HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 07 28 Public Hearings E Second Reading - Ordinance 2003-27 Annexation near Carroll Property
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM E
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing X
Regular
Julv28,ZQ9J.._
Meeting
ALL
Dcpt.
Mgr. I
REQUEST:
On remand from the Circuit Court of Seminole County, Florida, the City Attorney requests that the
City Commission adopt on second and final reading Ordinance No. 2003-27 that would annex
approximately tcn (10) acres of the Carroll property ("Carroll Property").
PURPOSE:
The annexation of the Carroll Property has been remanded to the City Commission by the Circuit
Court for further proceedings consistent with the Coun's opinion dated July 7,2003. The purpose
of this request is to annex the Carroll Property localed generally on the north side of State Road 434
about 600 fcct west of the intersection of State Road 434 and DeLeon Street.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLlCY:
1. The Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act.
2. Chapter 171, Florida Statutes
3. Ord~T orJudgc James E. C. Perry of the Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, florida,
dated July 7, 2003 ("Order").
4. Order Dismissing Petition for Writ or Certiorari as to City of Oviedo for Lack of Standing
by Judge James E. C. Perl)' of the Circuit Court in and ror Seminole County, Florida, dated
July 7.2003 ("Oviedo Dismissal Order").
Page J of 4
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. On November 27,2000, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2000-36, annexing the
Carroll Property pursuant to a voluntary annexation rctluesll1lade by the property owner.
2. In addition, at the same time, the City Commission adopted Ordinance Nos. 2000-40 and
2000-41, annexing the Minter and W ea vcr propcrtit;s, Tl::speclively.
3. All three ordinances were challenged by Seminole County and the City of Oviedo on
numerous grounds.
4. Pursuant to the Order, the Circuit Court upheld Ordinance Nos. 2000-40. and 2000.-41.
However, the Circuit Court quashed (invalidated) Ordinance No. 2000-36.
5. Furthennore, pursuant to the Oviedo Dismissal Order, the Circuit Court dismissed the City
of Oviedo from the lawsuit for lack of standing.
G. The Circuit Court remanded this case Lo the City Commission for further proceedings
consistent with the Court's opinion as to Ordinance No. 2000-36.
7. Based on the Court's order) no further action is requested of the City Cmnmission with
respect to Ordinance Nos. 2000-40 (Weaver) and 2000-41 (Minter). The City has prevailed
on defending these ordinances. However, Seminole County and Oviedo may appeal the
Circuit Court's decision.
R. Altl1ougl1 t.he Court quashcd Ordinance No. 2000-36 (Carro.ll), it is very important Lo note
that the Court did so hased only on a technical advertisement issue. The Court found tllatthe
"advertised map" of the Carroll Property fell "far short of the statutory requirement that the
map clearly show the land proposed to he annexed." See last page of Order. Particularly,
the Court opined that the "roadways depicted on this map cannot be read, the numes of the
cities 011 the map are illegible and ean only be read by this court because the court has seen
the larger version of this map in the record."
9. The Court rejected all the substantive legal arguments raised by Semil10le County
challenging Ordinance No. 2000-36 and generally opined as follows:
a. The Carroll Property does not create an "enclave."
b. TIll: Carroll Properly does not create a "pocket:'
c. The Carroll Property is a "logical expansion of its [CityoCWinter Springs'] eastern
boundary."
Page 2 0 r 4
d. Voluntary annexations arc not required to satisfy tht:: n~quirtm1ents of Section
171.043, Florida Statutes (2000).
e. The County's "urban sprawl" argument is premature and may be addressed in the
future pursuant to Chapter I n3, Florida Statutes~ when the City seeks to change its
Comprehensive Plan to allow higher intensity development of the Carron Property.
f. The title of Ordinance No. 2000-36 was not required to be contained in the legal
advertisement pursuant to Section 171.044(2), Florida Statutes.
10. The Circuit Court held in the Oviedo Dismissal Order, the Joint Planning Agreement
hetween the City of Oviedo am1 Seminole County did not provide the City of Oviedo with
jurisdiction over the Minter, Wcavcr, and Carroll properties. Therefore, the City of Oviedo
did not have standing to sue the City of Winter Springs on that basis.
11. The City of Oviedo did not havc standing as an "affected.party" unuer Section 171.U31 (5),
Florida Statutes, to sue the City of Winter Springs,
12. The Order and Ovicdo Dismissal Ordcr are currently the "law of the case." See, e.~.. Parker
Family Trust J v. City of Jacksonville, 804 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 101 DCA 2001).
