal. the city
manager shall schedule the matter for consideration by the city commission within thirty (30)
days after the appeal is filed. The city clerk shall notify the applicant of the dav of the city
cOminission hearing at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the city
manager shall provide the city commission with all information submitted to the Development
Review regarding the subiect concurrency application on appeal. The final decision on the
concurrency application shall be vested in the city commission. The city commission shall have
the right to deny, approve, or approve with conditions any concurrency application considered
under appeal in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Article.
Sec. 9-542. Appeal of City Commission. A final decision of the citv commission on a
concurrency application shall be subiect to iudicial review as provided by law.
Section 2.
Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Commission, or parts of ordinances
and resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 3.
Incorporation Into Cod~. This ordinance shall be incorporated into the
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
15
City of Winter Springs City Code and any section or paragraph number or letter and any heading
may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing.
Section 4.
Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion
shaH be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 5.
Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida.
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the _ day of
,2001.
PAUL PARTYKA
Mayor
ATTEST:
ANDREA LORENZO-LUACES
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
FOR THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ONLY:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE
City Attorney
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
16
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Effective Date:
F:\DOCS\City of Winter Springs\Ordinances\e-mail ordinance.LOS.doCF:\DOCS\City of Winter
Springs\Ordinances\e-mail ordinance. LOS
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Terry Scarlata
Comments made on May 29, 200 I regarding Concurrency Management Ordinance for parks and
recreation. .
My topic tonight involves the Concurrency Management Ordinance and how it relates to Parks
and Recreation. In November 1999, I challenged this city's Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
the Greeneway Interchange District. Tonight, you have an ordinance in your hands that is a
product of that petition. It is a Concurrency Management Ordinance. One like it should have
been part of this city's land development regulations a long time ago. Unfortunately, that
commission did not have the benefit of experience to understand the importance of this ordinance.
This commission, however, knows first hand the headaches that have resulted from delaying the
construction of parks and recreation at the time of development.
Unfortunately tills failure to provide adequate parks for the residents is not a problem exclusive to
Winter Springs. Ten years ago, all Floridians relied on state and local government to establish a
process to ensure that well-planned communities would be developed in the future. We know
now what went wrong and we understand the ultimate results of that failure: Public infra-
structure has not kept up with the pace of residential development.
You read about it in the paper every day. From school over-crowding to shortages in active park
areas for practice fields and neighborhood playgrounds. The people who have been hurt the most
by this lack of vision have been our cillldren. It's for this reason that I hope that you will look at
this Concurrency Management Ordinance and think about how it will help you protect the public
against the over-zealous property rights activist who continually put their rights and interests
before the rights and interests of the children of this city. You have the authority and the mandate
to approve this ordinance. You even have the power to make it stronger than how it is presented
to you tonight.
The Ordinance is a product of a settlement, and as such, it is a compromise between the two
parties. If I had a chance to do it my way, I would make two major changes. (1) I would
eliminate retention ponds from the park formula all together because retention ponds cany known
carcinogens and (2) I would make a clear distinction between active and passive parks, with a
minimum requirement for the former.
This commission has the time to mull tills ordinance over. So do members of the public. The
settlement agreement requires that the city provide due notice to the public so that they can be
involved in the process. I hope that leaders in the community take the opportunity to study it and
to provide the necessary public pressure to make the changes I just mentioned.
I have taken this ordinance as far as I can as an individual. It is my hope that community leaders
who have failed to see the importance in studying and understanding the comprehensive plan,
recognize its importance now. They have lost many opportunities, relying instead on histrionics
to mold people's opinions when they would have served us better if they had learned the process
and forced this governing body to follow it.
..
I'm enclosing copies of all the correspondence with the city attorney so that a record of the
negotiations can be made available to the public, and so that the commissioners can understand
my concerns and hopes.
__ ---. _..._.___._ ,...-..-... t----:;J":J7 "^"'-
Activists dig in their heels
r r, OQ'\j
, Victories energize foes
(V\ ~f l B ,<J 00 I of development in
. . r _ ,- Lake County, and
OrL-A\\J()O ~E!>S7\N\::.L their clout is growing.
As; ~n ()~ tY\e..
c 'hC\()~'; ''.3 1--, l'Y\Ef~
0\"'\12. w00d<<e:\ s \lo~.u
il'\ i./I.ch {" \A.cthe \""
-+ ~\ E- e lA 10\ l c....
\ (\ -te., t"s, + ~ o'-'\. \c\
~(,\ \J e.. bee (\
<;r2i-Jl?6, \-f +Y\e-
Co \"\, mv...{"'\'-\1
\ -e ().. c\ '< CS h Ct c\
r <' so:.'+~<...\ +0
+\1. t::? sc f'(\ e.fncJ. s
.+ ~ \\ Y ~ G\( S Ct ~ 0
r().+h~r ~n
h tL 1'<\. t:. -\ h 00.. s
++,c-'I "" \ I'M
By KEVIN P. CONNOlLY
SENTINEl STAFF WRITER
TAVARES - The folks who
mobilized against a huge ex-
pansion of the Harbor Hills sub-
division are still amazed by
their victory.
After all, many who opposed
the project east of Lady Lake
knew it was going to be an up-
hill battle in a county known for
rapid growth. ,
"They said, 'You can't beat
the developers,' " even as they
signed petitions, recalled Harpo
Zaneis, a member of the opposi-
tion group, Friends of Lake
Griffin. "I said, 'You can't if you
don't try.' "
More folks like Zaneis are
trying harder than ever before.
Citizen activism is on the rise in
Lake County.
The growth that has led to
jammed roadways, crowded
schools and strained water
supplies in Lake County is fuel-
ing a backlash among frustrat-
ed residents, who are devoting
an ever-increasing amount of
time, money and effort to try to
slow down development.
At least a half-dozen activist
groups have formed in the past
couple of years. Two have
, racked up some high-profile
victories recently - from Sep-
tember's vote against a massive
project planned on Sugarloaf
Mountain in south Lake to Jan-
uary's defeat of the 1,400-acre
Harbor Hills expansion in the
northwest part of the county.
