HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 09 13 Regular Item E
t(jCi..~~:Te~ ":\
~ ' " l/l
1r.c;0f1~.'1
1959 .,
-"'(0 RIOf>-'
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development DepL
Planning Division
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR AGENDA ITEM:
II E. TUSKA WILLA TRAILS PROPERTY REZONING
(REZ-3-2000)
STAFF REPORT:
NOTE: STAFF REPORT WILL BE SENT UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development Dept.
Planning Division
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Winter 2000
.
Volume 9, Number 1
Dear Floridians:
I am pleased ro provide the results of our
"first ever" Growth Managemenr Survey. This
survey was an attempt ro elicit thoughrs and
concerns from a wide range of Floridians.
Nearly 3,700 people responded ro the survey
and 70 percent of those did so via the Internet.
We have learned important lessons about how
a state agency communicates e/Tectively in this
computer age.
I urge the reader to remember this was not
a "scientific" survey. It was not based on a rep-
resentative sample and cannot be considered
to represent the opinions of our citizens as a
whole. It was, however, a method to engender
thoughts, concerns and ideas, and to provide a
sampling of what citizens truly care about. We
hereby report the conclusions of the survey,
but do so with the following caurion. Please
look to the ideas contained in answers to the
survey, nor solely to the numbers.
With that imporr:lIlt caveat ill mind, those
who responded to the survey genn:dl)' Sll!)-
Sf:"( .H/:/ ;./ N}.
1'0111 illl/o/ Oil /'I!.'!..(' .!
Growth Management Survey
Summary Report - www.dca.state.fl.us
'I
,~ ,~ '.". '.
. :~~;I~:\.~
r~~"";,..",'"t
.~ ~\.:;:.~;
.~ "'~,'" .:,",\7. '.:
51e~;'~;ei:err\~~
IJI.I ,.."",'1.1'1 ;r. I~'
:::..~.' "-,!:.~
SecrelJry Steve Seibert listens to comments ilt a Growth
M;lnilgcmcnl Forum.
Under the direction of Secretary Steven
Seibert, the Department of Community Af-
fairs embarked upon a survey of Floridians
who arc active in growth management. The
survey is fundamental to Secretary Seibert's
evaluation of possible reforms ro Florida's
growth management system. Secretary Seibert
believes that changes may be needed to
Florida's growth management laws.
The survey is the beginning of a conrinu-
ing and open process to gather public inpur
Frolllnlany diverse interests regarding growth
11Ianagel1lent policies.
This survey W:IS nor illtended to be a poll
oFl'llhlic opillion becluse it was nor based on
:1 r:llldolll s:lI11ple survey process. Thcrd')f"e, it
sh<"dd nOI he considned :IS heing represen-
__a._
-
tative of Florida's population. How-
ever, an advantage of this survey over
a general public opinion survey is
rhe possibility to question those hav-
ing greatet day-w-day involvement
in these growth management issues.
Overall, respondents generally
support keeping the basic compo-
nents of Florida's growth manage-
ment framework in place. Although
the local and regional levels received
most of the attention in the 1985
and 1992 revisions ro the growth
management system, respondents
to the survey suggest moving in an-
other direction.
Survev respondenrs endorse a strong, wide-
ranging role for the stare and expanded access
for citizens. Also, the)' believe there is a need
for a state vision, a stronger state plan, protec-
tion of identified state interests, and increased
technical assistance. Regarding the local level,
SURVEY. cowil/lletl on page 2
" .: . ...: . ~,.. . .lNSI~E.- ..., .' ': :
Growth Management Survey, Summary Report .................... 1
Ask DCA..... ....................................................3
Briefly Speaking ....................................... 4
Online Permitting. .......................................... 8
City of Palm Coast ......................................... 8
Transportation Concurrency. .................. 9
2020 Transportation Plan Update. ................. 12
L""""lid"ll'
PLAi'lNIN.G
SlJNVn~ji'{)1J/ pilge..' .
respondelHs favor better enforcement of local
comprehensive plans, and a greater emphasis
on community visioning :lnd design in the plan-
ning process. They would cOlHinue the con-
currency requirement and expand it for school
and emergency managemelH facilities.
;"',
11
l:f
'1:1
,\}
:1
'~~
j
5E q<1j7Af?}~ forr1.p{lge(
pOrt keeping the basic components of Florida's
growth management framework in place. They
recommend strengthening certain aspects of
the system and changing the role of some of
the participants.
We are very pleased with the high level of
interest in growth management isslles. We ap-
preciate the time and effort Floridians have taken
ro complete the survey, attend the regional fo-
rums, and personally express their views on
growth management. Your suggestions will be
valuable as we proceed.
Very truly yours,
Slevell Iv\. Seibert
Senna ry
Survey Highlights
A report l)I"oviding a summary of the Growth Management Survey is ;lvaibhlc online at:
www.dca.state.fl.us
Response
A total of3,671 responses were received.
Sevenry percelH of the responses (2,510) were
submitted online, the remainder were received
in writing. The Department distributed
10,000 copies of the survey. Although not a
typical response rate due to the availabiliry of
the survey on the IlHernet and through news-
papers, the 37% response rate can be consid-
ered a high rate of response for surveys of this
rype.
Characteristics 01 Survey Respondents
The most frequent survey respondents
were whire, highly educared, with a median
household income between $50,000 and
$75,000, and were not born in Florida. The
majority of rhe respondelHs (56%) lived in
counries wirh a population of 75,000 to
500,000 people. Thirty-five percent of the
respondelHs lived in coulHies of over 500,000
people, and 4l).{, lived in counries of under
75,000 people.
IIffiliation 01 Respondents
RespondelHs were asked to indicare their
aHiliarion wirh growth m3nagemenr isslles.
The highest percentage idenrified rhemselves
as an i Illeresred person (20%). followed by
a IlIcal gllvel"lllllelll srafT member (161Y,,) and
;Issoci;ued wirh ;1 citizt'll group, civic group or
;1 neighborhood ;Issoci;llion (11%).
IIssessment 01 Conditions
Sixry percelH of rhe respondents believed
the general qU31iry oflife in Florida had changed
for the worse. Specifically, 71 % srated thar the
qualiry of Florid3's environmelH had worsened,
48% noted Florida's rural areas had suffered,
and 57% indicated d13t suburban qualiry of
life has declined.
Growth Management Problems
The mosr serious growth management
problems nored by rhe respondents were traf-
fic congestion (72%), urban sprawl (70%),
loss of wildlife and habit3r (66%), and limired
warer supplies (60%).
Effectiveness 01 Various Levels 01
Government
Few respondents considered the v3rious lev-
els of governmelH to be "very effective" ar ad-
dressing growth m;lIlagemenr issues. Fifteen
percent indicared rhat local government was
"very effecrive;" 8% lisred srare governmenr as
"very effective;" and 4% listed regional levels
of governmenr as "vet)' effective."
Changing Florida's Growth Management
System
There is br03d support for changing
Florida's growth man3gemenr sysrem; ro pro-
vide incentives for urban redevelopmenr
(83%); place limirs on urban sprawl (79%);
provide incenrives for communiry visioning
and design (74%); develop requiremenrs for
inrergovernmental coordination (72%); and
provide incenrives to keep land in agriculrural
uses (69%).
Support is high for: strellgrhening rhe links
between transporrarion and land use (86%);
limiting devclopmcnr by rhe available water
supplies (82%); encour;lging communiry vi-
sioning (79%); I))"oviding financial illcenrives
ro discourage [he conversioll ofagriculturall3nd
.----
SUNil/:'} . illlllilll/l'flll';";;rlge 1
/',\(;1;
- ",;a,
('{ 1.\\I\1l J:'\.!ll Y 1'1 ,\;"Nli...,:(, . \\,,1,,-1111, .~IH}(t
fi;:
~
.. .
AS'K .O.C...A ...... .... .'.:... ;:. .. ,'....:..:.::::.
. " ' . '.. :',', ", . .: . ".:. "':, .' .'
. . . :" "
. .
. .
. .
. ..
. '.
Transmitting Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and Evaluation
and Appraisal Reports
Q. How many copies of their com pre-
. hensive plan amendments and
Evaluation and Appraisal Repon (EAR) do
local governments have to submit to the De-
panment of Community Affairs (DCA) and
other external agencies pursuant LO the
Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative
Code Rules (FAC)?
A. The submittaL requirements fOr tram-
. mitting proposed and adopted com-
prehensive plan amendments and EvaLuation
and Appraisal Reports are located in Chapter
163, Florida Statutes (FS) and Rule 9}-II,
FLorida Administrative Code (FA C).
Transmitting the proposed ~
comprehensive plan amendme~._1
----
LocaL governments must send six: copies ojihe
proposed amendment to the Department ofCom-
munity A./filirs (DCA) and one copy /0 each of
the fOLLowing externaL agencies: Regionr" Pia n-
ning Council (RPC), \,\'.ilia MflnflgcmclI! Lhr-
triel (WMD), Depflrtmenl of 'frflllS/,orlfltion
(007), find Department IIjErwirolll1u,ntf" I'm-
ICe/ion (DhP). Rift'/' 10 16J.3/840)(fI), rs find
9}-//.()()(,(I) flml ((,), Me.
Transmitting the adopted compfelien-
siveplan.ii';;ti!ldment (excludirlg."m:zaU.:; :
scaLe iunendments): . '
Local governments must send tlJ1<?t' copies of
the adopted amendment to the Department of
Community Affilirs (DCA) and one copy to each
of the fOllowing external agencies: RPC: WMD,
DOT, DtJ~ Department of State (DOS), ap-
propriate county (if they are a municipality), and
to any local government or other interested party
that has fiLed a written request fOr a copy of the
amendment. /fthe locfll government is a county.
it must send one copy to the Department ofAg-
riculture (AG) and the Florida Fish and Wild-
life Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Re-
fer to 163.3184(7), f'S and 9}-//.011(5) and
9}-11.009(8), }/lC
Transmitti,ng:the adopted smaLL scale
amendmen,t:
Local governments must send one copy of
the adopted smaLL scale amendment to the DC-A,
one copy to the RPC and one copy to any per-
son or entity who requests a copy. Refer to
/63.3/87(J)(c)2.b.. FS and 9}-11.015, FAC
Transmitting a proposed Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR):
!jihe lllml government is a municipality. and
ifit has elected to submit a proposed EAR, it must
smr! IIlIe ropy of the proposed EAR to eflch of the
.!flllowing agencies: DCA, RPC, WMD, DO"!:
DO? DOS', r/rld olle copy to Ihe approprir/le
county. lfthe locaL government is a county, one
copy of the proposed EAR must also be sent to each
of the fOLlowing agencies: the Department of
Agriculture, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Con-
servation Commission; one copy must also be
sent to any adjacent jurisdictions and to any
interested citizens. Refer to 163.3191 (5), FS
and 9}-1 1. 0/8(2), FAC
Transmitting an adopted EAR:
lfthe local government elected to submit a
proposed EAR, the locaL government must sub-
mit three copies of the adopted EAR to DCA and
also, one copy to any of the external agencies, ad-
jacent jurisdictions and any interested citizens who
have submitted written comments to the Local gov-
ernment concerning the proposed EAR. Refer to
163.3191(6), FS and 9}-11.018(3)(a), FAC
If the focal government is a municipality and
has elected not to submit a proposed EAR, it
must submit three copies of the adopted EAR to
DCA and One copy each to the RPC, WMD,
DOT, DE? DOS, and to the appropriate county.
If the local government is a county, it must also
submit one copy each to the Department of Ag-
riculture and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Con-
servation Commission and to any adjacent ju-
risdictions tlnd any interested citizens. Refer to
/63.3/9/(6), FS and 9}-/1.018(3)(tI), FAC
...
For further inforll/ation, contflct Ra)'
Eubanks at (850) 188-1925; SIC 278-1925;
or by c-Il/ail: rtI)'.l'IIbr/llks@r!ca.slr/lc.jl.us. .