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City should correct the technical deficiency ill the legal advertisement noticing the Carroll
annexation and re-annex the subject property hy adoption ofa new ordinance. Therefore, the City
Attorney recommends that the City Commission adopt Ordinance Nu. 2003-27 in furtherance of the
Court's Order anu the Oviedo Dismissal Order. Upon passage at first reading, the Ordinance will
be advertised in the Orlando Sentinel for two consecutive wceks pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida
Statutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Ordinance 2003-27
2. Order
3. Oviedo Dismissal Order
4. Advertisement, dated July 17, 2003
Page 3 of 4
COMMISSION ACTION:
I. The Commission previously annexed the Carroll Property pursuant to Ordinance No. 2000-
36.
2. The Commission has been vigorously defending the City's right to voluntarily annex the
Can'oll Property.
3. The Corrimission approved Ordinance 2003-27 on first reuding on July 14,2003.
Page 4 0 f 4
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-27
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CTTY OF WINTER SPIUNGS, FLORIDA, ANNEXING REAL
PROPERTY LOCA TED WITHIN SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND GENERALLY. DESCRIBED AS
APPROXIMATELY TEN (10) ACRES MORE OR LESS
LOCATEU APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 434 AND DELEON
STREET (LUTHER AND JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY)
AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRJBED ON EXHIBIT
"A" ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE
AMENDMENT OF WINTER SPRINGS CH ARTER, ARTICLE
II, BOUNDARIES TO INCORPORATE THE REAL
PROPERTY INTO THE CITY BOUNDARIES; PROVIDING
FOR THE FILING O.l<' TUE REVISED WINTER SPRINGS
<.:HARTERWITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES UPON SAID
APPROV AL; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, this is a voluntary annexation which shall be pursuant to the annexation
procedures contahlCd in Sl;;ctlon 171.044, Florida SIQIUleS; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that the subject real property is
reasonably compact and contiguous wiLh the boundaries of the City ofWinler Springs and will not
create an enclave and otherwise satisfies the requirements for annexation; and
WHERF.AS, lhis annexation is in compliance and consistent with thc goals and objectives
of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, Charter, and City Code; and
WHEREAS, upon etrccti ve date oflhis Ordinance, the municipal boundary lines ofthc City
of Winter Springs, contained in Winter Springs Charter, Arf.icle fT, shall bc redefined to include the
subject real property; and
Wl:lEREAS. the City Commission previously annexed the subject property pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2000-36; and
WHEREAS, Seminole County and the City of Oviedo challenged Ordinance No. 2000-36
on numerous grounds; and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No, 2003-27
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, on July 7,2003, the circuit court quashed the ordinance and remanded this
<l.llm;xaliun Lu the City Commission for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2000-36 was quashed because the court determined that the legal
advertisement, supporting said ordinance. did not contain a legible map; and
WHEREAS, the court, however, also held that the annexation of the subj eet propc.:rty by the
City ofWinler Springs did not create an enclave, did not creale a pocket, did not create urban spraw 1,
was a logical expansion of the City ofWinler Springs' eastern boundary, and was otherwise lawful
under Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, except for the aforementioned advertised map; and
WHRREAS, the court also held, by separate order dated July 7, 2003, that the City of
Oviedo had no standing to challenge Ordinance No. 2000-36; and
WHEREAS, the City Commi!;sion hereby adopts by this reference the findings of the circuit
court which are con.tained in the two July 7, 2003 orders in support of the City o[Winter Springs'
lawful light to annex the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission otthc City of Winter Springs, Flurida, hereby finds that
this Orilinallce is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and we! fare of the citi7.ens of
Winter Springs, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, TilE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGS HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Annexation of Real Properly. The area of real property. which is more
prtrticularly described in the metes and bounds legal description and map attached hereto as Exhihit
"A," is hereby annexed into the City of Winter Springs by the City Commission. Exhibit "A" is
hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2, City Boundaries Redefined; Winter Springs Charter Amended. Pursuant
to Section 166.031(3), Florida Statutes, and Section 171.091, Florida StatutF.S, the City of Winter
Springs Charter, Article 11, Section 2.01, shall hereby be amend.ed to redefine the corporate
boundaries of the City orWinler Springs to include lhe area of real property described in Section 1
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall file the revised Winter Springs Charter, Article 11, Section
2.01, with the Department of State within thirty (30) days upon said approval. The City Clerk shall
also {ilt:: this Ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, the Chief
Administrator of Seminole County, and the Departmenl of State within seven (7) days of the
effective date.
City of Winter SpringF.