They are also finding ways to
work together, a trend that
hasn'tgone unnoticed by prom-
inent land-use attorney Steve
Richey, who often represents
developers of some of Lake
County's largest projects, in-
cluding Harbor Hills.
"I think the tlrought has
brought them all together for a
common cause," Richey said,
adding that he's noticed them
"coordinating their efforts in a
more efficient way.~
It's tough enough to get proj-
ects approved, Richey said. The
opposition groups add another
hurdle. .
Activists have lawyers, too
At least it creates job security
for Richey, because developers
facing organized opposition
need someone "who under-
stands the rules and regulations
. . . and that's the role I play."
The Friends of Lake Griffin
group brought in its own hired
gun, noted Tallahassee land-
use lawyer Steven Pfeiffer.
Pfeiffer used to be an assistant
secretary with the Florida De-
partment of Community Af-
fairs, the state's top planning
agency.
It wasn't a cheap battle. The
Friends of Lake Griffin's legal
costs topped $12,000, a hefty
bill that shows how far these
new activists are willing to go to
stop what they perceive as a
threat to their community.
These determined residents
are going beyond the tradition-
al opposition strategies of sim-
ply gathering petitions and
packing commission chambers
with supporters. Activists are
becoming sawier. They're deci-
phering often intricate develop-
ment rules so they can bolster
their battles with facts instead
of just emotions.
They fight fire with facts
"We have become conver-
sant, knowledgeable, about the
comprehensive plan," the coun-
ty's blueprint for growth, said
Nancy Fullerton, president of
the Save Our Lakes Committee,
a group concerned about water,
the environment and growth.
Fullerton, a former member
of the county's planning and
zoning advisory board, said res-
idents are learning they need to
40 more than just say they don't
want a project because "it's ug-
ly" or they "don't like it."
Residents are citing specific
references from the compre-
hensive plan calling for the,
county, for example, to protect
the rural character of certain
existing communities, and to
ensure "compatibility of neigh-
borhoods.-
Plans spawn opposition
About a year later, another
group, called PLEDGE - an ac-
ronym for Pledge to Limit Ex-
cessive Development and
Growth in Our Environment -
was created to fight a dense res-
idential project near Lake lou-
isa.
A lawsuit that PLEDGE
members filed against the
. county for approving the 40-
acre project calling for about 90
houses is still pending, said
PLEDGE member Shawn Gur-
backi.
Last June, Montverde resi-
dent Bob Smith created Voters
League to Control Develop-
ment in response to several
south Lake projects, including
an 8oo-home development
called Pine Island, which was
put on hold last year.
Also last year, another group
of residents banded together in
opposition to a request to ex-
tend the development timetable
for a 1,434-acre project pro-
posed on Sugarloaf Mountain.
A couple of months later, the
Harbor Hills project prompted
opponents to form Friends of
Lake Griffin.
"We believe the majority of
people in Lake County are op-
posed to out-of-control
growth," said Bob Resetar, who
is grateful commissioners sided
with residents opposed to the
Sugarloaf Mountain project.
Resetar said it's possible an
umbrella group of activists
could emerge as a political
force, rivaling such traditional-
ly influential 'special-interest
groups as builders and develop-
ers. "We would like the com-
mission to know that we can de.
liver them the votes," he said.
"We would like to give them
real votes from real people."
Kevin P. ConnoRy can be reached at
kconnolly@orlandosentinel.com or 352-
742-5924.
May 18,2001
Terry Scarlata
1006 Nancy Circle
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Mr. Anthony Garganese
Brown, Ward, Salzman & Weiss, P.A.
Two Landmark Center
225 East Robinson Str. Suite 660
P.O. Box 2873
Orlando, FL 32802-2873
Re: Scarlata V. City of Winter Springs, et al
DOAH #OO-0698GM
Dear Anthony:
The three signed copies of the stipulated settlement agreement should be enclosed with this letter.
I left them with the City Clerk in City Hall. There are still issues pending arising from your letter
of May 9,2001, but I believe they can be resolved without further delaying the settlement
process.
I wish I could share your firm belief that "..owe have developed a constructive solution to enhance
the recreational opportunities for the citizens of Winter Springs...." My regret is that our
commissioners failed to recognize the importance of this "constructive solution" ten years ago
when it would have made a difference. By law, the City of Winter Springs should have had a
Concurrency Management Ordinance in place in the early 1990's. If it had done so, our city could
have thwarted the cowboy politics which became the government du jour for Winter Springs in
the nineties.
Sadly, even members on the current commission failed to recognize the opportunities that were
afforded to them. In 1995, Attorney Keith Bricklemeyer and the members of the Planning and
Zoning board were motivated and energized to do the necessary work. But the commission that
presided over that term rejected their efforts.
Now we're in the year 2001. The last 4% of undeveloped property has been rezoned Town
Center and Greeneway Interchange District. These districts allow for some of the highest
residential densities in the city - higher than before the rezoning - and a direct result of the land
use change is that the market price is three times the value and rising. Because the commissioners
lacked vision and an understanding of the future needs of the public, they failed to see how
delaying one decision would atfect the other. The public has nothing but time on their side to
fully grasp the importance of these last few years. It will become apparent to them when they see
that a handful of property owners are becoming enriched at their expense.
..
.
As for your May 9th, 200 I letter, I'd like to make the following comments: (I) the appointment
with Chuck Pula to review records is satisfactory, (2) the issue which involves the Parkstone
PUD needs further attention. I could explain why I didn't find your response sufficient, but it
would be easier just to look into the files for Parkstone myself to tind my own answers. I trust
that you will be able to facilitate this inspection if I encounter the usual obstacles.