Cl l'\\,\IlINII \' 1'1 i\'"","" 1;0,: ( ;
\\.1~ III, ~()llll
I'N;[ :
.
i>'LANNlNG
r.:':.. ;'. c: <~: :.::,: t '~.::'~ .., .:::','::' .. :. ',:.". :.>.;.:. " '.."~<~~:\:?>>.:~:\.~'::;' .:' ,. \ "{~:E1:~ ::> ;~.:.i..;:. .:' '..'.,~:: :'; .,: ::'.!..~~:.;.,:~,' ~..: '.~...'::.':~>
"~.:. Briefly Speakln I .,. .' '.. '.! '..".,. .. .,:". .:.~....,": ',. ,....>:.
::.. ': .... .. .'.. :..). " : ".::.: ..,: :.:' ...... .'.c.. .:.....:.....>' ..,><.
Case Notes and Updates from DCA~ General Counsel- Carl L Rotb) h~<;q.
::;....,~ ,t".,,,:,,:: ~';. , . ..~;;..t:n~-'~~:'''~~~'~~' ~~;t
. .'\ ':.;~~!J.:ocal~Govern'meill .
.,. ~ ';"~~,;~~'~'r~!i:::!~~:~:""i,~; '"".i' , a .
~r;~o.m.pr,ehE!n~.II{e 'Pla~n,"g. / ...."
.':... ~-~t~.~'-:~i~~i.~~~1~~lt:"'~~'~' ."' '.;:'~>"~~~:;1(_~?;
Sumter County ID.I-lIcre Future Land Use
Amendment SubmiUed As A Small-Scale
Plan IImendment Recommended lis "Not
In Compliance"
Wiley. et al. v. Sumter County and Hi- Tech
Metals. Inc., DOAH Case No. 99-3444GM
(Administrative Law judge Alexander, january
10,2000).
Hi-Tech Metals Incorporated, owns a large
parcel in SunHer Counry. It separated rwo
parcels from rhe larger landholding. Sumrer
Counry changed rhe land use designation on
the newly-created 10. I-acre tract from agri-
culrural to commercial. Neighboring land-
owners challenged the amendment.
The challengers narrowed the challenge
to one ground, rhat the amendmenr did nor
qualify for adoption as a small-scale plan
amendment since ir exceeded the Secrion
1633187( I )(c) I, Florida Statutes,limitarion
to "ten acres or fewer."
The Administrative Law Judge's Recom-
mended Order applied the plain language of
the statute and recommended that rhe Ad-
ministration Commission find the amendment
"not in compliance."
'fhe Deparrmenr was not a party to rhe
:ldlllinisrrative he:lring..
...
Hallandale Small-Scale
Re-Development Amendment
Recommended To Be ''In Compliance"
/1i;... I( (';~JI O[J-III!!lIIlr!lI!c, {"III!, DOl! !,/ G/."{"
No. 99-2598GM (lIdministratil1e Law Judge
Sartin, November 19, 1999).
Peritioner Biss, a Hallandale property
owner challenged rhe Ciry's small-scale com-
prehensive plan amendment to double the al-
lowable density on a 5.75 acre tracr from a
maximum of25 units per acre to 50 units per
acre. The subject pro perry was partly devel-
oped in 1956 with a 80-unir motel, which has
subsrantially decayed.
Biss claimed that the amendment did not
meer the Section 163.3187(1 )(c) Lf, Florida
Statutes, densiry limitation crirerion. How-
ever, the Recommended Order concluded rhat
rhe property was in an urban infill area (and
in a transportation concurrency exception
area) and hence the small-scale densi ry cap was
nor exceeded. ~ 163.3180(5), Florida Statures.
Biss also challenged rhe amendment based
upon alleged inconsistencies with the Srare
Comprehensive Plan, internal inconsistencies
with goals, objecrives and policies addressing
coastal high hazard area density increases; deg-
radation of transportarion levels of service; and
public school impacts. Biss contended that the
amendmenr was nor adequately supponed by
data and analysis.
Thc Administrarive Law Judge and rhe
Department found that the amendment
qualified as a small scale amendmel1l: and that
ir was "in compliance."
hJljitrther injiJl'mation pler/se COn/flct Karen
Bradeen, Assislant General Counsel at (850)
188-04 Jo.
...
Small-Scale Up-Planning
On Pine Island Recommended
As ''1f1 Compliance" - Exceptiofls
Peflding
Dubin and Greater Pine Island Cil1ic Asso-
ciation Inc.. v. Lee County, DOAH Case No.
99-2046GM (Administrative Law judge
Stevenson, December 27, 1999).
Individual landowners and a civic associa-
tion challenged Lee Counry's small-scale fu-
ture land use map (FLUM) amendment for a
9.9 acre vacant area on Pine Island, which
changed the land use classification from Ru-
ral (I unit maximum per acre) to Outlying
Suburban (3 units maximum per acre).
Petitioners challenged the amendment
based upon:
. lack of data and analysis;
. inconsisrenC)' with Section 163.3178(2),
Florida Starures, and Chapter 9J-5,
Florida Administf3tive Rules, provisions
governing densiry in the coastal high
hazard area;
· lack of suitabiliry for increased densiry;
. eleven alleged internal inconsistencies
with orher goals, objectives and policies;
· inconsisrency with the Stare Com-
prehensive Plan provisions at
Secrions 187.201 (7)(b)23 and
187.201(J0)(a), Florida Statutes.
Administrative Law Judge Stevenson rec-
ommended rhar the amendment be found "in
compliance." The Department was not a party
to rhe administrative proceeding, bur the Rec-
ommcnded Ordcr was transmirred to the
Departmenr for final agency acrion.
~] 63.31 87(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The De-
partment accepred the Adminisrrative Law
Judge's recommendation and found the
amendmenr "in compliance."
For jitr/her in[iJl"flllltioll plerlse con/act
Dr/vid Jordan, Deputy Ceuem! Counsel at
(850) 488-04/0.
.. .
1',\(;1 .1
("tl,\\t\HlNIIYI'I,\Nl'\!Ii'.'(; . \VINIII\~lllH)
fiN! f:FfY mll/illuN! on page 5
UN! I:FI.}~ jilJ/J/ I'II.'!.,' ''I
FOl/r City Of SII/art IImelldmenl
Packages CI/a/lenged - Two 1997
FI/II/re land Use Map IImendmenls
FOl/nd ''#01 In Compliance" Bul
Remainder Of IImendment Packages
Found "In Compliance"
Martin County v, City 0/ Stuart, DOAH
Case Nos, 97-4582GM; 98-0794GM; 98-
5501GM; 98-5503GM; 98-5510GM (Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Sartin, October I,
1999); Final Order No. DCA-99-GM-267G,
January 7. 2000; Determination o/Non-Com-
pliance No, DCA-99-GM-267G, January 7,
2000.
Three comprehensive plan amendment
packages adopred by rhe Ciry of Sruarr were
challenged by Marrin Counry and one
amendmenr package was challenged by ] 000
Friends of Florida, Incorporared,
In September 1997, Stuarr adopted ren
small-scale Furure Land Use Map (FLUM)
amendments; nine were challenged by rhe
County, After some ilHervenrions were granred,
rhe case was abared, (Package 97 -S I).
In December 1997, Swarr adopted a rexI'
amendmenr to creare a new land use category
- Neighborhood/Special Disrrict - and then
adopted nine FLUM amendmenrs for seven
parcels annexed inro rhe City cOlHemporane-
ously (Package 97-1), The DeparrmelH noticed
irs intent to find 97-1 "nor in compliance" and
filed a Peririon for Hearing (DOAH Case No.
98-0794CM). Marrin COllnty intervened.
The Department and the City signed a com-
pliance agreement; the County did nor sign.
In August 1998, Stuart adopred remedial
amendments called for in the compliance agree-
nl<:1lt (Package 98-R I). The Deparrment no-
riced 98-R I as "in compli3nce." The p3rries
Wl:n: r<:aligned in Case No. 98-0794GM, but
thl: Coullty also iniri:lrnl a nl:W case challeng-
ing 98-R I (DOAH Case No. 98-550 I eM).
In Augusr t 998, Stuart also adopted Evalu-
arion and Apprais:d Report (1.:1\1<.) hased
:1I11l:ndmeIHS 10 rhl: comprehensive pbn rl:SI
:llId :,doprcd 33 FI.Ulvl :lI11elldmclIls illvolv-
illg 1(, :1I111csed parcels: elcvCll I;I.UM :Imclld-
Il{/J/(~I' C;I"I..:/(' ill (/Oli'lIIolf!JI ,','"rtrl.
menrs were small-scale. (Package 98-ER 1). The
Dep:lI"tmelH nor iced the 22 large-scale FLUM
amendmelHs and the text amendments 35 "in
compliance." Marrin County and 1000 Friends
of Florida Incorpor3tcd, challenged the
Department's compliance detennination.
Thc various challenges were consolidated
f(lI" heari ng and a Recommended Order was
submitted to the Department suggesting that
all the challenged amendments be (;)und "in
compliance," Exceptions were filed to rhe
S7 -page Recommended Order.
In light of the exceprions, the Department
considered evidence that on November 24,
1998, the Circuit Court, Nineteenth Judicial
Circuir, Marrin Counry, had invaliclated the
:1I1nes:trion of two parcels - the 25.5 acre
SunhelrlSl"etson p:lrcel F 17 and the 205.9 acre
I )eharlolo parcel F24 ami l"hat on December
:), 199<), had invalidated the re-annexation of
rhose parcd~. The Dcp:lrtmelH granted the
escl"!)rion ro Finding of FaCt S4, den:rmining
rltal" ir W:IS:I l11islahekd Conclusion of Law,
and Iln:dly concluding rlt:1I the City lacked
;Illrhnrir)' III :It!opr :ullend1l1elHS [(II' parcels that
wCi"e IIllI v;didl)' ;Inncscd inw tlte Ciry whcn
rltc FI.LHvl :1I11CI1l1111ellls Wci"c. :Idopred.
,.
~
3i
\~
:::>
(;
'-'
~
.'(;>
~.
c
"
c
~
The Departmenr issued a Final Order
finding 311 remaining 3mendmenrs "in com-
pliance." M3rrin County and 1000 Friends
of Florida have appealed l"he Final Order to
the Fourth District Courr of Appe31.
For jilrther inftrmation please contact Shaw
Stiller, Assistant Genem/ Counsel at (850) 488-
0410.
...
Plan IImendment lidding Shoreline
Setback Exception Found "In
Compliance"
{ohmon I). City (~fT{/Ipon Springs and De-
partment o/Coll1ll1unil1' IIjlf/irs, DOAH Case
No. 97-5003GM (Adlllinistmti/Je LflW Judge
Meale, JUlie I, 1999). Fillfd Orde/; AlIgllst30,
1999.
After rhe Adminisrration Commission's
Final Order detCi"mining a Ciry land devel-
opment regulation to he inconsisrenr with
rhe Tu-pon Springs Comprehensive Plan, the
City adopred :11)1:ln amendment that would
authorize rhc fL'guLlliolL
The plall :1I11L'ndnlClll :dlows accessorl'
/iNII:FI.}: ,."IIIil/llI.(/,,1/ I',I.'!.'. (,
I , ),\ \.\ \1 '."" \" 1'1,\'- '-1'-' ,
1',\, .1
\\I'\.. !II": '!II!t1
PiJ\NNIN.G.
BRII:TIYjimll page 5
sUlIClllres wirhin rhe 3D-foot aqllaric land set-
back on parcels where an existing seawall has
effecrively eliminated rhe narural funcrion of
rhe shoreline.
The Deparrmenr noticed rhe plan amend-
menr as "in compliance" and some Ciry resi-
denrs challenged rhe determinarion based
upon alleged deficiencies in data and analysis,
internal inconsistency with other plan provi-
sions, deficient public participarion in the adop-
tion process, and numerous inconsistencies with
Chaprer 163, Part II, Florida Statures, and
Chaprer 9J-5, Florida Adminisrrarive Code.