Ordinance No. 200:1-27
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Iuconsistent OrdinaDces and Resolutions. All ordinances
and resolutions or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. to the
extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Severability. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance, or any
pOltion hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not alIeet the validity ur the remainder hereto as a whole or part
thereof to be declared invalid.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinanct: shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Commission of tile City of Winter Springs, Floricla, and pursuant to City
Charter.
ADOPTED by the City Commission oftne City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the _ clay of ..."..._.---l2003.
',--.
John F. Bush, Mayor
ATTEST:
Andrea Lorell2o-Luaces, City Clerk
Approved as to legal fom, and sufficiency for
the City of Winter Springs only:
Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Effective Date:
r.\J)OC$\City r,f WIMer ~J"illg~\I),.Ji\t""'."'\(:;'IT,,1I ^""e..ri~l' '~lld
City of Winter Spring:>
Ordillonce No. 2003-27
Page 3 of 3
.i
EXHIBI1' A
METES AND BOUNDS SURVEY
FOR
LUTIIER & JOANN CARROLL PROPEl{'ry
Lot 19. VAN ARSOALE OSOOnNE BnOKERAGE CO. '5 ADDITION TO BLACK
HAt.4MOCK. according to the plat thereof as recorded in Pial Book.
1. Page 31. Public Records of Seminole County. Floridd. Less road
right of way. being more particularly described as fallows.
Begin at the North~est corner of Lot 19 VAN ARSQALE OSBORNE
BROKER^GE CO,'S ADDITION TO BLACK HA~HOCK. according to the plilt
thereof as recorded In P I a t Book 1. Page 31. Pub lie necords
of Seminole County.. Florida said point being a l/2" Iron
nod L86300 set i 0 P I ace: thence run SOD' 38' 50' W d loog
the Easterly right of way line Of Oeacon Street. il di.stdncc or
62~07 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way I ine of
.State ~oad 4JA per night of Map Section 77070-2520, said point befog
a 1/2' Iron Rod l86300 set in place; thenl;E 589-33'16"[ along the
Northerly right of way I ine of said State Roa~ 434 a distance of.
639. 98 fe~t to a 1/21 I ran nod LB6300 set in p I ace; thence
departihg said northerly right of Hay run NOO"38'SO'E along the Easterly
I ine at lot 19. a distance of 625. GB feet to c1 point on the Southerly
right of way .1 ine of Florida Avenue: said point beIng a 1/2' Iron
Rod. L86300 set in place: thence N89"15'3rW along said Southerly
right or wav I ine a distance of 63i98 feet to the point of
beginning.
\
J- - ._- ----'----- --- - - - E!&, Fla. Stat. (2000). The record reveals that the Carroll annexation creates an
area of unincorporated Seminole County approximately in the shape of a square, which ;s
bounded on three sides by the City of Winter Springs and on one side by the City of
Oviedo. Pursuant to Section 171.031(13), Fla. Stat. (2000), the CarroIl annexation does
not create an enclave be{;3use the square area is not bounded on all sides by a single
municipality. It also does Clot create a pocket. Although the tenn "pocket" is not defmed
in Chapter 171, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has construed the term to mean CIa
small isolated area or group." City of Sanford v. Seminole County, 538 So. 2d 113 (PIa
5th DCA (989). The prohibition against creatlon of enclaves and pockets is designed to
insure creation of geographically unified, compact mwticipalities. City of Sunrise v.
Bcoward County, 473 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 41h DCA 1985). In the present case the City of
Winter Springs correctly argues that the QTUlexation of the Carroll propelty is a logical
expansion of its eastern boundary. Furthermore, the unincorporated Seminole County
area claimed to constitute a pocket is bordered on one side by State Road 434, providing
Seminole County with a means of accessing the property for the provision of services.
Reference Op. Atty. Gen. Fla. 80-84. Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief
.on this ground.
Seminole County next argues that the Winter Springs City Commission departed
from the essential requirements of law in annexing these three parcels because the parcels
failed to meet the requirements of Section 171.043(1), Fla. Stat. (2000) as well as
subsection (2) or (3) of lhat statute. The court finds it unnecessary to resolve whether the
parcels met those requirements) because this was a voluntary annexation, and Section
171..043, Fla. Stat. (2000) does not apply to voluntary annexations. Reference Op. Atty.
Gen. Fla. 78-121. Seminole County correctly notes that opinions of the Florida Attorney
General arc not binding on this court. However, this court agrees with the logic in the
above Attomey General opinion. Furthermore, in May v. Lee County, 483 So. 2d 481
(Fla. 2d DCA 1986) the court held that the state of development of the property to be
annexed is not necessarily relevant to the propriety of voluntary mWlicipal annexations.