Finally, )' d like to discuss point 2 of your January 16, 200 I memorandum. It mentioned the Jim
Mikes properties in the Tuscawilla PUD. Your comments are not consistent with my memory of
our conversation. There were three park parcels "located to the east of Greenbriar Lane and
bounded on the outward perimeter by the 11 th through the 16th holes of the TuscawilIa Country
Club Golf Course." In 1997, they belonged to Jim Mikes. In late 1998, Jim Mikes transferred
two of those parcels to the city as a donation for conservation area. To my knowledge. this
donation had nothing to do with a court order. However, there is a third parcel which is curiously
landlocked and still appears under Mr. Mikes' name. Under the 1973 vested rights agreement
with the state, it is labeled, "Park." However, your future land use map shows it as "Conservation
Area." If this parcel was suppose to be donated to the city as well, then the city should follow
through and ensure that the proper paper work gets filed. Just a suggestion.
If there is further activity on the issue of the ordinance, I trust that you will contact me at your
earliest convenience.
Regards,
~\):Gib~
Terry Scarlata
cc: Andrew Grayson, DCA
Commissioners
..
March 22, 200 I
Terry Scarlata
I006 Nancy Circle
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Mr. Anthony Garganese, Esquire
Brown, Ward, Salman & Weiss, P.A.
III North Orange Ave., Suite 875
P.O. Box 2873
Orlando, FL 32802-2873
Dear Anthony:
Enclosed is an addendum that I would like added to the stipulated agreement. As stated in
yesterday's phone conversation, you should have heard it all before and there should be no
surprises. Let me know if it passes inspection and I'll send you a copy of your stipulated
agreement, signed.
Sincerely yours,
~~~
Terry Scarlata
.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TERR Y SCARLATA,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No.: 00-0698GM
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND
DEPARTMENT OF COMMVNITY AFFAIRS,
Respondents,
/
PETITIONER'S ADDENDUM
TOSTWULATEDAGREEMENT
THIS ADDENDUM is requested by the petitioner to be attached to the stipulated
agreement to avoid ambiguity and to provide a record of the negotiations for the benefit of the
public:
I) The stipulated agreement settles claims raised from a petition which was
filed in response to a Notice ofIntent posted by the DCA in the Orlando Sentinel on November
24'\ 1999. The notice informed the public of the DCA's intent to find the City of Winter
Springs' Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Greeneway Interchange Di strict in compliance
and also included a map outlining the boundary for the planned District. The stipulated
settlement applies to the Greeneway Interchange District as it was defined on November 24th,
1999.
2) In addition to the conditions outlined in the stipulated agreement, the city
-1-
also agreed to the following:
a) Provide petitioner with documents in response to a public records
request for all correspondence/memos which provide information regarding the city's plans
and/or position regarding the status of the park situation and how it intends to meet the
recreational needs of future growth.
b) The City Manager agreed to prepare a response to an mqUlry
regarding the Parkstone PUD. Specifically, what agreements did the city enter into with the
developer and/or owner of the development in regard to open space, parks etc for that
development?
3) The petitioner accepts the two changes to the Concurrency Management
Ordinance proposed by the DCA on March 21, 2001. (Reference: Removal of Sec. 9-503 &
change of terms from 5 years to six months in Sec. 9-504 and in other areas of the Concurrency
Management Ordinance.)
4) For the sake of reducing ambiguity, the petitioner would like to comment
on the term "fishing hole" as listed on page J 2 of J 7 of the current draft. The Petitioner
expressed concerns that the term would be misused to include Lake Jessup in the level of service
computations for Parks and Recreation. The city's representative provided assurances that the
term would not apply to Lake Jessup, but to retention ponds which are subject to restrictions
addressed in the Ordinance.
5) The Concurrency Management Ordinance is a compromise between the
parties. Not all issues that concerned the petitioner in regard to parks and recreation could be
-2-
resolved or addressed by this petition. It is hoped that those issues will be resolved through
other means with public awareness and education. For the record, the compromises are listed
below:
a) The Level of Service Ratio for Parks and Recreation would have been
more effective as a tool for community planning if it was exclusively a land-based figure. The
ordinance allows the level of service ratio to include bodies of water, such as retention ponds,
which literally waters down the ratio.
b) The ordinance does not differentiate between acti ve and passive parks.
This creates a major loophole because anything from wetlands to retention ponds are included
as park acreage. Acreage alone is not sufficient to reflect the reality of the recreation
deficiencies in the city.
c) The Comp Plan's recreational element is based on outdated
information. The last thorough survey and study, which involved the public, was conducted in
the early 1990's and does not take into account the effect of the Town Center and Greeneway
Interchange District. That the city needs to undergo a new study and open its doors to the
public in the planning process is an understatement.
d) Golf courses as a matter of concurrency. In 1992 the city's
Comprehensive Plan excluded golf courses from the level of service (LOS) computations for
parks and recreation. The intention of a Concurrency Management Ordinance is to ensure that
adequate recreation areas are continually added to the park inventory to keep up with the
anticipated population growth. In order to stay consistent with the Comp Plan's reasoning and
-3-
methodolobT)', the two existing golf courses were also excluded from the Concurrency
Management Ordinance. If the city commission wishes to add golf course acreage into the level
of service computations. petitioner would be agreeable only if the LOS numbers are raised
proportionately in order to avoid skewing the ratios. However, it's questionable if this is
necessary because the two golf courses are already part of the recreation element in the
Comprehensive Plan and defined on the Future Land Use Map as recreation areas. In addition,
it's time the city recognizes that the Tuscawilla golf course was vested by the State in ] 973 as
golf course property. Thus, any land use changes would require a process that involves state
statute, in addition to the local PUD amendment requirements.
j4~
TERR Y SCARLATA, Petitioner
-1!t MCh. dJ, dOC}
Date
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and c.orrect copy of the foregoing was sent as
indicated below this 220d day of March 200 I.
~~
By Fax:
By Fax:
Mr. .Andrew Grayson, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
(850) 922-2679
Mr. Anthony Garganese, Esquire
Brown, Ward, Salzman & Weiss, P.A.