The Administrative bw Judge rejected the
Petitioners' conrenrion that the amendment
affecred resrrictions associated with the Ciry's
15-foot wetland buffer. He also interpreted the
amendmenr to apply to seawalls in existence
at the time of a development application for
an accessory use, rejecring rhe Peririoners' as-
sertion rhar rhe amendment was a "grandf.'l-
ther" clause. The challenges [0 the amend-
ment based upon natural resource concerns
were found to be unsubstantiated. Lastly, the
Ciry's adoption process marerially complied
with local public parriciparion requiremenrs.
The Deparrment denied all of rhe excep-
tions to rhe Recommended Order and adopted
rhe findings, conclusions and recommenda-
rions as rhe Deparrmenr's agency aClion.
For filrther irz/Ormation please contact Kllren
Bradeen, Assistllnt Geneml Counsel Ilt (850)
488-0410.
...
Land Development Regulations
Citizen Challenge To Escambia County
Land Development Regulation
Dismissed /Is "Untimely" -/lppeal
Filed
Depflrtment OfCol7ll7lunit.l' Ajp/irs, ct fit. {J.
Lscflm!Jia COUlIl)I, DOA/-I CflSC No. 99-
2039Glv! (Administmti{Jc Law JlltZ~C Alexflllf.!o;
AllglI.i/9, 1999).
I n July J 998, rwo Cl!lzens wrore lO rhe
CoulllY AdminisrralOr asserring rhar numer-
ous land developmenr regularions were incon-
sistenr with the comprehensive plan. Attached
ro the letter was a peririon for hearing from one
of the two citizens, along wirh several arrach-
mellls. The peririon was sryled as ifbefore the
Division of Administrative Hearings. Ir con-
tested rhirreen ordinances, including Ordi-
nance 97-51, which was adopted in Ocrober,
1997.
The Administrator promptly acknowl-
edged receipt of the mailing, noting that since
a formal perition for hearing had been filed,
the matter would be resolved in that forum.
In August 1998, the citizens forwarded the
peti[ion ro the Deparrmenr, along with a let-
ter requesting a review of whether the Counry
should be designated as an Area of Critical
State Concern, and expressing concern over
adoption of land development regulations.
Shortly thereafter, rhe Secretary of the De-
parrmelll responded by outlining the require-
menrs for challenging a land developmenr
regulation, ciring Section 163.3213(3), Florida
Statures.
\,((hile the cirizens did not file anything fur-
ther with the County, they met with
Deparrment's counsel in Ocrober 19~)8, to dis-
cuss rhe matter. The next day, the citizens wrote
[he Departmenr asking that the August 1998,
petition be considered timely filed under the
doctrine of equitable tolling.
The Department promptly indicated that
the petition would be deemed filed in Octo-
ber 1998, under the doctrine of excusable
neglecr, hut four mOlHhs larer wrote that the
perition would be deemed filed as of August
1998.
The DeparrlllelH conducted an informal
hearing and derermined th:H Ordinance 97-
51 was partially inconsistelH wirh the compre-
hensive plan. The l)ep:mment f()I"W:mled rhe
maner III the Division llf/\dnlinistr:llive I-Icar-
ings for a hearing. The CoulHY moved [() dis-
miss the proceedings as untimely.
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed
the proceedings as untimely, determining rhar
the citizens failed to provide norice ro the
CoulHY within one year of adoption of the
Ordinance as required by Section
163.3213(3), Florida Statutes. The Judge re-
jected the application of excusable neglect and
equitable rolling.
The citizens requested rehearing on the
Final Order. The Motion for Rehearing was
rejected since there is no statute or rule au-
thorizing a motion for rehearing.
On September 2, 1999, cirizen Petitioners
Veal and Culligan filed a Norice of Appeal.
This matrer is pending before the First Dis-
trict Court of Appeal in Case No. 1999-3359.
For fill.ther information please contact Colin
Roopnarine. Assistant Genemf Counsel at (850)
488-0410.
...
;Ar~~i.Of Critic3fState Concern Program
. ,r. . .
Third District Court Of /lppeal/lffirms
Department's Determination That
Monroe County Vacation Rental
Ordinance Complies With Florida Keys
Principles For Guiding Development
/lnd Rejects Constitutional Challenge
To Section JBD.0552(7}, Florida
Statues
Rathkamp, et at. v. Department of Com-
munity Affizirs. 24 Fla. L. Weekly D J 807 (Fla.
3d DCA August 4. 1999).
After a formal adminisrrarive hearing,
Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997 (rhe Va-
carion Rental Ordinance) was found to be con-
sistent wirh the Florida Keys Area of Critical
State Concern guidelines. A citizen and some
business organiz;Jrions :Ippc:llcd, sl:Hing that
I'M:lI,
('()I\-1fvHJNlry l'I/\Ni'.!I.'-'(; . \-\/1:'-'111, .!llllll
!INI!:F!Y (OlItillllcr! Oil fiagc /2
SUNV!:T, .limi/ page 2
P/.JofoS Sl/fJfJ/ied COl/rleS)! r!lf!>e Norlbeasl Florid" f((:r.;iOl/(/!!'!{{//fIillg COl/ncil
co urban uses (78%); establishing urban
growth boundaries (76%); and developing a
state comprehensive plan with clear prioriries
for growth (75%).
Developments of Regionallmpact
The majority of the respondenrs indicated
suPPOrt for the Developmenrs of Regional Im-
pact (DRI) process (53%). Sixty percenr of
the respondents believe DRIs that have not
substantially commenced developmenr should
lose their vested rights, and that citizen stand-
ing should be created in the DRI review pro-
cess. Fifty-four percent of rhe respondenrs in-
dicated the review process should be srream-
lined in some way.
Issues of Slale Concern
The issues of state concern where rhe re-
spondents thought state involvement is needed
are: the protection and conservation of signifi-
Clllt natural resources (89%); disaster prepared-
ness (88%); the provision of an efficienr trans-
portation system ro enhance mobility (88%);
assistance to shape communiry characrer and
qualiry (82%); the promotion of economic
developmenr and a sound economy (77'X,);
and the provision ofaH()[(hble housing ((,1\%).
Role of State Governmellt
The su rvc)' respondclHs showed widc su p-
pOrt for the continued roles of state, regional,
and local government in growth management.
Survey respondenrs indicated that it is "very
important" for the Departmenr of Commu-
nir)' AH:\irs ro: protect idenrified state inrerests
(60%); develop a state vision (57%,); develop
a state plan that guides growth (55%); pro-
vide technical :\ssist:\nce ro local governmenrs
(55%); :\nd investig:\te citizen complaints :\bollt
comprehensive plan implemenration (50%).
Role of Regional Planning Councils
Roles for the regioml planning councils ro
fulfill deemed "vcry import:\nt" :\re: the pro-
rection of regional inreres[s (49%); [he devel-
opmenr of a regional vision (46%); providing
technical assisrance (45%); h.lI1ding growth
m:\n:\gement programs (44%); mapping re-
gion:\1 growth areas (42%); and :\c:ting as an
inforn13tion clearinghouse (42%).
Role of Local Government
'rhe respondenrs indicated that local gov-
ernment has a "very important" role ro: con-
tinue rhe adoprion of comprehensive plans
(7(,%); rhe conrinued adoprion orland devel-
opmenr regulations (80%); updaring local
plalls rhrough rhe evaluation and appraisal re-
pon process ((,7%); rhe adoprion of manda-
lOry 1)l:In c1emelHs ((,4%); rhe inclusion of
communi!y visioning in rhc pLulIling proccss
(58%); :\nd the design:\[ion of local growth
areas (57%).
Concurrency
Concurrency continues to be:\n import:\nt
activity for local governments ro perform. Over
90% of rhe respondenrs indicated rhe f.1ciliries
that are currently subject co concurrency
- potable water, wastewater, stormwater, and
roadways - should conrinue to be subject to
concurrency requirements. The concurrency
requirement should be expanded for schools,
other modes of transportation and emergency
management facilities.
Role of the Citizen
Over 75% of the respondents indicated the
role of citizens should be changed to provide
for more public involvemenr in plan develop-
ment and land developmenr regul:\tions. The
citizen's :\bility to peri[ion state agencies to
investigare local actions should be enhanced,
:\nd increased public notice for the approval
and issuance of development orders should be
provided.
...
For additional inforll/ation ngardillg the
Crowlh Managell/cnt S/rr/Jey. contact Maria
Ilbar./af Cahill al (850) 488-4925 or bye-mail:
IWI ria. abac!al-CII!Ji If@dCII.slafe..f1. us .
('( ),\I.\\lJi'~II\' 1'1:\t'..'~Ii':(:
I'ACE 7
\\'1:'-:11:1\ 2111111
ijLANNING
Florida's
~
http://permitting.state. fl.us
Now On-line
The 1999 Florida Legislature (99-244,
Laws ofHorida) created: "...rt fimctional state-
wide one-stop permitting system in order to make
permitting in this Sf{/te more lISer-ftiendly with-
out diminishing environmental, public health,
or safety standards. In addition, the Legislattlre
intends to encoumge local governments to expe-
dite and streamline permitting, to adopt best-
management practices, and to integrate the 10m I
permitting process with the statewide one-stop
permitting process.
The first phase of Florida's Internet site for
the One-Stop Permitting System went on-line
January 1,2000. Operated by the Deparrment
of Management Services, this new site is an
on-line depository of state and local permit-
ting information. Secretary -10m McGurk of
the Deparrment of Management Services said
that this site, which is designed to give both
businesses and citizens easy access to the ca-
pabilities of several state agencies, the five water
management districts and panicipating local
governments, will "simplify the permitting
process by linking information from multiple
jurisdictions. "
The 1999 Florida Legislarure appropriated
$500,000 in grants to assist Florida's counties
to integrate their local permitting process with
the On-Line Permitting Center. Currently, the
site connects the Depanments of Environ men-
ral Protection, Ti'ansportation and Community
Affairs together with the eighteen counties
which have developed web sites linking to the
state cenrer. Another eight more are scheduled
to be on-line by May 2000. It is anticipated
that additional funding provided by the 2000
Legislative session will help mher cOlllllies
complete their permitting linkages.
Administration of the Florida Quality De-
velopment Program is the only development
permitting function of the Departmenr of
Community Affairs. This program, as defined
in section 380.061, Florida Statutes, provides
an alternative and expedited review process for
qualifYing developm~nrs of regional impact.
Further information m~y be obtained on the
Department's One-Stop Permitting page:
http://www.dca.state.fI.us/fdcp/DCP I.
The permitting site is to be developed in
three phases. Phase Two, scheduled for comple-
tion by January 1, 2001, will link additional
srate agencies: the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, the Departments
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Busi-
ness and Professional Regulation, Health, In-
surance, L1bor and Employment Security, Rev-
enue and State. Phase Three will enable users
to submit both permit applications and appli-
cation fee paymenrs on-line.
For further information, contact
Bebe Smith at (850) 414-6771, or e-mail:
smithb3@dms.state.Jl.us .
The City of Palm Coast was officially incorporated
January 1, 2000. Mayor - Jim Canfield
Major Planning Issues
. Development of new plan for the City
. Coordination with Flagler Counry for urban
services
. Redesignation of the properties owned by Palm Coast
Holdings, Ine, within the city boundary to
establish a commercial corridor/cenrer
Status of the Plan
As of January I, 2000, the City is operating under
the Flagler County plan (adorned as a transitional
interim plan until Palm Coast develops its own plan).
For additiolllzl infonnation, contt/ct /l1.r. /lilt/rime
Foo/"d. of d)/' Flagler Count)' pl(l/lIIillg staff." ,\"/11' mil he
/"('(/c!Jer! at: (904) 437-7184. a
1',\(.1 ;;
('f 1,\ \,\ \1 Ii'.'I I Y 1'1 :\0.','\,'1;'<(; . \ \ l.'~ 111-: .~I JIll'
'/
.. I~;.