Since the character (state of development) of the property to be annexed is a critical
inquiry under Section 171.043, Fla. Stat. (2000), the May court implicitly held that
Section 171.043, Fla. Stat. does not apply to voluntary annexations. Seminole County is
not entitled to certiorari relief on this ground.
Seminole County next argues that passage of these ordinances departed from the
essential requirements of law because they will create urban sprawl. However, these
annexations did not cause a change in the rural zoning classification of these three
parcels. The City of Winter Springs correctly asserts that Seminole County's "urban
sprawl" argument is premarure. If and when Winter Springs seeks to change its
comprehensive plan to allow higher intensity development of the property, Seminole
County may file an action pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Martin County v.
Department of Community Affairs, 771 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Seminole
County is not entltled to certiorari relief on this ground.
DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Seminole County argues that the Winter Springs City Commission denied it
procedural due process because the legal description of the three parcels was changed
between the first and second reading of the ordinances. The record reveals tMt, at the
first reading of the ordinances, the legal description of the three.parcels did not include
metes and bounds. Notice of the annexation was then published in the local newspaper.
At the second reading ofthe ordinances, the legal descriptions of the properties included
a metes and bounds description. Because the legal description of the properties had
changed between the first and second readings, albeit only to make the descriptions more
precise, in an abundance of caution the Winter Springs City Commission treated the
second reading of the ordinances as a first reading, republished notice of the annexation
in the local newspaper, and then held a third reading of the ordinances with a metes and
bounds legal description of the properties. Furthermore, Sl!Ill1inole COWlly failed to raise
this argument in the proceedings below, and therefore has not preserved it for review by
this court. The court rejects Seminole County's argument that Seminole County cannot
be deemed to have waived this objection by failing to raise it below, because it is
responsible for protecting the interests of all Seminole County citizens. One of the
purposes of the requirement that objections must first be made in the lower tribunal is to
ensure that the lower trihunal has an opportunity to oorrect the error. A government entity
is no more exempt from this requirement than a private person would be. Seminole
County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this issue.
Seminole County next argues that it was denied procedural due process because
the published. notices of the proposed annexations did not include the title of the
ordinances. Seminole County contends that the general requirement for publication of
proposed municipal ordinances contained in Section I 66.04 1 (3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000)
applies to proposed annexation ordinances, and that Section 171.044(2), Fla. Stat. (2002)
merely imposes other requirements when the proposed ordinance is an annexation
ordinance. The court rejects this argument. If the Legislature intended tor the procedures
set fOl1h in Sedion 166.04 t (3) to apply to voluntary municipal annexations, it would
have said so, as il did in the case of involuntary annexations. Section 171.0413, Fla. Stat.
(2000). Section 166.041(3)(a) is nol mentioned in Section 171.0413, Fla. Stat. (2000).
Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this ground.
Seminole County argues that the advertised maps depicting the areas proposed to
be annexed were confusing <lnd misleading because they lacked any directional arrow
and were turned sideways, giving the appearance that the north property is the east
property line. The maps o[the Minter and Weaver properties are relatively simple but
they do depict the location of the properties with respect to a major landmark (Lake
Jessup) as well as the location of the City of Winter Springs and roadways adjacent to the
properties, including State Road 434, DeleoD Street and Howard Avenue. Seminole
County does not contend that the areas depicting the pooperties are not properly oriented
with respect to these landmarks. The maps of the Minter and Weaver properties satisfy
the requirements of Section 171.044(2), Fla. Stat. (2000).
The same cannot be said of the advertised map of the Carroll property. The names
of the roadways depicted on this map cannot be read, the names of the cities on the map
an:: illegible and can only be read by this court because the court has seen the larger
version of this map in the record. Most importantly, the location of the property proposed
to be annexed cannot be clearly discerned. The advertised map falls far short ofthe
statutory requirement that the map clearly show the land proposed to be annexed.
It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGIID as follows:
A) That Seminole County's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED as
to Ordinance Numbers 2000-40 and 2000-41, concerning the Weaver
and Minter properties, respectively.
B) That Ordinance Number 2000-36 is QUASHED.
C) That this cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion as to Ordinance Number 2000-36.
DONE AND ORDERED in Sanford, S 1 ole County this .1t day of July, 2003.
Copies furnished to:
Catherine Reischrnann Esq.
200 West 161 Street, Suite 22
Sanford, FL 32771
Anthony A. Garganese, Esq.
P.O. Box 2873
Orlando, FI 32802-2873
Karen Zagrodny Consalo, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
Interoffficc Mail
This 1lf'-day of July, 2003.
..
..
TN THE CJRcurr COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CITY OF OVIEDO AND
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Appellate Division.