111 North Orange Ave., Suite 875
P.O. Box 2873
Orlando, FL 32802-2873
(407) 425-9596
5
-5-
Q
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPOR-
TIME 03/22/2001 15:08
DATE. TIME
FAX NO. It-lAME
DURA nON
PAGE(S)
RESULT
MODE
03/22 15:05
1850'322267'3
130:131:20
06
OK
STANDARD
EeM
Q
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPOR~
TIME 03/22/20e1 15:15
DATE. TIME
FAX NO. /NAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
MODE
03/22 15:15
4074259595
013:01:21
06
OK
STANDARD
ECM
.
~
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TERRY SCARLATA,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No.: 00-0698GM
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS,
Respondents.
/
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the
Petitioner, TERRY SCARLATA, and Respondents, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, as a complete and final settlement of all claims
raised in the above-styled proceeding.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Terry Scarlata, (Petitioner), filed a Petition challenging the City of Winter
Springs' Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-2, as adopted by City Ordinance No. 724 on August
16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, (DCA or Department),
is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II,
Florida Statutes; and
Page 1 of 8
/\
~.fJry
.
..
WHEREAS, the City of Winter Springs, (Local Government), is a Local Government with
the duty to adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance"; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-2, (Plan
Amendment), by Ordinance No. 724 on August 16, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Amendment proposes to create a new Future Land Use Category,
Greenway Interchange District; and
WHEREAS, the Department issued its Notice of Intent regarding the Amendment on
November 24, 1999; and
WHEREAS, as set forth in the Notice of Intent, the Department contends that the
Amendment is "in compliance"; and Petitioner contends that the Amendment is not "in compliance"
as stated in their Amended Petition filed with the Department on January 24, 2000; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has initiated
the above-styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government and the Department dispute the allegations of the
Amended Petition regarding the Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty oflengthy litigation
and to resolve this proceeding under the terms set forth herein, and agree it is in their respective
mutual best interests to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises hereinbelow
set forth, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby represent and agree as follows:
1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following words and phrases shall have
Page 2 of 8
0?
.
the following meanings:
a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act, as codified in Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
b. Agreement: This Stipulated Settlement Agreement.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Plan Amendment: Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 99-2 adopted by the Local Government on August 16, 1999, as Ordinance No. 724.
d. DOAH: The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.
e. In compliance or into compliance: The meaning set forth in Section
163.3184(1 )(b), Florida Statutes.
f. Notice: The Notice of Intent issued by the Department to find the Plan
Amendment in compliance. A copy of the Notice of Intent is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which
is fully incorporated herein by this reference.
g. Petition: The amended petition for administrative hearing and relief filed by
the Petitioner in this case.
h. Remedial Action: The adoption by the City Commission of Winter Springs
of an ordinance substantially similar to the ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "B", which is hereby
fully incorporated herein by this reference, and other action described in this agreement which must
be completed to bring resolution to the issues in the pending Petition. Notwithstanding, Petitioner
and the Local Government agree that they may mutually agree to substantial amendments to the
ordinance during the ordinance adoption process.
1. Remedial Plan Amendment: The Department has previously issued a Notice
of Intent to find the Plan Amendment in compliance, therefore, no remedial plan amendment is
Page 3 of 8
-~
~
..
necessary to bring the Plan Amendment into compliance.
2. Department Powers. The Department is the state land planning agency and has the
power and duty to administer and enforce the Act and to determine whether the Plan Amendment
is in compliance.
3. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the
Plan Amendment in compliance. Petitioner filed a petition challenging the consistency ofthe Plan
Amendment. Subsequent to the filing ofthe Amended Petition, the parties conferred and agreed to
resolve the issues in the Amended Petition through this Agreement. It is the intent ofthis Agreement
to fully resolve all issues between the parties in this proceeding.
4. Dismissal. If the Local Government completes the Remedial Actions required to be
considered by this Agreement, the Department will file an appropriate pleading with DOAH advising
that this action has been settled between the parties and that the Petitioner has voluntarily consented
to dismiss the Petition with prejudice. The parties will also file a request to relinquish jurisdiction
to the Department for dismissal of this proceeding or for realignment of the parties, as appropriate
under Section 163 .3184( 16)( f), Florida Statutes.
5. Remedial Actions to be Considered for Adoption. The Local Government agrees to
consider for adoption by formal action of its governing body all Remedial Actions described in
Exhibit "8" no later than the time period provided for in this Agreement. The governing body shall
not be obligated in any way to adopt the Remedial Action.
6. Adoption or Approval of Remedial Actions. Within 60 days after execution of this
Agreement by the parties, the Local Government shall consider for adoption all Remedial Actions.
This shall be done by ordinance duly adopted by the City Commission in accordance with law. A
Page 4 of 8
~~"""'-'"
f1!rJ
..
copy ofthe adopted ordinance shall be delivered to Petitioner. A copy ofthe adopted ordinance shall
also be delivered to the Department with a letter indicating that the Remedial Action has been fully
performed by the Local Government and that the Department shall dismiss this proceeding as
required by this Agreement. If Local Government does not adopt the Remedial Actions within the
time prescribed herein, Petitioner reserves the right to proceed to hearing in this matter.
7. Effect of Remedial Action. Adoption of the Remedial Action shall not be counted
toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon Plan Amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187(1),
Florida Statutes.
8. PUl:pose of this Agreement Not Establishing Precedent. The parties enter into this
Agreement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and unnecessary
litigation and in recognition ofthe desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of disputes arising
out of or related to the Plan Amendment. The acceptance of proposals for purposes of this
Agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many factual and legal issues and is not an
endorsement of, and does not establish precedent for, the use of these proposals in any other
circumstances or by any other local government.
9. Approval by Governing Body. This Agreement has been approved by the Local
Government's governing body at a public hearing advertised at least 10 days prior to the hearing in
a newspaper of general circulation in a manner similar to general ordinances set forth in Section
163.3184 (16)( c), Florida Statutes. This agreement has been executed by the appropriate officer as
provided in the Local Government's charter or other regulations.