Lf!.l(L Llu;L lk L I
'm<" , . \ 'N.~ .. \ ..::....;
:P.~' ~~.~ ...;~., . _ .....J..' ',. _~~::~~~Q Gi!". ~'. · ;~~~'~
Concurrency Work
Part one
This is the first offl two-pflrt series on tmm-
portfltion concurreruy. The second pflrt, on the
subject of recent wncurrelllY !egis!fltion, wit! flp-
peril' in the next issue.
Introduction
Since 1985, Florida planning law has re-
quired local comprehensive plans to ensure
(hat adequate public facilities are available [Q
meet [he needs of permitted development.
Concurrency was a key component of [he
s[a[e's new ill[egrared planning process bur ir
was apparell[ from [he beginning rhar some
flexibiliry was needed ro avoid widespread de-
vclol)ml:1l[ moratoria.
As concurrency managemell[ systems were
impkml:lHl:d, unin[ended consequences
emerged, espl:ci,lily in [he area of [ranspor-
ration cOnCUITl:ncy. The heavy emphasis on
Illailllain ing rhe mobility of mo(Or vehicles in-
hibited the :Illainmelll oFgoals for community
lksigll th:11 IJrolllo(ecl COIllp:JCt urb:lIl c1evel-
OIl/lll'llI, 111-11:111 illt,ll :1I111 reclevdopmenL This
l\:Is l'II(()IIl.'lged :1 low dellsil)' lkvclopmell[
pattern that limi[s [he feasibili[y ofo[her [rans-
porta[ion modes such as transit and walking.
Ano[her problem is associared with [he ap-
plicarion of concurrency (0 Florida's !mras[-
are Highway System (FI HS). When highways
on [he FI HS also serve as local thoroughfares,
heavy volumes of rhrough [raft/c, coupled wirh
an inadequate local road sysrem, can make ir
nearly impossible [0 mainrain [he levels of Sl:r-
vice es[ablished by [he Florida Oepar[mell[ of
Transpor[a[ion (FOOT). As traffic volumes
exceed level of service standards, devclopmenr
permits must be denied. However, restricting
local devclopmenr does no[ cur[ail [he growrh
of rh rough rra fflc.
The following describes opportuniries for
rhe flexible applicarion of concurrency man-
agemelH requiremenrs authorized under
presenr law including some new provisions
enacred by rhe 1999 Legislarure ro help deal
wirh rhe issues nored above. It also highlights
adminisrra[ive measures for m3nagillg concur-
rency and discusses planning srr:uegics to ad-
dress public f:lciliry capaciry needs.
Authorized Flexibility
Florida's local comprehellSive planning hws
and rules allow considerable flexibility ill the
local implemen[a[ion of concurrency require-
melHs. For some public bcilities, "concurrent"
docs no[ actually mean "a[ rhe same rime" or
"simul[aneously." For example, needed park
and recrearion f:lCiliries may be under cons[ruc-
[ion wirhin one year afrer [he occupancy per-
mir is issued. Similarly, construction of needed
rransporrarion faciliries may begin within three
years afrer issuance of [he occupancy permit.
Also, Rule Chaprer 9J-5, Florida Admin-
is[rarive Code, allows local governmenrs [Q
emer imo developmem agreemems rha[ guar-
amee needed public faciliry capaciry will be
available when required.
The flexibiliry noted above does nor apply
[Q sanirary sewer, solid wasre, drainage or
porable warer services. These facili[ies musr
be in place when rhe certiflcare of occupancy
is issued because [hey are essenrial [Q public
healrh and safery,
Florida law allows local governmenr fur-
[her opponuniries (() incorporate flexibiliry
in [heir concurrency managemelH systems for
rransporrarion facilities. These options are
available [0 ofr.~e[ [he tendency of rranspor-
tarion concurrency requirl:menrs within ur-
ban areas ro el1courage urh:111 spr:lwl and [Q
discourage urban inlill, urban lulcvelopment
and downwwl1 reviralil.:llion.
n~/Ii\'S/J()/nir/"f()N. mlltill/lI'c! (III Iltl,!!.!' 10
C(J.\\4\HJNIIY I'I..-\'\.':'-!li'\!(;
P..\CE ()
I\'I~ III~ .'1 If If I
)?'LANNING
jim/.lj)()l"Ifllll)l/, .limll pllge 9
De Minimis Impacts
Developments havinga negligible (de mini-
mis) impact on transportation needs are not
required to meet concurrency if the following
conditions are met: (I) the proposed develop-
mem would not affect more than I percem of
the maximum service volume at the adopted
level of service standard for the af-
fected transport.1tion Facility; (2) the
sum of existing roadway volumes
and projected volumes from ap-
proved projects would not exceed
110 percem of the maximum ser-
vice volume at the adopted level
of service standard for the affected
transportation facility; and (3) the
adopted level of service standard
of a designated hurricane evacua-
tion route would not be exceeded.
ning period may be permiHed. The loed gov-
ernmenr must adopt a IO-year (or IS-year)
schedule oCcapital improvements that includes
the f:lcilities needed to correct existing defi-
ciencies and meet future needs. Imerim level
of service stancbrds may be established for de-
velopment on backlogged facilities.
and musr demonsrrate that rhe designared area
meets applicable standards. While develop-
ments within TCEAs are not required (() meet
transportation level of service standards, local
governments must adopt, as an amendment
to the comprehensive plan, guidelines .andl
or policies that specifY programs to address
transportation needs within the
area. Such guidelines andlor poli-
cies and programs must also dem-
onstrate by supporting data and
analysis, including short and long
term traffic analyses, that consid-
eration has been given to the im-
pact of the TCEA on the Florida
Intrastate Highway System.
Redevelopment
Projects
A proposed redevelopment
project located within a defined and mapped
Existing Urban Service Area is not subject to
concurrency requirements if the transportation
impact of the project does not exceed 110 per-
cent of the transportation impact of the pre-
viously existing use. Special part-time demand
facilities located within existing urban service
areas or in areas designated as urban infill, ur-
ban redevelopmem, downtown revitalization
areas, or areas designated as urban infill and
redevelopment areas pursuanr ro section
163.2511, Florida Statutes, are not required
to meet concurrency requirements if they have
no more than 200 scheduled events per year
and do not affect the 100 highest traffic vol-
ume hours.
Long Term Concurrency
Tel correct deficiencies. on backlogged trans-
portation faciliries, local governments may
adopt :1 long rerm rransporration concurrency
management system th:n provides for correct-
ing the deficiencies over a period of ten years.
For loed governmelHs with severely back-
logged rr:lIl.~porr:nion hcilities, a IS-year pl:1n-
Concurrency Management
Areas
Local governments may establish transpor-
tatIOn concurrency managemeIlt areas
(TCMAs) for promoting urban infill or ur-
ban redevelopmenr. The areas must be com-
pact and must contain multiple, viable alter-
native travel paths or modes for common trips.
Areawide level of service standards for road-
ways wirhin TCMAs musr be based upon an
analysis rhar provides a justification for the
standatds and demonstrates how urban infill
or urban redevelopment will be promoted and
how mobility will be maintained.
Concurrency Exception
Areas
Local governments may establish transpor-
tation concurrency exception areas (TCEAs)
to promote urban infill, urban redevelopment,
downrown revitalization, or projects that pro-
mote Pllblic tT:1rlsponation. "Ie) exercise this
option, local governmel1ls 1l111sr delincare a spe-
ci~c gcograf)hic area in the comprehensive plan
Pay-and-Go
An option known informally
as the "pay-and-go" approach al-
lows local governments to issue a
development order or permit de-
spite a failure to meet transporta-
tion concurrency requirements
(provided the 10<:"'11 government has adopted a
financially feasible capital improvement ele-
ment that provides for adequate facilities).
This alternative is available to limit liabilities
when a local government has failed to imple-
ment its capital improvement clement. The
local government must establish a process
within the comprehensive plan for assessing a
fair share of the COSt of providing the trans-
portarion faciliries needed [Q meer adopred
level of service standards.
Local govcrnments choosing to implement
one or more of the options described above,
(which apply only to transportation concur-
rency,) must initiate a comprehensive plan
amendment. Because they are essential to
public health and safety, facilities for sanitary
sewer, solid wasre, drainage and potable
water services must be in placc when the
certificate of occupancy is issued.
.....--
F/UINSI'OIOilF/ON. (IIlllllll/i'd {/I/ fiilgi' 11
1',\<:1 III
{ '( );\11\'1l JNII Y J 'I :\NNIN(; . \'VIN I n~ -..!(lOll
1 i"illlS(lOrtlll iOll, jimn IJr'XC I ()
Level of Service Standards
A final measure rhar offers Aexibiliry in meer-
ing rransporrarion concurrency requiremenrs is
rhe provision aurhorizing local goverI1melHs ro
esrablish rhe level of service srancbrd for all
roads on rhe Srare Highway Sysrem excepr cer-
rain faciliries on rhe Florida Inrrasrare High-
way Sysrem (FII-IS). The adequacy of rhese
srandards musr be documenred by dara and
analysis in rhecomprehensive plan demonsrrar-
ing rhar sufficienr capaciry is available ro meer
rhe demands of currenr and furure land uses.
Local governmenrs musr adopr FDOT stan-
dards for all FIHS f.1ciliries locared outside ur-
banized areas. Wirhin urbanized areas, 10ell
governmenrs may esrablish rhe srandard wirh
rhe concurrence of FOOT
Administrative Measures
\'V'hen rhe level of service Falls below rhe
adopred Level of Service (LOS) srandard for a
public faciliry, local goVerI1111eIHS have ar leasl
rhree alrernarives: rhey elll deny development
permirs; rhey can adjusr level of service sran-
dards downward; or rhey Cln schedule con-
srrunion ofrhe needed public in11)r<lvelllellls.
/1// pblll(Jsfnr Ibis arlicle ("(Jurlesl' o/Horidll DeparllllclIl o/"fi-/ll/.'lJ/Jrtalillll
The second and rhird oprions require amend-
menrs ro rhe comprehensive plan.
Local governmenrs have a wide larirude in
esrablishing LOS srandards rhar meer rheir
parricular needs. Likewise, local governmenrs
may make fInancially feasible amendmenrs to
rheir five-year schedule of capiral improvemenrs
and may accept fInancial conrribLllions from
privare sources for rhe cosr of needed public
faci I i ries.
Planning Strategies
Alrhough the concurrency managemenr
sysrem is esrablished in rhe comprehensive
plan, ir is adminisrered ar rhe regularory
srage of rhe growrh managemenr process.
Concurrency dererminarions are made ar rhe
permirring phase near rhe end of rhe process
while planning occurs much earlier.
Sound advance planning can aver! capac-
iry problems by ensuring lhar bnd develop-
menr parrerns, densiries and ilHensiries are
:Ippr<lpriarely babnced wilh public ElCiliry
requiremelHs. This is p:lrlictllarly imporl:t1ll
in rLlnSpOrlarion planning bCC:llISC rctr<lrltring
roadway improvemenrs is exrremely cosrly af-
rer an area becomes fully developed. Concur-
rency deficiencies ofren reAecr a failure by rhe
local governmenr ro balance bnd developmenr
plans adequarely wirh rhe anricipared capacl-
ries of public f.1ciliries.
\'V'hile communiries cannor arrain a land
use/public faciliry balance in rhe short rerm,
over rime rhey can improve rhis balance
rhrough land use srraregies rhar maximize rhe
use of existing public f.'\ciliries and ensure rhat
furure developmenr can be efficienrly served.
In rhe rransporrarion arena, this may include
compacr developmenr srraregies rhar encour-
age [he higher densiries and intensities required
ro support public rransporrarion services,
mixed use developments to facilirare walking
and bicycling, or limirarions ro off-street
parking which encourage ridesharing and rhe
use of public rransit.