.Case No. 00-89-AP
Petitioners,
vs.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS,
Respondent.
I
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS TO
CITY OF OvrnDO FOR LACK OF STANDING
THIS CAUSE carne on for consideration by the court upon a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari filed by the City of Oviedo. This court, having reviewed the petition, Respondent's
response and the reply brief of the City of Oviedo, FINDS as follows:
1 . The City of Oviedo seeks a writ of certiorari quashing ordinances passed by the
Winter Springs City Commission which annexed three parcels of property into the
City of Winter Springs.
2. The record reveals that prior to the annexation the three parcels lay within the
territorial jurisdiction of Seminole County. The City of Oviedo and Seminole
County had previously executed a Joint Planning Agreement which encompassed
the three parcels. The Agreement provided, among other things, that if property
o",ners within the area encompassed by the Agreement requested. annexation of
their property into the Clly of Oviedo, Seminole County would not oppose the
annexation, provided that certain requirements were met. At the time the City of
Winter Springs instituted voluntary annexation of the three parcels at issue,
however, the City of Oviedo had not sought to annex the parcels.
The Joint Planning Agreement contemplated a more streamlined annexation of
unincorporated property in Seminole County into the City of Oviedo once
voluntary annexation was requested by owners of the unincorporated property.
The Joint Planning Agreement did not provide the City of Oviedo with
jurisdiction over such unincorporated property absent annexation. Therefore, the
City of Oviedo was not a govenunental entity withjurisdiction over the area at the
time the City of Winter Springs instituted annexation, and has no standing to sue
on that basis.
3. There is no. evidence in the record that the City of Oviedo othenvise has standing
to sue as "affected pa~iy'" as that term is defin.ed in Section 171.031 (5), Fla. Stat.
(2000).
4. The court fmds that it must evaluate a party's standing to sue by resort to the
statutory framework in Chapter 171. Florida Statutes. The cases from other
jurisdictions cited by the City of Oviedo in support of its standing argwnent are
not persuasive.
It is therefore ORDERED:
That the Peti.tion for Writ of Certiorari filed by the City of Oviedo is DISMISSED due to
Jack of standing.
DONE AND ORDERED in Sanford,
inole County, lorida, this 7/tr day of July,
2003.
Copies furnished to:
Catheri.ne Reisclunann, .Esq.
200 West lit Street, Suite 22
Sanford, FL32771
Anthony A. Garganesc, Esq.
P. O. Box 2873
Orlando, FL 32802.2873
Karen Zagrodny Consalo, Esq.
Assistant County Attorney
Interoffice Mail
.1k-
Thi day of July 2003.
l"V,U\...~ vr l\..L-'1".r..AA 11l)1"Il Uli .KI!AL l'KU.t".t.:Kl'Y
TO TIIE.OTY OF WINTER SPRINGS
1'H.E CITY OP.WTNTB'R SPRD-lOS
PROPOSES TO ADOPT TIfF. POl.tOWING ORDIJIWi(CE:
ORDINANCE NO. %003-27 1"':'-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF TICITY
Of WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA. ANNEXING REAL., ROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN SEMINOLE COVNTY, FLORIDA A . GENER-
ALLY DeSCRIBED AS APPROXIMAU:U TEN (.10) ACRES MORE
OR LESS L.OCATED API'RO'xIMATELY f,OO FBET WE5rOF THE
INTERSECnON 01' STATE ROAD 434 AND DE.LBON STREET
f.LUTHI:iR AND JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY) Al'ID MORE PAR. .
TlCULARlY DESCRIBED ON eXHIIHT "A~ ATTACHED HERETO;
PROVIDING FOR THB. AMENDMENT OF WINTER SPRINGS
CH....RTER . ARTICLE II, ElOllNDARIES TO INCORPOR.ATE THE
HAL PROPERTY INTO THE CITY B.OUNDARleS; PROVIDING
POR THE FILING OF TH.c REVISED WINTER SPRINGS CHAR.
TER WITH APPROPRIATE. AGENCIES UPON SAID APPROVAL;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISr~NT OR or..
NAl'ICES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIOINCi FOR S~RABIl-I.
TY: AND PROVIDING POR AN EPF'ECTlVE DATE.
. The following map. depicts the location of lh~ propo~cd aru;.ation area:
W1N"~~
51"~u,,~
.
CM~O
I ~.