10. Changes in Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve either party
from adhering to the law, and in the event of a change in any statute or administrative regulation
Page 5 of 8
(ij
inconsistent with this Agreement, the statute or regulation shall take precedence and shall be deemed
incorporated in this Agreement by reference.
11. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to affect the
rights of any person not a party to this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to benefit any
third party.
12. Attorney Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney fees,
incurred in connection with the above-captioned case and this Agreement.
13. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution
by the Petitioner, the Department and the Local Government.
14. Filing and Continuance. This Agreement shall be filed with DOAH by the
Department after execution by the parties. Upon the filing of this Agreement, the administrative
proceeding in this matter shall be stayed by the Administrative Law Judge in accordance with
Section 163.3184(16)(b), Florida Statutes.
15. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. The parties hereby retain the right to have a final
hearing in this proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement or failure of the Local
Government to adopt satisfy the Remedial Action, and nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed
a waiver of such right. Any party to this Agreement may move to have this matter set for hearing
if it becomes apparent that any other party whose action is required by this Agreement is not
proceeding in good faith to take that action.
16. Construction of Agreement. All parties to this Agreement are deemed to have
participated in its drafting. In the event of any ambiguity in the terms of this Agreement, the parties
agree that such ambiguity shall be construed without regard to which of the parties drafted the
Page 6 of 8
0?
provision in question.
17. Entire Agreement. This is the entire Agreement between the parties and no verbal
or written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document.
18. Governmental Discretion Unaffected. This Agreement is not intended to bind the
Local Government in the exercise of its governmental, proprietary, and legislative discretion which
is exercisable in accordance with law.
19. Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all
of which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need is produced for any purpose.
20. Captions. The captions inserted in this Agreement are for the purpose of convenience
only and shall not be utilized to construe or interpret any provision of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Stipulated Settlement
Agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly authorized.
J' ),11 I
~~/tq ~(~
TERRY SCARLATA, Petitioner
l-J'
Page 7 of 8
/\
~;
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondent Approved as to form and
legality:
By: C'~~ ~;r1.-
J. THOMAS BECK SR, Director
Division of Community Planning
r"rt.
sel
Department of Community Affairs
Date
6/,.1/01
,
t\N~~W ~. 6'2A~~'oJJ
Print Name
0.\'2- .0\
Date
crry' O{WfNTER SPRINGS, Respondent
j'; ~
:' '. ,j" -" ,
Approved as to form and
~
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE
City Attorney
City of Winter Springs
~/6r/o1
Date I
- .
/7"
By~ /r~~0?1t "" L L:>
RONALD W. MCLEM6RE
City Manager
j/>1/() ,
.
Date
F:\OOCS\City of Winter Springs\Scarlata\Pleadings\stipulated settlement.kj
Page 8 of 8
G~
.II STATE OF FLORIDA -I"
P ARThfENT OF COMMUNITY AFF Ah.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COLVlPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IN COiVlPLIAL"lCE
DOCKET NO. 99-2 NOI-5908-(A)-(I)
The Department gives notice of its intent to find the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the
City of Winter Springs, adopted by Ordinance No. 724 on August 16, 1999, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant
to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, F.S.
The adopted City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Department's
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, (if any), are available for public inspection
Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the City of Winter
Springs, City Hall, City Clerk's office, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708-2799.
Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3184, F.S., has a right to petition for an
administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the Amendment to the City of
Winter Springs Comprehensive PI~ are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), F.S. The.
petition must be filed within twenty-one (21) days after publication of this notice, and must include all of
the information and contents described in Uniform Rule 28-106.201, F.A.C. The petition must be filed
with the Agency Clerk, Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2100, and a copy mailed or delivered to the local government. Failure to timely file a
petition shall constitute a waiver of any right to request an administrative proceeding as a petitionc:~
under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Ifa petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing
will be to present evidence and testimony and forward a recommended order to the Department. If no
petition is filed, this Notice ofIntent shall become final agency action. '
If a petition is filed, other affected persons may petition for leave to intervene in the proceeding. A
petition for intervention must be filed at least twenty (20) days before the final hearing and must include
all of the information and c,ontents described in Unifonn Rule 28-106.205, F.A.C, A petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Management Services,
1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550. Failure to petition to intervene within the
allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such a person has to request a hearing under
Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to participate in the administrative hearing.
After an administrative hearing petition is timely filed, mediation is available pursuant to
Subsection 163.3 I 89(3)(a), F.S., to any affected person who is made a party to the proceeding by filing
that request with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The
choice of mediation shall not affect a party's right to an administrative hearing.
-~
Cl,\,~~(b~
Charles Gauthi~r, AlCP
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning'
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
II I I'" ~ 'i Y
.~A
EXHIBIT
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-39
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS CODE OF ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 9 BY ESTABLISIDNG A CONCURRENCY
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC
FACILITIES MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN TmS
ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
. WHEREAS, Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, states that each local government should
adopt a concurrency management system to ensure that issuance of a development order or
development permit is conditioned upon the availability of public facilities and services necessary
to serve new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to adopt the concurrency management system set
forth herein and hereby deems this Ordinance in the best interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRlNGSHEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Winter Springs Code Chapter 9, Land Development, is hereby amended
as follows: (underlined type indicates additions).
Article X. Concurrency Administration and Evaluation Procedure
Division 1. Overview and Exemptions.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT
I "0"
'"
Sec. 9-500. Purpose of Con curren cv Evaluation. The purpose of this Article is to implement the
concurrency vrovisions of the City's Growth Management Policies consistent with the provisions
of Chapter 163. Part II. Florida Statutes. and apvlicable administrative rules. It is also the purpose
of this Article to establish an ongoing concurrency evaluation system which ensures that public
facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of
such development and that development orders and permits are issued in a manner that will not result
in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service standards adopted by the
City for public facilities and services. The concurrency evaluation system shall measure the
potential impact of any proposal for a development permit or order upon the established minimum
acceptable levels of service for sanitary sewer. solid waste. drainage. potable water. parks and
recreation. and transportation facilities. unless the development permit or order is exempt from the
concurrency review requirements of this Article. No develovment permit or order which contains
a specific plan of development. including densities and intensities of development. shall be issued
unless adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development as determined by
the concurrency evaluation set forth in this Article.