For JilTther information regarding
transportation concurrency. contact Dale
Eader at (850) 488-4925 or b), e-mail:
dale. ('flcker@dCtutate.fl./lS II
(f )\\\\lI~IIY lll..\'-!;'\JIN(; . \-\lINTER :.!(l()()
I'ACE II
P'iLANNING
2020 Florida Transportation
Plan Update
The Florida Departmenr oITransportation
is updating the Florida Transportation Plan
ro ensure that the Plan sets forth a policy
framework that is responsive ro the needs of
the 2\" Cenrury. The Florida Transportation
Plan was adopted in 1995. Since that time,
conditions affecting transpormtion in Florida
have changed:
II A new federal law has been enacted ro
guide the expenditure of federal funds,
The Y;'ansportation Equity Act for the
21" Century,
. Florida's 25 Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) have adopted
long-range transportation plans;
. As a result of the Evaluation and Appraisal
Process (EAR), Florida's local governmenrs
have upcbted their local comprehensive
plans;
. Florida continues ro experience excep-
tional population and economic growth,
The 2020 Transportation Plan update process
will involve stakeholders through:
· The guidance of a steering commirree;
· Technical and policy supporr provided
by advisory committees for Mobility,
Economic Development, and PreserV:l.-
tion and Sustainability;
. Public involvement to be facilitated by
workshops and meetings;
· Inrernet access: www.doLstate.A.us
+++
For filrther information concerning the
2020 Transportation PUl1l updllte, pleme con-
wct Bob Romig, Director. Office of PoliC)'
Planning, Florida Department ofTmnsporta-
tion, at (850) 414-4800. or bye-mail:
robert. romig@c!ot.sttltej!.1IS .
/JNlI:Ff.)~ ./illlll /,1I,'<e (,
some findings offact in the Departmenr's Fi-
nal Order were not supported by comp(;t(;lll,
substantial evidence and that the underlying
statute was an unconstitutional delegation of
legislative aurhority to the Department.
The court, Judges Cope. Levy and Green,
affirmed the Deparrmenr's Order, per wrial1J,
with a wrirren opinion that rejected both at-
tacks on the Department's aerion.
For ftrther infOrmation please co~ltact Sherry
Spiers, Assistant General Counsel at (850) 488-
0410. .
Community Planning is published by
the Division of Community Planning
to provide technical assistance 10 local
governments in the implementation of
Florida's growth m.1nagemenllaws. Ma.
terial in Community Planning may be
reproduced with credit to the Depart.
ment of Community Affairs.
Jeb Bush. Governor
Sleven M. Seibert, Secretary
David Bishop, Communications Director
Tom Beck, Director, Division of Community Planning
Jim Quinn. Chief. Bureau 01 State Planning
Charles Gauthier, Chiel, Bureau 01 Local Planning
. . .
Caroline Knight. Edilor
Lida Maxwell, Design and Layout
Dena Rader, Technical Assistance
Ross Burnaman, Assistant General Counsel
Subscriptions to Community Planning are free, available
upon request. To be added 10 the mailing lisl. call (850)
488.4925. SIC 292.4925.
Website: http://www.dca.statc.fl.uslfdcp/OCP/
~ This document is printed on recycled paper.
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
~~A~TJ~k******~~*~*~*~_~. -~T
~ {i ;.. :;~, >; '.: S . - d" ~ I
- - : T }~ T ~ F;') .~ ~ ~ 3: .!.
,: = . ,; T :: :" ~ p ~. ....'; :, :; F 1_ .J " 2
. - . ~ - :3 2 i.J ,'. - 7 1 )
Bulk Rate
US Postage
PAID
Permit No. 181
Tallahassee, FL
32399
327
I I' ,.. I'
,II; 11111.; i 1111, 'II' L I1III ! I: i I t I i 11111,/ I I' I I; I .
, II' , I 111111/1
PAS
emo
ill
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
JUNE 2000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Markets for
Traditional Neighborhoods
By Evan Richert, AICP
NOt everyone wants a home in the country or in a suburban
development. But if you do want to live somewhere
besides on a rural lot or in a suburban development, your
choices may be limited. M unicipalland-use ordinances
discourage or even ban the building of rradirional
neighborhoods and villages. Homebuilders have been building
little besides suburban subdivisions for so long that they are
skeptical there is any other market. And consumers themselves,
confronted with older in-town neighborhoods afflicted with
noise traffic and frayed around rhe edges, may assume there is
no alrernarive but to move outward.
And thar is whar most do. According to a survey of 602 recent
home buyers conducted in late] 998 for the Maine State Planning
Office, only 12 percent move to or stay in in-town setrings. Forty-
two percent move outward to suburban or rural serrings and anorher
33 percent already in those senings stay rhere (see table). For many,
rheir home buying decision matches their lifestyle and preferences.
Bur fOi a share of rhe outward-moving marker, rhe decision fails to
meet rhe lifestyle rhey seem ro be looking fOL
RECENT MAINE HOMEBUYERS
BY DIRECTION OF MOVE
out 10 suburb
out 10 rural
stay in suburb
stay in rural
in 10 urban
stay in urban
rural 10 suburban
other
23%
19
28
5
5
7
11
2
These home buyers value being wirhin walking distance of a
corner store and rhe library, knowing neighbors by name, and
knowing rhey can drop by a neighbor's home and rhar he or she
will feel comfortable doing the same. They say they would jusr
as soon be close to gyms, ball fields, movie rheaters, and cultural
acriviries as be able to walk our rhe back door to hunt, fish, ski,
or snowmobile. They value running into friends and
acquaintances in the coffee shop on Main So"eer as well as seeing
wildlife our rhe windows of rheir home. Some prefer privacy to
COJ1[acr wirh neighbors bur srill wanr proximiry to srore and
services. And rhey don'r wanr ro he forced to ger rheir privacy
by moving to a large-lor suburban enclave or rhe counrry. Srill
orhers prefer rural serrings, bur if rhey knew rhey were
cOll[rihuring ro rhe loss of" wildlife habirar, working f:lI"IllS and
woodlands, and open space around rO\vns, rhey would
reconsider moving [() such locarions.
Based on rhe survey, 43 percent of home buyers who end up in a
rural or suburban environment (or 37 percent of rhe roral home
buying market) can be considered good rargers for rradirional
neighborhood development (TN D). By TND means a
neighborhood rhat is walkable from one end ro another, that has a
civic core (a school, church, library, park or similar place); that is
proximare ro basic goods and services; that is designed ro keep
through traflic down to reasonable levels; and rhar incorporates both
importanr public space and, for each resident, privare space.
Some home buyers who value
proximity 10 goods, services, and
civic places. . . and others who
value intimacy with neighbors. . .
are moving to settings where these
needs are unlikely to be met.
This conclusion was reached using c1usrer analysis, which
groups the respondenrs in rhe survey according ro their arritudes
and values. The c1usrer analysis found five disrincr groups based
on different mixes of values relating ro:
. desire ro interact wirh neighbors;
. desire for proximity to stores, services, and meeting places;
. the need to be near nature;
. community design and aesthetics.
Each of the five groups has young and old households,
households with high and low incomes, and each has households
that live in-town and those that live in secluded rural serrings. Bur
each is distinct from the others in the mix of values that it deems
important. From this analysis we learn that some home buyers who
value proximity ro goods, services, and civic places are moving ro
settings that don't fully meet that need; and others who value
intimacy with neighbors or neighborhoods with many children arc
moving to settings where these needs are unlikely to be met.
For ease of remembering these five market clusters, we have
given rhem descriptive labels:
Ozzies and Harriets (24 percent of the market): Mostly in
the young- and middle-family household formation years;
usually seeking child-oriented neighborhoods.
Small Town Civics (24 percent of the market): Mostly in rhe
middle- and later-family years, many have children at home.
This c1ustcr has smallest number of children per household.
Thcy have strong community interests.
Young Turks (I2 percent of the marker): Y oungcst of all
clusters, this group is largely in professional and administrarive
occupations and mostly male.
Suburban Thoreaus (23 percent of rhe market): This groups
tends toward middle- and uppcr-incomc, rhey want nature righr
our rhcir back door and prcfer lirtlc inreraction wirh neighbors"
[nrrospecrivcs (15 percenr of the markcr): Somewhat older
home buyers, moderare ro middle income, rhey \Vanr privacy
but convenient access to services is also vcry important.
These five clusters m3ke up 9H percelll ot the recellt hOllle
bu)'ers that were surve)'ed; the remaining 2 percent could 1l0! be
classified illlo all)' ot lhese {lve groups.
This issue of Public lr/lJestnu:nl describes each of rhe five
marker clusters. I t explores wh)' households make the
homebu)'ing decisions rhar rhe)' do, how rheir choices in where
to live 1ll3)' h3ve been differenr if the)' had known about rhe
impacr of low-density spr3wl on the environment 3nd open
sp3ce, 3nd who 31ll0ng them might have bought a house in a
tr3dirion31 neighborhood if such an oprion were available and
had the characteristics that the)' value in a pbce ro live. It
concludes that m3rkets do in fact exist for u3ditional
development. If municipalities understand this demand,
perhaps they will make provision for it in their ordin3nces. And
if homebuilders undersrand this demand, perh3ps they will
build homes and neighborhoods to meet it.
Ozzies and Harriets
At 24 percent of the market, this group has the highest share of
couples with children at home. They are the most likely to
choose a new home on a brge lot in a residential development.
They want to live in a neighborhood, but proximity to services
is unimportant. They express concern about loss of wildlife,
f3rms, and woodlands, and might have considered living closer
to the center of town if they knew they were contributing to the
loss of these open spaces.
OlllES AND HARRIETS
Major "Pushes" (% citing. . .)
lack of privacy
noise
houses too close
unsafe traffic
uncomfortable win
troffjc congestion
unollroclive n'hood
neorby industry
too many people
0%
20% 40%
10% 30%
60%
50% 70%
More than a third of this group are in their household
formation and young family years (25-34 years old), and
another third are in their middle family years (35-44 years old).
E.ight-six percent, the highest of any group, have two or more
adults in the household and 59 percent, again the highest of any
group, have children at home. About one-third are in
professional or administrative occupations. Nearly 15 percent
arc homemakers and more than one-half have a four-year
college degree or post-graduate degree. This is the highest level
of education of any cluster. Their median household income is
an estimated $46,500. Nearly 44 percent have incomes of
$50,000 or more. The median purchase price for this cluster
was $94.400, which is five percent higher than the sample-wide
median of $89,600.
About half of the Ozzies and Harriets arc buying homes in a
service center, which the Maine State Planning Office defines as a
municipality with a higher-than-average concentration of
employment, retail sales, services, or subsidized housing. For 44
percent of this group, their mosr recelll move was ourward from a
ciry-25 percent to a suburb3n neighborhood and 19 percenr to a
rural serring. Only 16 percenr mov~d in the opposite direction.
Eurll/ Richert is Director of the Maine SlrUe Planning Office.
2
BEST TARGETS
OlllES & HARRIETS
Those moving
out to suburbs 25%
out to rural 19
in to suburbs 13
in to urbon 3
sloy in suburbs 29
sloy in rurol 6
stoy in urban 3
NOTE: BOLD = BEST TARGETS
The strongest factors pushing respondents from their previous
setting to their new setting were lack of privacy (63 percent), noise
(56 percent), and houses too close together (54 percenr). Traffic
congestion, discomfort with neighbors, and unattractive neighbor
houses were moderate push factors. Crime, schools, real estate
prices, and (axes were less important to (his group.
If (his group had known their home-buying decision would
contribute to loss of wildlife or working farms, nearly half of
those who moved to ourlying areas would have reconsidered.
The thought of contributing to higher property (axes across the
board or to loss of open space around towns would have
affected the decisions of a sizable minority as well.
In addition to the 16 percent of Ozzies and Harriets already
moving back to or staying in an urban or village seHing, the best
targets may be the 13 percent moving to the suburbs from the
country (since they are moving inward) and the 44 percent
moving outward from an iil-town setting.