"..,~
Puituc HEARING FOR THE 1ND AND FiNAL READING
ON PROPOSED ORDIN..It.NCE 2003.27 WILL BI; HELD .ON
MONDAY, JUI.Y 28. 2003 AT 6:30 P.M. OR SOON THEREAFTER
IN T~ COMMISSION CHAMBERS
to(:lmID Al THE WINTER SPR(NGS CITY HALL
'12' EAST STATE ROAD 434
W1NT!R SPRINGS, FLORIDA
'rile proposed ordiaaacc: 11I'I<I the complete legal de$criptiOll of- the propeny by
mtlt5llJ\d boundt mil)' be obL1ined b)' interoted pJllties be1ween 8 Usl. bJ\d ~ pm..
MClIlday throllgh Friday. 4t the City', Cleric', Offi.:.::, locllted.llt J 126 East Stale
Road 434. Winter Springs. florida. Fur more infnrnution call (401) 321-1800
112.27. Pen;ong with diSllbililic:a needing aqjgtane.e to pa.rticip~tc in IIIlY of these
proceedins, ~honld ConfllCl the Employee RclatiolU Dtpunmcnt COl'lrdinalOr. 48
hours in advllJ1ce of the lTltleting 1[(407) 321.1800. Extension 236. This iSll pub-
lic haring and iCle.rtSfct.! pcI1IUIIJ may lInend and be beard. [f you decide to I~pell
any recommelldalionldccigion made by !be City Commi~~ion with .f6SpeCIIO nny
IIlIincr considered at this meeting, you will need a record of the proceedings, and
for such purposes. you lllay ceed to ensUI.C. thltt a verbatim record 11M proceed.
ings.i~ lnade.upon whicl1l1le appeal is b.1$lld, '
. Ii.
-_'!. nfUq'!!AY, MY 17. 2llOl
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.2799
Telephone: (407) 327-1800
Fax: (407) 327-4753
Websile: www.winlerspringsfl.org
July 30, 2003
The Honorable Jeb Bush
Office of the Governor
State of Florida
PL 02, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Dear Governor Bush,
In accordance with Florida Statutes 171.044, attached is a certified copy of the following
Annexation Ordinance from the City of Winter Springs:
· Ordinance Number 2003-27
This Ordinance was officially adopted on July 28, 2003, and does change our Municipal
boundaries. Please feel free to contact me if! can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Attachment
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708.2799
Telephone: (407) 327-1800
Fax: (407) 327-4753
Website: www.winterspringsfl,org
July 30, 2003
Mr. Kevin Grace
County Manager
County of Seminole
1101 East First Street
Sanford, Florida 32771
Dear Mr. Grace,
In accordance with Florida Statutes 171.044, attached is a certified copy of the following
Annexation Ordinance from the City of Winter Springs:
. Ordinance Number 2003-27
This Ordinance was officially adopted on July 28, 2003, and does change our Municipal
boundaries. Please feel free to contact me if! can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Attachment
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708.2799
Telephone: (407) 327.1800
Fax: (407) 327-4753
Website: www.winlerspringsfl.org
July 30, 2003
Ms. Maryanne Morse
Clerk of the Court
County of Seminole
301 North Park Avenue
Sanford, Florida 32771
Dear Ms. Morse,
In accordance with Florida Statutes 171.044, attached is a certified copy of the following
Annexation Ordinance from the City of Winter Springs:
. Ordinance Number 2003-27
This Ordinance was officially adopted on July 28, 2003, and does change our Municipal
boundaries. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
enzo- Luaces, CMC
City, erk
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-2.7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ANNEXING REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN SEMINOLE COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS
APPROXIMATELY TEN (10) ACRES MORE OR LESS
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 434 AND 'DELEON
STREET (LUTHER AND JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY)
AND MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT
"A" ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE
AMENDMENT OF WINTER SPRINGS CHARTER, ARTICLE
II, BOUNDARIES TO INCORPORATE THE REAL
PROPERTY INTO THE CITY BOUNDARIES; PROVIDING
FOR THE FILING OF THE REVISED WINTER SPRINGS
CHARTER WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES UPON SAID
APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, this is a voluntary annexation which shall be pursuant to the annexation
procedures contained in Section 171.044, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that the subject real property is
reasonably compact and contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Winter Springs and will not
create an enclave and otherwise satisfies the requirements for annexation; and
WHEREAS, this annexation is in compliance and consistent with the goals and objectives
of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, Charter, and City Code; and
WHEREAS, upon effective date ofthis Ordinance, the municipal boundary lines ofthe City
of Winter Springs, contained in Winter Springs Charter, Article n, shall be redefined to include the
subject real property; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission previously annexed the subject property pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2000-36; and
WHEREAS, Seminole County and the City of Oviedo challenged Ordinance No. 2000-36
on numerous grounds; and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2003-27
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, on July 7,2003, the circuit court quashed the ordinance and remanded this