Sec. 9-501. Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this Article shall have the
meanings ascribed below unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
(a) ON'S Growth Manaflement Policies. The growth management policies of the City of
Winter Springs that are set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations
which regulate land development and established levels of service of public facilities and services.
including sanitary sewer. solid waste. drainage. potable water. parks and recreation. and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 2 of 16
"
transportation facilities.
(b) Concurrency Certificate. A certificate issued for a specific development or property that
indicates available capacity for each public facility reviewed based upon adopted levels of service
standards established in this Article at the time the certificate is issued and does not guarantee
capacity in the future. nor does the certificate encumber capacity for a specific period of time.
(c) Concurrency Evaluation. Evaluation bv the Development Review Committee based on
adopted levels of service standards to ensure that public facilities and services are available
concurrent with the impacts of such development as defined in this Article.
(d) Development Order. Anv order granting. denying or granting with conditions an
application for a development permit.
(e) Development Permit. Includes any building permit. zoning permit. subdivision approval.
rezoning certification. special exception. variance. or any other official action ofthe City having the
effect of permitting the development of land.
(0 Development Review Committee. Shall be a committee established by the City Manager
to review and approve applications for the development ofland. At a minimum. the committee shall
consist of the directors of utilities/ public works. community development. and parks and recreation
or their designee. The City Manager or City Commission may also appoint residents of Winter
Springs to serve on the committee.
( g) Level of Service Standard. The measurement indicating the degree of service provided
by. or proposed for a facility based on operational characteristics of the facility.
(h) Public Facilities and Services. Those public facilities and services for which level of
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 3 of 16
"
service standards have been established in the City of Winter Springs Growth Management Policies.
and are recognized in this Article. and which include (1) roads. (2) wastewater. (3) storm water. (4)
solid waste. (5) potable water. (6) parks and recreation.
Sec. 9-502 Application Submittal. The Development Review Committee shall be responsible for
carrying out the requirements ofthis Article and shall make determinations regarding concurrency
applications and issue certificates according to the procedures established by this Article. An
application for a Concurrency Certificate shall be filed with all applications for a final development
order or permit. unless otherwise exempted by this Article. A preliminary review application may
also be submitted for an informational and non-binding concurrency review by the Development
Review Committee. All applications shall be made on a form prescribed by the City. which should
require. at a minimum and as applicable:
(a) Date of submittal.
(b) Name. address. and telephone number of applicant and property owner.
(c) Parcel LD. number. street address. and legal description.
(d) Proposed land use(s) by land category. square feet and number of units.
(e) Phasing information by proposed uses. square feet and number of units.
(0 Existing use of property. acreage of property. name ofDRI. PUD. Subdivisions.
(g) Site design information.
(h) Previously issued concurrency certificates.
(i) Possible limitations in the manner in which the proposed use will be conducted. including
restrictions on use. resident population. density and intensity of use.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 4 of 16
.
~
(j) Possible limitations on the height. size. location. density or intensity of a building or other
structure.
(k) Possible phasing schedule.
(l) Possible alternative with respect to size. number. location or nature of vehicle access
points.
(m) Possible increase in the amount of street dedication. roadway width. or construction of
roadway improvements within street right of way.
(n) Plans for the protection of existing trees. vegetation. water resources. wildlife habitat and
other significant natural resources.
(0) Any information regarding possible solutions or alternatives which would permit the
proposed development in conformity with the requirements and intent of this Article and the
City's Growth Management Policies.
(p) Data and analysis relevant to the concurrency facilities and services evaluated under this
Article. whereupon the Development Review Committee can conduct and make an informed
concurrency determination.
An application which is not technically complete shall be returned to the applicant with a
correspondence detailing the deficiencies in the application. Failure to submit the required
information in accordance with this Section shall result in the denial of the concurrency application.
Applications deemed complete by the City shall be handled on a first-come first-served basis. Once
an application is accepted by the City as complete. any changes in uses. densities and intensities for
the subiect property that result in an increased capacity reauirement for any concurrency facility shall
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 5 of 16
.
be subiect to a new concurrencv review. An application fee mav be established by the City
Commission bv resolution. All completed applications shall be reviewed in accordance with the
procedures contained in this Article.
Sec. 9-503.
[Reserved]
Sec. 9-504 Change of Use.
( a) Anv change. redevelopment or modification ofuse shall require a concurrency evaluation
under this Article. provided the prooosed change. redevelopment or modification of use has more
than a de minimis impact on public facilities and services than the previous use that was activelv
maintained on the site during: the six (6) month period prior to the date of application for concurrencv
evaluation. Concurrencv credit shall be given for the previous use that was actively maintained on
the site during the six (6) month period prior to the date of application for concurrency evaluation.
If the proposed change. redevelopment or modification of use has a lesser impact on public facilities
and services than the previous use during the six (6) month period orior to the date of application for
concurrencv evaluation. then no concurrencv evaluation shall be required. If no use existed on the
site for the six (6) month period prior to the date of application. no concurrency credit shall be issued
and the proposed use shall be subiect to concurrencv evaluation.
(b) The impact of such change. redevelopment or modification shall be measured in terms
oflevel of service criteria including. but not limited to. vehicular trips per day. estimated increases
in water and sewer flows. increases in resident population. increases in on-site impervious surfaces.
and estimated solid waste generation.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 6 of 16
(c) The burden is on the applicant to provide reasonably sufficient evidence that the orevious
use has been actively maintained on the site during the six (6) month period orior to the date of
aoolication for the concurrency evaluation. Such evidence may include utility records. records
reflecting the use sought to be proven. and other relevant documents. An occupational license is not
of itself sufficient proof of a particular use. but may be used to suoport other evidence of a use
maintained on a site.
Sec. 9-505. Demolitions.