Small Town Civics
This group, which represenrs 24 percent of the market, is middle
aged and middle income. Small Town Civics want to live in a
neighborhood and have proximiry to services. Among the few who
move to rural areas, a large majority (77 percent) would have
reconsidered if they knew it would contribute to loss of wildlife.
SMALL TOWN CIVICS
Major "Pushes" (% citing. . .J
lack of privacy
houses too close
unsafe traffic
too many people
noise
don't feel port of comm
traffic congestion
uncomfortable win
unattroclive n'hood
0% 20"10 40% 60"10
10% 30"10 50%
One-half of this group is in its middle and larer family years,
and another third is in its young family years. Half of these
households have children at home, although they average 1.7
children per household which is fewer than any other cluster. By
and large this is a highly educared group of people; 46 percent
have a four-year college degree or post-graduate degree. The
median income is also high in this group, averaging $43,200.
The strongest factors pushing this group from their previous
home [0 their new location arc lack ot privacy (56 percent) and
houses lOO close together (51 percent). Noise, rraffic congestion,
and unatrracrive neighborhoods were moderate push factors.
Conrributing least [0 their decision to move were crime, school
conditions, nearby commerce and industry, and taxes.
The Small Town Civics pllt :1 high v:dlle Oil alll;lur major
values tested: sense ofcommunilY. inlim;lcy with neighbors, a
natural seuing, and proximit), [() srores allll services. Their need to
be a pan of a colllmunity and good neighbors is especially high,
and a majority want 10 be within walking distance of services.
If they had known their hOllle-buying decisioll would
contribute to a loss of wildlife, 77 percent of those moving to
rural areas would have reconsidered. Substantial percentages also
would have reconsidered if they knew they were contributing to
a loss of open space (45 percent), loss of working farms and
woodlands (55 percent), higher property taxes (50 percent) and
air pollution (4 J percent).
BEST TARGETS
SMALL TOWN CIVICS
Those moving. .
out to suburbs
out to rural
in to suburbs
in to urban
stay in suburbs
stay in rural
stay in urbon
24%
11
11
8
31
4
9
NOTE: BOLD = BEST TARGElS
Given their values, all Small Town Civics who moved to or
srayed in suburban or rural serrings are wonhwhile targets for
tradirional neighborhood developrnenr. This represents between
II and 19 percent of rhe toral home buying marker. Markering
TND ro this c1usrer should emphasize the benefits of strong
neighborhoods and a sense of community that one can
experience living in such as serring. This group's choices may
also change with increased educarion on the impacrs of sprawl.
Young Turks
Young Turks represent 12 percent of rhe marker and are rhe
youngest of rhe five c1usrers. A large share are in professional and
administrarive occupations, and lllost are males. Their
environmental and neighborhood surroundings are relarively
unimponanr to rhem. They are widely distributed across all rypes
of serrings, but are somewhar more likely than orher to move or
sray in an urban sening and less likely ro leap from ro rural serrings.
Most of rhe Young Turks are just beginning ro form households or
young families. Almost half (46 percent) earn $50,000 a year or more.
Like the Small Town Civics, many Young Turks are buying
homes in service centers. About rwo-thirds are buying homes in
suburban residential neighborhoods, but 22 percenr are buying in
urban or mixed use serrings, the highest of any of the five groups.
Unlike the or her groups, Young Turks are not susceprible to
strong pushes. Only lack of privacy was cited by a majoriry (54
YOUNG TURKS
Mojor "Pushes" (% citing. . .j
lock of privacy
noise
houses 100 close
unsafe traffic
traffic congestion
100 many people
unattractive n'hood
crime
0% 20% 40% 60%
10% 30% 50%
BEST TARGETS
YOUNG TURKS
Those moving.
out to suburbs
out to rural
in to suburbs
in to urban
stay in suburbs
stay in rural
stay in urban
25%
11
8
11
31
3
11
NOTE: BOLD = BEST TARGETS
percent) as a reason for moving. Noise, housing tOO close
tOgether, traffic, and crime were only moderate push factOrs. So
what are the preferences of the highly evolving group of home
buyers? Young Turks place less importance on their
surroundings than do the other clusters.
The best I:arget for TNDs among the Young Turks are rhose
who might be intercepted before moving outwatd to suburban or
rural setrings. This represents about five percent of the home
buying market. Marketing TNDs to this group should emphasize
housing affordabiliry and the convenience of living in or neal: town.
Suburban Thoreaus
Suburban Thoreaus com prise 23 perccn t of the homc
buying market, and, at $47,400, have rhe highest median
income of the five groups. These home buyers wafl( nature out
their back door. Proximity to services is not important, and they
prefer litrJe interacrion with neighbors. Forty-five percent-the
highest of any c1usrer-are buying homes in rural areas, and
;lIlorhcr 49 perccnt are buying in suburban scttings.
SUBURBAN THOREAUS
Mojor "Pushes" (% citing. . .)
lock 01 privacy
too many people
houses too close
noise
traffic congestion
too for from nature
unsafe traffic
0",(, 20% 40"10 60"10 80"10
10% 30"10 50% 70% 90%
Suburban Thoreaus who are moving to rural settings cite
several strong push factOrs, including lack of privacy (79
percent), tOo many people (61 percent), homes tOO close
together (58 percent) noise (56 percent), and traffic (51
percent). Being too far from narure was also a flctor, and close
to one-third identified crime as a reason for leaving. The
condition of schools, high real estate prices, and taxes were less
llnponant.
Suburban Thoreaus put a very high value on a natural
setting, and a majoriry cite a sense of community as an
important value.
A majority of this group (60 percent) would nO( havc been
persuaded to reconsider their home-buying decision if they had
known their decision would contribute to a loss of wildlife, open
space, or working f:ums or woodlands. The I:hought of Glusing
higher propel:ty taxcs, colltributing to air pollution, traffic
congestion, or loss to downtowns would havc Ill:([[ered evcn less.
Given their preferences and valucs, Suburban Thorcaus arc not :\
target market for traditional neighborhood devclopmcnr.
3
Introspectives
At 15 pl:rcent of rhe market, this grollI' is Illoderate- to middlc-
income and has somcwhat older age profile rhan rhe orher
groups. They wam proximity to services, but nO! a lot of
imeraction with neighbors. They wam privacy, but also the
services rhar come with an urban village environment. They arc
similar to Small Town Civics in that thl:)' have chosen homes on
relatively small lots in service ccnters, but differ when ir comes
to waming to be an active part of rheir community.
INTROSPECTlVES
Mojor "Pushes" (% citing. . .)
lack of privocy
noise
houses too close
unsafe traffic
traffic congestion
too many people
unallractive n'hood
crime
0"10
20"10
10"10 30'7'0
40"10 60"10
50"10
A large segment of this group (45 percenr) made their most
recent home purchase in a rural setting, and about one-half chose a
suburban setting. The median income for rhis group, at $4] ,400, is
the lowest of any group.
The strongest facrors pushing respondenrs from their previous
setting to their new setting were lack of privacy (56 percenr), and
noise, rraffic, and houses roo close rogerher- each noted by 53
percent of respondents as reason for moving outward.
In terms of preferences, lmrospectives put a higher value on
proximity to services than on intimacy with neighbors. A
majority want to be within walking distance of stores and
services. Sense of community is imporram, but intimacy with
neighbors (e.g., knowing their names, dropping by) is not.
In addition to the 17 percent of Introspectives who are already
moving back to or staying in rown, the besr targets may be the 35
percent who are moving outward and the 14 percent who have
moved part way inward from a rural to a suburban setting. The
besr targer for TNDs among Introspecrives, besides the 17 percent
who already are moving back to or sraying in in-town settings, are
the 35 percent who might be inrercepred before they move outward
and the 14 percent who have moved part way inward ro the
suburbs. In marketing TND to such a group, messages regarding
convenience and proximiry should be emphasized and design plans
should address their desires for privacy and greenery.
Conclusion
If traditional neighborhood alternatives are offered in the
marketplace, a significant share of home buyers will choose them.
Slowing the outward flow of home buyers through well-thoughr-
out alternatives will be easier in places like Maine than in more
heavily urbanized sta.tes because some of the strongest "push"
factors haven't reached serious levels in that state. Crime, pollution,
high taxes, and school progtams and conditions arc not rhe reason
that most leave for the counrryside. Instead, Maine home buyers
move outward because of traffic and noise, and the desire for a
sense of space, greenery, and privacy-physical matters rhat are
amenable to design solutions.
The most fruitfulmarket"S ro rarger in a rradirional
neighborhood, anri-sprawlmarkering campaign arc those Small
Town Civics, Young 'ru rks, and I nrrospectivl:s who, despire
their values and prefcrencl:s, move ourward ro suburban or rural
4
scrtings. These rcprcsclll about 23 percent of the homc buying
market. Small Town Civics who arc moving from place to place
in rural or suburban settings ma)' also be amenable targets. 'rhe
message ro rhese marker segmenrs should emphasize
convenience, proximity ro services, and a well-designed setting.
To achieve the benefits of;l tradirional neighborhood will requirc
thoughrful design-design thar builds in barh a public realm and
essenrial privare space, rhat manages rraffic and noise, and rhar
recaplllres the best elements of the Grear American Neighborhood-
walbbility, trees and landscaping, imporranr insrirutions (like
churches, schools, and parks), and civic space and pride.
A second marker segment ar which to aim a campaign are
rhose Ozzies and Harriets who are also moving ourward to
suburbs or the counrryside and might be inrercepted with rhe
appropriate education and message about the potential harm of
such decisions on wildlife habirar, open space, woodlands, and
farms. While presenrly unaware of such impacrs, rhis market
cluster apparenrly is sensitive to rhese fearures of the landscape.
Ozzies and Harriets want neighborhoods, and if presenred with
an opportunity to experience a place with strong neighborhood
values in a traditional setting, might Opt for it rarher rhan a
more contemporary suburban development.
BEST TARGETS
INTROSPECTIVES
Those moving. . .
out to suburbs 23%
out to rural 12
in to suburbs 14
in to urban 7
stay in suburbs 30
stay in rural 2
stay in urban 10
NOTE; BOLD = BEST TARGETS
One market segment thar appears ser in its ways and nor a
worthwhile rarget for a campaign are the Suburban Thoreaus.
They need to be close to nature and will rend to move in rhat
direction even if [hey come to realize [hat they, either
individually or cumulatively wirh others like them, may harm
rhe very nature they seek.
Nevertheless, rhe market research suggests that in addition to
those already choosing to buy in town, 43 percent of those
shifting to rural or suburban locations-representing 37 percent
of rhe toral home buying marker-may respond favorably to the
benefits of traditional neighborhoods in service centers or in-
town locations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The PAS M~mo is a monthly publication for subscribers (0 the Planning Advisory Service,
d subscription research service of the American Planning Association: Frank S. So.
Executive Direcror; William R. Klein. Direc[O( of Research.
The PAS Mono is produced by APA staff in Chicago. Research and writing by Research
Depanlllcm staff: Marya Morris and Megan Lewis, Editors. Production by Puhlic;uions
DcpanmelH stafT: Cynrhia Cheski. Assistant Ediwr; Lisa Barton, Design Associate.
Copyright @2000 by American Planning Associalion, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suire 1600,
Chicago, IL 60603; e-mail: pasmemo@pJanning.org. The American Planning Associarion
JI50 hJ5 offices a( 1776 MassJchu5etlS Ave.. N.W., WashinglOll, DC 20036;
Ww\v.planning.org
All rigllls reser'led. No part of this publication may be reproduced or Ulilized in :In)' form
or by all)' Illcam, clc:clronic or mechanical, including photocopying. recording. or by all)'
informarion storage and retrieval system, withom permission in wridng from the
Americ:lll Pbnning Association.