annexation to the City Commission for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2000-36 was quashed because the court determined that the legal
advertisement, supporting said ordinance, did not contain a legible map; and
WHEREAS, the court, however, also held that the annexation ofthe subject property by the
City of Winter Springs did not create an enclave, did not create a pocket, did not create urban sprawl,
was a logical expansion ofthe City of Winter Springs' eastern boundary, and was otherwise lawful
under Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, except for the aforementioned advertised map; and
WHEREAS, the court also held, by separate order dated July 7, 2003, that the City of
Oviedo had no standing to challenge Ordinance No. 2000-36; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby adopts by this reference the findings ofthe circuit
court which are contained in the two July 7,2003 orders in support of the City of Winter Springs'
lawful right to annex the subj ect property; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission ofthe City of Winter Springs, Florida, hereby finds that
this Ordinance is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
Winter Springs, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPRINGS HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Annexation of Real Property. The area of real property, which is more
particularly described in the metes and bounds legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit
"A," is hereby annexed into the City of Winter Springs by the City Commission. Exhibit "A" is
hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. City Boundaries Redefined; Winter Springs Charter Amended. Pursuant
.to Section 166.031(3), Florida Statutes, and Section 171.091, Florida Statutes, the City of Winter
Springs Charter, Article II, Section 2.01, shall hereby be amended to redefine the corporate
boundaries of the City of Winter Springs to include the area of real property described in Section 1
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall file the revised Winter Springs Charter, Article II, Section
2.01, with the Department of State within thirty (30) days upon said approval. The City Clerk shall
also file this Ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, the Chief
Administrator of Seminole County, and the Department of State within seven (7) days of the
effective date.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2003-27
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All ordinances
and resolutions or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the
extent of the conflict. .
Section 4. Severability. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance, or any
portion hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereto as a whole or part
thereof to be declared invalid.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and pursuant to City
Charter. ,. .
/
. .
. , I .
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Spnfl'gs, Flerida,'iri a regUlar
meeting assembled on the 28thdayof July ,2003::' .....,
ATTEST:
\ (
i \ i
,\ .
I \
zo- Luaces, City Clerk
d as to legal form and sufficiency for
of Winter Springs only:
ganese, City Attorney
First Reading: July 14, 2003
Second Reading: July 28, 2003
Effective Date: See Section 5.
F:\Docs\City of Winter Springs\Ordinances\Carroll_Annexation. wpd
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2003-27
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
METES AND BOUNDS SURVEY
FOR
LUTHER & JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY
Lot 19. VAN ARSOALE OSBORNE BROKERAGE CO.'S ADDITION.TO BLACK
HAMMOCK, accord i ng to the p I at thereo f as recorded in P I at. Book
1. Page 31. Publ it Records of Seminole County. Florida. Less road
right of way. being more particularly described as follows.
Begin at the Northwest corn~r of Lot 19 VAN ARSOALE OSBORNE
BROKERAGE CO.'S ADDITION TO aLACK HAMMOCK. according to the plat
thereof as recorded in .Plat Book 1. Page 31. Publ ic Records
of Seminole County, Florida said point being a 1/2" Iron
Rod LB6300 set in p I ace: thence run 500" 38' 50' W a long
. the Easterly right of way I ine of Beacon Street. a distance of
.629. 07 feet to a point on the Northerly right of way I ine of
..StateRoad 434 per Right of Map Section 77070-2520. saLd point .being
a 1/2" Iron Rod LB6300 set in place; thence S89033'16"E along the
Northerly right of way I ine of said State Road 434 a distance of.
639.98 feet to a 1/2" I ron Rod LB6300 set in p I ace; thence
departing said northerly right of Hay run NOO"3B'50'E along the Easterly
line of lot 19. a distance of 625.68 feet to a po i nt on the Souther I y
right of Hay I ine of Florida Avenue; said point being a 1/2" Iron
Rod LB6~OO set in p I ace; thence N8go 15' 37' W a long sa i d Souther I y
right of way J ine a distance of 639.98 feet to the point of
beginning.
\
. I
~
.J! .
I
.. ! 10
~. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
J
. l.t.J1
~I
U)I~
::2:.':
0:
(J .
""Cl
~I
EXI-IIBIT
A
( continued)
~.:~:=-:. .'
fCl'rnfj1.~~I"'I"1
\ ':'r:'-'I..~ -'-
FLORIDA AVENUE .
- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - ..~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - --- --
. '
-.1
;,
...
I
I
..-
,.::
.11
Sl"
!il:3
II
~t;.~.:.c:.,;:- t....