In the case of a demolition of an existing use or structure. the
concurrency evaluation for the redevelooment shall be based upon the net increase of the impact for
the new or prooosed land use as compared to the most recent land use existing orior to demolition.
provided that such credit is utilized within six (6) months of the date of the issuance of the
demolition oermit. Such credits are non-transferrable.
Sec. 9-506 to 9-509.
rReservedl
Division 2. Level of Service Standards (LOS)
Sec. 9-510. Introduction. The levels of service set forth in this Division 2 are intended to be the
minimum levels of service which are acceotable under the City's Growth Management Policies for:
(1) potable water: (2) solid waste: (3) wastewater: (4) parks and recreation: (5) storm water: and (6)
transportation. The City shall monitor compliance with the minimum levels of service set forth in
this Division by ensuring that public facilities and services needed to support develooment are
available concurrent with the impacts of develooment. as reQuired by law.
Sec. 9-511. Potable Water LOS
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 7 of 16
.
rReservedl
Sec. 9-512. Solid Waste LOS
rReservedl
Sec. 9-513. Wastewater LOS
rReservedl
Sec. 9-514. Parks and Recreation LOS
A oarks and recreation concurrency evaluation shall
be required for any residential development on a citywide and per development basis. Citywide
minimum levels of service for parklands shall be determine on a two level basis for community oarks
and neighborhood parks. In addition to the cityWide minimum levels of service. new residential
develooment shall supolement the system of neighborhood parks and recreation services by
providing parklands (or fees in lieu of) consistent with the level of service criteria and requirements
established for parks and recreation under the City's Comprehensive Plan and this section.
(a) The oarks and recreation level of service standards for community parks shall be
monitored by the City through concurrency evaluations to ensure that the minimum level of service
standard for cityWide community parks remains at or above 1.6 acres per 1000 oopulation. In
performing the concurrency evaluation for community parks for a orooosed residential development.
the Development Review Committee shall determine the number of acres of community parkland
which would be necessary to serve the number of cityWide dwelling units existing or approved prior
to the development plus the number of proposed new dwelling units. If the development satisfies
the level of service standards for community oarkland. then the development shall be deemed
concurrent for community oarks and a certificate shall be issued consistent with section 9-533 ofthis
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 8 of 16
..
Article. If a residential development causes or continues to cause the level of service for community
parks to be not concurrent. the developer shall pav the City a fair share communitv parks and
recreation impact fee. as established by the City Commission by resolution. All such fees collected
shall be allocated and appropriated to the City's recreation budget to be expended to enhance the
City's community parks system with Priority given to expend such funds to acquire parkland.
(b) The parks and recreation level of service standards for neighborhood parks shall be based
on the application ofthe level of service standards established for each residential development by
particular region of the City as follows:
Northwest region - 5.9 acres per 1.000 population
South-central region - 5.3 acres per 1.000 population
Southeast region - 6.9 acres per 1.000 population
In performing the concurrency evaluation for neighborhood parks and recreation for a proposed
residential development. the Development Review Committee shall determine the number of acres
of parkland which would be necessary to serve the number of dwelling units on-site (minimum one-
half (.5) acre). If such amount of parkland can be provided while meeting the level of service
standards set forth in this section. then the development shall be deemed concurrent for parks and
recreation. If such amount of parkland can not be provided while meeting the level of service
standards set forth in this section. then the development shall be deemed not concurrent for parks
and recreation and a certificate shall not be issued. However. if a development can not provide the
required on-site parkland. the Development Review Committee shall permit the developer to satisfy
the parks and recreation standard by providing a combination of on-site and off-site parkland and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 9 of 16
,.
l'
a fair share neighborhood parks and recreation impact fee as established by the City Commission
by resolution. In such cases. the Development Review Committee shall require on-site parkland to
the maximum extent feasible and practicable. off-site parkland shall be located in the same region
as the proposed development. and said impact fee shall only be paid if on and off site parkland can
not be provided as reauired herein. Any and all such fees collected shall be allocated and
appropriated to the City's recreation budget to be expended for public recreational purposes and
priority shall be given to expend such funds to acquire parkland. At such time the development
satisfies the level of service for parks and recreation. a certificate shall be issued consistent with
section 9-533 ofthis Article. with the condition that the necessary parkland and recreational services
(including any impact fees) shall be in place or paid when the impacts ofthe development occur or
shall be guaranteed to be in place through an enforceable development order or agreement not more
than one year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
(c) For purposes of determining levels of service for parks and recreation facilities within the
City under this section. the term "parkland" shall mean a public or private use of land that is
dedicated or exclusively set aside as a neighborhood or community recreational area including. but
not limited to. a playground. playing field. swimming pool. . tennis court. fishing hole or pier. nature
trail. landscaped city sauare or green for the pursuit ofleisure activities. stadium. conservation area
suitable for passive recreation. water sport area. or other similar tyPe areas suitable for bona fide
recreational activities. A storm water retention pond shall not be considered parkland unless the
retention pond includes uplands suitable for bona fide recreational activities or incorporated by
design into a bona fide recreational area (e.g.. a place to install a water fountain and littoral plantings
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 10 of 16
'~
-
in a park like setting). If a storm water retention pond is used for parkland purposes. the pond shall
include abutting uplands for park PUlposes at least eaual to the size of the pond and the pond shall
not be fenced and shall be designed in a safe manner to protect the public (e.g.. gradual pond slopes).
All parkland required by this Article shall be a minimum of one-half (,5) acre.
(d) For pumoses of complying with the concurrency requirements of this section. properties
zoned Town Center on June 1. 2000 shall satisfy concurrency by providing the parkland reauired
by the Town Center Zoning Code and applicable development agreements.
Sec. 9-515. Storm water LOS
fReservedl
Sec. 9-516. Transportation LOS
fReservedl
Sec. 9-517 to 9-529.
fReservedl
Division 3. Concurrency Administration.
Sec. 9-530. Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee shall review
each completed application for a concurrency certificate or preliminary review and determine. as
soon as practicable. whether the application is sufficient.