Primed on recycled paper. including 50-70% recycled fiber t:i:Jrrt
:llld 10% post<;ollsumer wasle. W
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-
. . . . . . . . . .
vol 1, issue 11
Bush signs Transportation Bill,
accelerates 1-4 construction
Governor Jeb Bush spohe to a local group of community
leaders before signing the 2000 transportation bill
adjacent to the aging St. John's River Bridge, the first of
many 1-4 projects to be fast-trached under the new
funding provided by the recently adopted legislation.
More than $500 million in Interstate 4
improvements were accelerated recently when
Gov. Jeb Bush signed the Mobility 2000 trans-
portation legislation in the shadow of the premier
advanced project, the St. John's River Bridge
replacement.
Bush's signature solidifies the advancement of
some 10 major projects to bring relief to harried I-
4 commuters in Volusia, Seminole, Orange and
Osceola counties.
Topping the list of rush projects is the replace-
ment of the aging four-lane span across the St.
John's River, long a bottleneck for travelers
between Seminole and Volusia counties. The
replacement for the 1960s bridge will be twin
spans, both three lanes with wide safety shoulders.
$1
~~
~
~
I
I
1
This project also includes six-laning from the
bridge east to Saxon Boulevard. Bridge construc-
tion is expected to begin in early 200L
Other major fast-tracked projects are:
construction of a new $63 million interchange at
US. 192 in Osceola County; the $37 million six-lan-
ing of the segment ofI-4 from the Polk County line
to US. 192; construction of auxiliary lanes from SR
535 to SR 528 (Bee Line Expressway); the $90 mil-
lion reconstruction of segments of the EastJWest
Expressway and 1-4 interchange; construction of
auxiliary lanes between US. 441 and the EastJWest
Expressway at a cost of $38 million; this project
was not reflected in earlier FDOT work programs
and the remainder of the funding will be provided
by the Orlando-Orange County Expressway
Authority; six-laning ofI-4 from Saxon Boulevard
to SR 472 at a cost of $17.5 million; continuing the
six-laning from SR 472 east to SR 44 at a cost of
about $65 million; And finally, under the accelerat-
ed funding approved when Governor Bush signed
the 2000 transportation bill is the design and right
of way acquisition for the easternmost segment of
the corridor from SR 44 to Interstate 95.
.::......~) .::,:'>:.:1.......,.,: .....;l.-'.'...:,'..J~~~~,e....:~{..:.~ ~ ~i...: ':;. :,> ~<,':' .'
Mobility 2000............................................ ......1
Cultural resources. ... ......... ...........................2
SunGuide workshops ....................................3
1-4 mascot visits 3rd graders ......................4
John Young Parkway interchange ............5
Information office moves ............................6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . ................... .......... .............. ...........
FDOT to build auxiliary lanes
~. . ":'.,
ParSI
}~
Winler Pari< SI
\,'.
t:Eclnceton St
--'-
Colonial Dr
Amol1a St
Uvln &ton St
Robinson St
.. '"f/ ~..i
Washlnglon SI
1-4 Westbound
Auxiliary Lanes
I~ Eastbound
Auxiliary lanes
East West\'
EXP~~J~~~t ~..~
t;)---"':"':"
c
o
-.;
;;
5
Kale:l.E.L
.,";\\
:~,:;t~'::".
~1il~
The Florida Department of
Transportation has scrapped plans for a
reversible express lane in favor of more
cost effective and general-purpose auxil-
iary lanes that will link interchanges
and relieve congestion along the busiest
miles of Interstate 4.
The auxiliary lanes, expected to be
under construction by this time next
year will be installed from Maitland
Boulevard to Orange Blossom Trail,
tying into other auxiliary lanes that will
run from OBT to John Young Parkway
and on to the new Conroy Road inter-
change. The $35 million project will add
a 12-foot travel lane in each direction.
District 5 FDOT Secretary Mike
Snyder made the plans public in July
when he explained that the interim
reversible express lanes costs had esca-
lated and the Department no longer
believed the project was feasible. He
added that the new auxiliary lanes
would be fast-tracked to provide some
traffic relief through the urban area's
heart.
In addition to being cheaper to build,
the auxiliary lane construction is expect-
ed to take less time to build, according
to Snyder, bringing relief to both east-
and west-bound motorists 24 hours a
day. The express lane would have
served rush hour traffic westbound in
the morning and eastbound in the
evenmg.
Snyder also told local transportation
planners the ultimate construction of 1-4
may include express lanes that would be
separated from the general use lanes for
high occupancy vehicles or for those will-
ing to pay a toll to use it. Those will be
installed when the ultimate build-out of
1-4 is accomplished. Snyder added there
were no funds yet allocated for this sec-
tion of 1-4 beyond the installation of
these auxiliary lanes.
0....................... ......... .................................
. .:: ~'-. .'
,. ':,~ t,:'
- .. ...... ... ... ....... ............. ... ..................
SunGuide hosts workshops
Moderator Sarah Crowell leads discussion with (left to right) Dan Powell of Phoenix, AZ, Tom
Lambert of Houston, TX, Tom Peters of Minneapolis, MN and Mark Carter of Washington, D. C-
at Central Florida's ITS workshops in May in Tampa, Orlando and Daytona.
Representatives from various trans-
portation-related disciplines met with
technical consultants recently to discuss
ways Intelligent Transportation
Systems components could facilitate
traffic movement on the 143-mile corri-
dor of 1-4 which spans Central Florida.
The meetings, held in Tampa,
Orlando and Daytona, were part of an
ongoing study to determine alternative
means of improving the traffic flow on
the busy east-west interstate corridor.
National and Florida ITS experts
shared experiences in a unique "talk-
show" workshop format which was fol-
lowed by technical presentations on
Coordinated Transportation Operations
and Managernent; Incident
Management; Traveler Information
Systems and .Financing and Planning
ITS improvements.
....................................... 0................. ........ 0
The meetings were held at the
Westshore Marriott in Tampa, the Delta
Resort in Orlando and the Plaza Resort
and Spa in Daytona on May 23, 24 and
25.
ITS representatives from Arizona,
Minnesota, Texas and Washington, D.C.
joined panelists from Florida's Turnpike,
the University of Florida and south
Florida to help educate corridor stake-
holders about the Florida Department of
Transportation's regional approach to
intelligent transportation systems
deployment along Interstate 4.
The meetings also unveiled the
Department's overall ITS program's
Sunguide logo that will identify all sub-
sequent ITS components implemented
throughout the state.
~
SUn(jUID~e
F1orida\ Inl.Ulgenl Transport'tiori S~em
..w.
~iD ........................... 0 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Marh Callahan outlines project progress for the Cultural Resources
Committee
.Cultural Resources/Urban
Design groups protect corridor
While most 1-4 travelers see only the
need for more lanes or a faster com-
mute, there are a number of people
involved in seeing that Central Florida's
cultural resources are preserved while
improvements are implemented and
another group is looking at ways to
make the dissecting highway more aes-
thetically appealing to both the adjacent
property owners and those just travel-
ing through.
These groups, the Cultural
Resources Comr:littee and the Urban
Design Guidelines Group, are acting in
an advisory role to technical consult-
ants preparing design concepts for the
improvement of 1-4 from Daytona to the
Polk/Osceola county line.
The Cultural Resources Committee
is eyeing the impacts of 1-4 improve-
ments on adjacent historic communi-
ties, neighborhoods and other historic
properties. Noise, quality of life issues
and aesthetic impacts on historic areas
are falling under the scrutiny of the
CRC, according to the study team. This
team of ci ti zen activists will work wi th
the technical team to develop possible
remedies to offset impacts of the high-
way improvements.
The other group, the Urban Design
Group, is looking at ways to make the
interstate 4 corridor more visually
appealing to travelers and nearby resi-
dents alike. They are also working with
local government to see that a uniform
"look" for the 1-4 corridor is developed
as the highway improvements progress
into the final design phase prior to con-
struction.
These "looks" include design ele-
ments such as how drainage ponds will
appear when completed; how bridges
will appear after construction; possible
landscaping; and using invisible fencing
or elimination of fencing altogether.
These two groups are playing key
roles in the study process, study leaders
say. "They are the voices of the commu-
nities these improvements will serve
and their input in this development
process really helps us make technical
decisions that will have the least impact
on all of us," said Harold Webb, project
manager for the Florida Department of
Transportation.
0. .......... ................. .....................................
. .... .... ........... ....... ......... ... ...... ...... ..... -
From the Secretary's desk
After years of debate, planning, and
studies, we are finally on the eve of major
changes along the Interstate 4 corridor in
Central Florida. While much of the ulti-
mate build-out of 1-4 from Polk County all
the way to 1-95 in Volusia County will take
many years to complete, some key projects
will begin very soon. Much of that
progress has been made possible by the
recent approval by the legislature and gov-
ernor of a transportation funding package
that will allow the Department to fund for
the first time, or advance by anywhere
from one to four years, several 1-4 projects.
In January, Governor Jeb Bush
announced his "Mobility 2000" initiative.
Funding for the governor's proposal
included eliminating some diversions from
the State Transportation Trust Fund, the
bonding of money against future federal
trust fund revenues, and anticipated
increases in federal gas tax collections
earmarked for Florida. In all, the propos-
al would allow the Department to fund or
advance about $4 billion dollars worth of
projects statewide, mostly on the
Interstate system. Nearly $6 billion worth
of projects can be funded or advanced over
the next 10 years. With over $21 billion in
projects already in the Department's Five
Year Work Program, it's clear there will be
a lot of highway expansion in Central
Florida.
Among the projects advanced will be
replacement of the 1-4 St Johns River
Bridge between Seminole and Volusia
Counties. Instead of beginning construc-
tion in 2004, it is likely area commuters
will be driving on the new bridges by
then. That project includes six-laning all
the way to the Saxon Boulevard inter-
change in Volusia County. The six-Ianing
of 1-4 from Lake Mary Boulevard to U.S.
17/92, and from Polk County to U.S. 192
in Osceola County will be under construc-
tion at the same time as the bridge, mean-
ing in a few years, 1-4 will be at least six
lanes wide all the way from Deltona to the
Polk County line. There are other inter-
change improvement and widening proj-
ects also funded within five years.
The "Trans4mation" is about to begin!
John Young Parkway
interchange under design
Improvements to the Interstate
4/John Young Parkway interchange
presently are being designed to improve
access to both John Young Parkway and
the interstate through the busy intersec-
tion. Construction on the improved $34
million interchange is scheduled to
begin in late 2003, according to FDOT
project manager Bonnie Boylan.
The new design will provide a f1yover
ramp from westbound 1-4 to John Young
Parkway to eliminate a bottleneck that
often stacks traffic onto the 1-4 mainline
and jams up traffic onto L.B. McLeod
Road.
In addition to the flyover, John
Young Parkway will be widened to six
lanes with dual left turns added from
the parkway to 33rd Street, onto 1-4 in
both directions and from the parkway to
L.B. McLeod Road.
The project also will provide auxil-
iary lanes on 1-4 from the new Conroy
Road interchange to John Young
Parkway and from John Young Parkway
to Orange Blossom Trail. These auxil-
iary lanes will provide interchange links
without mainline traffic merges on 1-4,
Boylan explained.
The overall project includes recon-
struction on about two miles of 1-4 and
about a half a mile on John Young
Parkway. Also included in the project is
the synchronization of traffic signals
and upgrading of drainage systems
throughout the interchange.
Mike Snyder, FDOT
D-5 Secretary
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .1!J
- ... ....................................................
lRANS
MAllON
THE EVOLUTION Of TRANSPORTATION
IN CENTRAl flORIDA
1.4 Public Involvement
c/o Keith and Schnars, PA.