~.
r-.....".
-- .,...
. {:......, c: _...... ......"'"
/~t:: z.:$4.~,'" '.-
1WJY".C ",.W
l..r "
~.c.",r
5=-
-ii
~!1
~
..
1\
I
"..,-...-
__r
-~'Q- """\.---- - ---- --- -- -----"'l.cof"l'r---, -- -- '------- ---- - :..::.-:::.::....:...-
- __"L--_':':::::"-"':~----------- STArE fWAD434------------ .
I
'1 ..:
FILE NUM 2003136145
OR BOOK 04950 PAGE 1320
EXHIBIT A
METES AND BOUNDS SURVEY
FOR
. .
LUTHER & JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY
lot 19. VAN ARSDALE OSBORNE BROKERAGE CO.'S ADDITION. TO BLACK
HAMMOCK. according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book
1. Page 31. Public Records of Seminole County. Florida. Less road
right of way. being more particularly described' as (allows.
Begin at the Northwest corner of lot 19 VAN ARSOALE OSBORNE
BROKERAGE CO.' 5 ADDI TION TO alACK HAMMOCK. accord i ng to the p I at
thereof as recorded in.P I at Book 1. Page 31. Pub Ii c Records .
of Seminole County. Florida .sald point being a 1/2" Iron
. Rod LB6300 set In p I ace; thence run SOO. 38' 50" W a long
. the Ea.sterly right of Hay I ine of Beacon Street. a distance of
. 629.07"feet to a point on the Northerly right of Hay I ine of
. . .StateRoad 434 per Right of Map SecH on 77070-2520. sai.d po int.be i ng
a 1/2" I ran Rod LB6300 set in pi ace;. thenl~e SS9.33' 16" E a I oog. the
Northerly right of way I ine of sai~ State Road 434 a distance of
639.98 feet to a 1/2" Iron Rod LB6300 set in place; then,ce
departing said northerly right of Hay run NOO.38'50"E along. the Easterly
line of lot 19. a distance of 625.68 feet to a po i nt on the Souther I y
right of Hay I ine of Florida Avenue; said point being a 1/2" .Iron
Rod l86300 set in place; thence N89015'37"W along said Southerly
right of Hay I ine a distance of 639.98 feet to the point of
beginning.
\.
. ~
1.....4.1
.~.:'
.Sit' 1'1.'--
I
.'i I. (/ .
\.,,; , . u
\' "'1.__" (~.
~'1 '.",., '..
!...~ 'v.".",
1.. .
.~---"--' --..-.--'.---:---..-.-.---..'..'-.-.---.------.-..------........ ".__.'.._._._.....~ .-.'~~~-.-::-tl~.\.-;-....,. '. ..--..----.-----...
....~. '''l'' ""..., t.
\\.: ..
\..J _"0.1
, ,
r..'
. ',~ .
....'.. :. ~ '';.,. ,:..
... (, ~'m\f..1
....... ,'..re~; '1. .r~
~"
. .;. .
.:~~~. ,i..'
:',
FILE NUM 2003136145
OR BOOK 04950 PAGE 1321
EXHIBIT A
(con tinned)
..~
· :)1"'.
I I\~...~-~.
_.--""'-
-., ;to
\- I
I
I
,
I
I
I
1
I
.. ___fLORLDA AyENuE____________'___---.:
------------- ".,Op." . .-
_,,'J1.~~'.rI.1
\ ,:;r:;f/':'~ - ....
,
, I
.~I
,~I
(/)1
BI
--<'
lu
CI)
i~
.k
51"
,,::I
!I
l.r If
't.c..,
~
5;<,
-ii
~~
~
J\
I
vl;.::..:'r:; - .'-,
~.
v'-"'-
r-.".~.
____ #II"
. {;....... wi c: _..... ..........
/':1t::1z;:o.t..,...
_~r
'lWJrl~II".W
-
::..,,- "'------ ----.------- -----~~of"l,T---,-- --- .------_---:---,:-
- --"'---~~~----------- srATEffoAD434-----
___::L___
;,
...
j ,
I.
. '....
'.,
. ~~.
',.\Vl'.r. ,
c:::. . 7.
() . /
.....
Cr:: .
o
/.,/
,,,;,~~,,"
. .n, ,'f}
. '~:/f~J',; "
~.~
\!
,'. ,;:',:' .
. ..~<~!t;~~.:;~;;.,.
\." .
# ~...J
,
1.. ...".
'{~~.1':1~" I
'..., <1:1
i
---..-...:.'-:-;-----;....rTi!:'------------.--. ,
'.,.. .....