Sec. 9-531. Concurrency Review. No application shall be deemed sufficient unless it contains
all information which. in the professional iudgement of the Development Review Committee. is
reasonably necessary to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development on the public facilities
and services subiect to review under this Article. During the review process. the Development
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page II of 15
_L
.,
.
Review Committee shall either deny. approve. or approve with conditions. the application for a
concurrency certificate.
Sec. 9-532. Conditional Approvals. If the Development Review Committee determines that the
application can be approved with conditions. the Development Review Committee shall recommend
to the city commission a written concurrency agreement. The applicant may accept the conditional
approval by written concurrency agreement approved by the city commission. or the applicant may
consider the application denied. in which case the applicant may appeal the denial to the city
commission. When the Development Review Committee recommends and the city commission
approves any conditional concurrency agreement. the city commission. with the recommendation
of the Development Review Committee. may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in
conformity with the intent and provisions of this Article. including any of the following:
(a) Limit the manner in which the use is conducted. including restricting density and
intensity of the use.
(b) Limit the height. size. location. density or intensity of a building or other structure.
(c) Require phasing of the proiect.
(d) Designate the size. number. location or nature of vehicle access points.
(e) Increase the amount of street dedication. roadway width. or require construction of road
improvements within the street right-of-way.
(f) Protecting existing trees. vegetation. water resources. wildlife habitat or other significant
natural resources.
(g) Specify other conditions to permit development in the City in conformity with the intent
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 12 of 16
flit
. "
and purpose of this Article and the adopted City Growth Management Policies.
All conditional approvals shall be incorporated in a written development agreement which shall be
subject to City Commission approval.
Sec. 9-533. Concurrency Certificate. A Concurrency Certificate is a "snap shot" of available
capacity for each public facility. evaluated under this Article. at the time the certificate is issued.
The Concurrency Certificate does not guarantee capacity in the future or encumber or vest capacity
for any period of time. At a minimum. the Concurrency Certificate shall contain:
.L Name. address. and telephone number of the applicant and property
owner.
2. Parcel J.D. number and legal description.
~ Date of issuance.
4. Proposed use(s) by land use category. square feet. and number of units.
~ Phasing information by proposed uses. square feet. and number of units. ifapplicable.
6. Total current available capacity within service area(s).
7. Project impact based on LOS Standards.
A Concurrency Certificate shall expire one (1) year after issuance unless the applicant
commences construction ofthe development under a validly issued building oermit. A one (1 ) year
extension may be granted by the Development Review Committee provided circumstances have not
adversely diminished the capacity of public facilities and services to support the development. The
development shall be subject to a new concurrency evaluation.
Division 4. Aooeal Procedures.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 13 of 16
..
."
Sec. 9-540. Notice of Appeal. The applicant may appeal the denial ofa certificate of concurrency
by the Development Review Committee by filing with the city mana~er a written notice of appeal
within fifteen (15) days after the date ofthe concurrency denial.
Sec.9-541. Appeal Notice and "earine:. Upon receipt of a written notice of appeal. the city
manager shall schedule the matter for consideration by the city commission within thirty (30) days
after the appeal is filed. The city clerk shall notify the applicant of the day of the city commission
hearing at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing. Prior to the hearing. the city manager shall
provide the city commission with all information submitted to the Development Review regarding
the subject concurrency application on appeal. The final decision on the concurrency application
shall be vested in the city commission. The city commission shall have the right to deny. approve.
or approve with conditions any concurrency application considered under appeal in conformity with
the intent and purpose of this Article.
Sec. 9-542. Appeal of City Commission. A final decision of the city commission on a
concurrency application shall be subject to judicial review as provided by law.
Section 2.
Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Commission, or parts of ordinances and
resolutions in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 3.
Incorporation Into Code. This ordinance shall be incorporated into the City
of Winter Springs City Code and any section or paragraph number or letter and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing.
Section 4.
Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 14 of 16
-..
./
provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity ofthe remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 5.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida.
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the
day of
,2001.
PAUL PARTYKA
Mayor
ATTEST:
ANDREA LORENZO-LUACES
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
FOR THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ONLY:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE
City Attorney
First Reading:
Second Reading:
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 15 of 16
-,-
..
.J
............
Effective Date:
F:\DOCS\City of Winter Springs\Ordinances\e-mail ordinance.LOS
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2001-39
Page 16 of 16
"
J'
~
il
, i
"
'''''''''~~''..
().JSfY!)CfV/~
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
, "
G~ ,.
,:
TERRY SCARLATA,
~
.,',' .., ~
;O.~-;, /
/.7.... &
, "..../, /'
~"'/ ' "..-
":.:,,' ~
. /". ~.,
';~'.' 'i.'",
~ ,;...):
.-:. (. .'
..;;:,
"
Petitioner,
,-J
'C'
vs. DOAH Case No. 00-0698GM
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS and
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS,
Respondents.
. /
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS'
NOTICE OF FILING STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
COMES NOW the Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs, by and through
undersigned counsel, to:
1) give notice of filing a Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the parties hereto,
p-ursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes; and
2) move the Administrative Law Judge to issue an Order staying these proceedings,
pursuant to Section 163 .3184( 16)(b), Florida Statutes.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests the Administrative Law Judge issue an Order staying
these proceedings in accordance with Section 163 .3184( 16)(b), Florida Statutes.
~ '\"\A.,
Respectfully submitted this I B day of June, 2001.
=--<~~~
Andrew S. Grayson I
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
(850) 488-0140
Fax: (850) 488-0410
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished on~;~'
this JQi~y of June, 2001, by the method indicated below.
<:::....""
AQ~)?r
Andrew S~Grays - ! !
Assistant General Counsel
-
By U. S. Mail:
Ms. Terry Scarlata
1006 Nancy Circle
Winter Springs, FL 32708
By Facsimile:
Anthony A. Garganese, Esquire
Amari & Theriac, P .A.
Mariner Square
96 Willard Street, Suite 302
P. O. Box 1807
Cocoa, FL 32923-1807
Fax: 321-639-6690