385 CenterPoint Circle, Suite 1303
CenterPoint at the Lahe Office Parh
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
407.834.1616
888.797-1616
LVWLV. trans4ma tion .org
Presorted
First Class Mail
U.S. Postage
PAID
Mid-Florida, FL
Permit #475
Return Service Requested
*********************AUTO**3-DIGIT 327
37
Thomas Grinuns 026
1126 E State Road 434
Winter Springs FL 32708-2715
11,11".1.11'1 i 111..,1,,1'1,1,111,.1, i ,11,1,1"11,1,11"1,,,11
~
Map not to scale
~
~
'wi
~i;l
t[{!.rt.flijil~:Y:iilli.JfiV~'Lf:';~1lf'@l"QJ:X*~W:!~~Yt:wl~m~~~W-l:~~i;'11:ff:ij:!1Jl:j~!};:0~~W.r:r~~f~~!t~~!~
Cranes Roost
The new location of the 1-4 Public Involvement Office
overloohing Crane's Roost Parh in Altamonte Springs.
1..4 inform.ation
office moves
t.~l~
r~l
~i
~!l!
~~
~~
wA
,~
I.~~.~
~
t'
00
~
We've moved... but we don't like heavy lifting,
so we didn't go far! As of June 1, 2000, the Keith
and Schnars, PA, Trans4mation Public
Involvement Office has moved around the corner.
Our new address is:
Keith and Schnars, PA
385 CenterPoint Circle, Suite 1303
CenterPoint at the Lake Office Parh
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701
We realize that the street and office complex
names have also changed, however, this is not our
faulL. they didn't ask us before it happened. Our
offices can be found right where you left them last,
well just around the corner in a different building,
but you get the idea. (See the map provided if you
don't believe us.)
We can be reached at the same phone numbers
you've always used. Call us @ (407)834-1616 or toll
free @ (888)797-1616 for more information. We
apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
· · · · · · · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Robert's Rules of Order, Summarized
PaO(; 1 of 1
a
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, SUMMARIZED
Robert's Rules of Order is a system of parliamentary procedures first published in 1876 by
Henry Robert, an American army general. This set of rules forms the basis for the "Rules of
the House of Representatives of Congress," and contemporary editions of Robert's Rules are
tailored toward the practices of that body.
Robert's Rules were adopted by the Philomathean Society to promote orderly discourse and
debate, to defend the parliamentary rights of the minority, to act on the will of the majority,
and to streamline the workings of the business of the Society.
CONTENTS:
1. Introduction
-----~
L Basic Terminology
3. Common Motions
4. Rob~rt's Rules Tidbi~~
5. Tables
6. End Notes
Prepared for the Moderator of the Philomathean Society by his/her humble servant, Scott Batten.
Text composed 3 January 1994, HTML version 19 January 1996 (Annotated)
[ Philo F AQ I Philo Homep~ I Mail Philo]
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/- philo/roberts-rules/
8/24/00
Robert's Rules: Introduction
Page 1 of 1
1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 ROBERT'S RULES: WHAT IS IT?
Robert's Rules of Order, Revised-abbreviated here as Robert's Rules-is a system of parliamentary
procedures first published in 1876 by Henry Robert, an American army general. His book
borrowed heavily from earlier manuals, but it gradually became the standard in the United States.
This set of rules forms the basis for the Rules of the House of Representatives of Congress, and
contemporary editions of Robert's Rules are tailored toward the practices of that body.[lJ
Robert's Rules were adopted by the Philomathean Society to promote orderly discourse and debate,
to defend the parliamentary rights of the minority, to act on the will of the majority, and to
streamline the workings of the business of the Society.[IJ
1.2 WHAT IS THIS?
This document is Robert's Rules in ten pages or less. In recent times there have been several two-
page summaries floating about, and I hope to expand on and supplement these by providing a more
detailed outline of the book. The audience I have in mind is the cabinet member whose position
invites the role of the watchdog,[I1 and the young member or guest of the Society to whom
parliamentary procedure is still rather new.
1.3 DISCLAIMER
All information in this document should be viewed as one interpretation, not necessarily as a
faithful rendering of the original. This is particularly true of footnotes, which tend to record
observations and traditions not at all based on Robert's Rules. A far better approach to learning
Robert's Rules of Order, Revised would be to read the source itself, which is short and accessible,
especially the first seven articles (~~4 through 45 or so).
As always, the final interpreter of Robert's Rules is the acting Moderator, and he or she is bound
only by The Constitution and By-Laws of the Philomathean Society and Robert's Rules of Order,
Revised, in that order of precedence. I am just trying to provide a brief overview for the layperson.
In organizing this presentation, I have not attempted to stick to the structure of Robert's book.
1.4 SOURCES
. Bolt, Jr.., Eugene A., Emmanuel C. Morales, Robert Hutter, and Robert Deschak. Apocrypha of
Etiquette. Philadelphia: Tea Publishers, 1991.
. The Constitution and By-Laws of the Philomathean Society. Last amended spring 1993.
. Robert, Henry M. Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. 1915 edition. New York: Morrow Quill
Paperbacks, 1979. This is the primary resource for this document.
. -- . The Scott, Foresman Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. 1990 edition, revised by
Sarah Corbin Robert. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1990.
[ Main Robert's Rules Page I Philo Homepa~ I Mail Philo]
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/ - philo/roberts-rules/introduction.html
8/24/00
Robert's Rules: MOlions
PJgc 1 oj 5
3: MOTIONS
Associated with this document is a chart that lists all motions, in alphabetical order, and a summary
of special conditions that apply to each. This section will define the most important of these
motions, and it refers the reader to the appropriate section of Robert's Rules of Order, Revised. Also
associated with this document is Robert's summary of precedence. In general, motions in this
section are listed in increasing rank
3.1 BASIC MAIN MOTIONS
These motions apply only when no other business is pending before the Society and are used to
introduce business into a meeting.
3.1.1 The original main motion.
This is a motion that brings new business before the Society; such a motion can be made only while
no other motion is pending. A main motion is out of order when another speaker has the flooL It
must be seconded; it is debatable and amendable, and it may be brought back for further
consideration after it has been voted upon (subject to limitations imposed by ~36 of Robert's Rules).
A main motion requires a majority vote except in special cases described by Robert's Rules, such as
modifying a By-Law or suspending a rule.1Jl]
See ~~4, 11, 33, and 40 of Robert's Rules for information on the wording of a motion, descriptions
of main motions that are not in order, procedures for amendment, other uses of main motions, and
a description of the proper handling of a main motion.
3.1.2 Take from the table.
A question that has been previously tabled may be brought up again for consideration by way of
this motion. If it succeeds, debate immediately resumes on the motion that had been tabled. A
motion to take from the table is in order only when its sponsor has the floor; it must be seconded,
and is neither debatable nor amendable. It requires a majority vote to bring the tabled matter before
the Society again. See Robert's Rules ~35 for more information.Ell]
3.1.3 Rescind.
This motion provides the Society with the power to change an action ordered by a previous vote or
by decision of the chaiL A motion to rescind is in order only when its sponsor has the floor; it
must be seconded, and is debatable and amendable, provided the amendment applies to the wording
of the motion that rescinds, not to the action being rescinded. It requires a two-thirds vote. See ~37
for more information.[11J
A motion to amend something previously adopted is equivalent to a motion to rescind. See the
entry titled "Amend a main motion," below.
3.2 SUBSIDIARY AND PRIVELEGED SECONDARY MOTIONS
These are motions which control the flow of debate and the subject matter being debated. They
htrp:l / dolphin. upenn.edu/ - philo/roberts-rules/ motions.html 8/24/00
Robert's Rules: Motions
Page 3 of 5
vote. If it passes, it supersedes any previous motion to limit or extend debate. It may be qualified by
its sponsor to apply to all pending questions. See ~29 for further clarifications.[2l]
The speaker must have the floor to initiate a calling of the question; it must be seconded and is
neither debatable nor amendable. A two-thirds vote is required to call the question.r241
3.2.5 Lay on the table.
This motion enables the majority to temporarily set aside the consideration of the pending question
(possibly with amendments), in such a way that there is no specified time for bringing up the matter
again. Consideration of the tabled matter may be resumed at the will of the majority, whenever a
motion to take from the table is in order. When a question has amendments pending, the motion as
well as its amendments are tabled by this motion. The speaker must have the floor to request the
pending matter be tabled; it must be seconded and is neither debatable nor amendable. A majority
vote is required. See ~28.[.22J
3.2.6 Point of personal privilege.
A member may at any time raise a point of personal privilege to make a motion related to the rights
and privileges of the Society or anyone of its members or guests. It was designed to provide the
means to make a main motion even when another main or secondary motion is pending. ~19 of
Robert's Rules describes this motion.r261
A point of personal privilege is a very powerful motion, and it is not to be abused. Its most
common use is to inform the Society of a problematic situation and to request aid from the
membership. In its most formal use, a non-procedural motion is put forward, debated, voted upon,
and-if it passes-is acted upon.
This motion is in order when the Moderator has not recognized the speaker, and it is in order even
when another speaker has the floor, if the urgency of the situation warrants. It is ruled upon by the
chair, who decides only whether or not the point of personal privilege is to be admitted before the
Society. (A subsequent motion contained in the point of personal privilege is treated as a main
motion; that is, it must be seconded, debated, and passed by a majority vote to take effect.)f271
3.3 INCIDENTAL SECONDARY MOTIONS
These secondary motions deal with the parliamentary procedure of the Society's meetings. They
may, in general, be applied at any time, subject to limitation imposed by the motions themselves.
There is no strict hierarchy among them, and each of them applies even when a privileged or
subsidiary secondary motion is pending.!:m
3.3.1 Point of order, and Appeal.
This motion applies when an individual believes that the parliamentary rules of the Society--
including Robert's Rules of Order, Revised as well as the Constitution and By-Laws of the
Philomathean Society--are being violated. This motion is in order when its sponsor does not have the
floor, even when it interrupts another individual with the floor. It is normally ruled upon by the
acting Moderator, unless he or she is in doubt and requests a vote. The chair's ruling may be
appealed. pI explains this motion in greater detaiL[29]
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/ - philo/roberts-rules/motions.html
8/24/00
Robert's Rules: Motions
Page 5 of 5
reconsideration is to open up debate again on the motion, and to call for a subsequent vote in light
of the new information introduced in the debate. For a lengthier description, see ~36 of Robert's
Rules.[m
This motion can be raised at any time during the same meeting, provided that Robert's Rules
allows the questioned vote to be reconsidered, and the person moving to reconsider was on the
prevailing side of the vote. The motion to reconsider must be seconded. Robert's Rules states that
its mover need not have the floor, and that it is debatable whenever the motion being reconsidered
was debatable. However, by general consent, this motion is not debated in the Philomathean
Society, and its mover must have the floor. It is not amendable. Successful reconsideration requires
a majority vote, and this motion merely invalidates the previous vote and brings the matter up for
further consideration by the Society.[l.2]
[Main Robert's Rules Page I Philo Homepag~ I Mail Philo]
htrp:/ /dolphin.upenn.edu/ - philo/roberts-rules/motions.html
8/24/00
Roben's Rules: Tid-Bits
Page 2 of J
pp. 100-} 01.
. Philospeak's "point of personal privilege" is a question a/privilege in Roben's Rules. ~19, p. 68
invites, but does not require, a question of privilege to include a motion. Using a point of personal
privilege to raise a procedural motion that does not have the right to interrupt the floor-e.g., to
move to table or to move to close debate--is dilatory and should not be entertained by the chair, per
~40.
. There may be some confusion over the motion with the highest precedence, that of fixing the time
to which to adjourn. The object of the motion to set a time--and sometimes the place--for the start
of the next meeting to continue business. It is for this reason that it is given the highest precedence,
so that it can be executed while a motion to adjourn is pending. See ~16, p. 59 of Robert's Rules.
. A point of order applies only to a current violation of parliamentary procedure; it may not be
applied to a past decision or action. Past violations must be appealed, rescinded, or censured. See
~~21, 37 and 72. Reconsiderations only apply to reconsiderable votes taken within the same
meeting; see ~36.
. An objection to consideration of a motion is in order even after the motion has been seconded, as
long as debate on it has not commenced. See ~23, p. 87.
. A point of information has come to be used as a way to quickly volunteer information (without
being recognized by the Moderator) regarding a question of fact before the Society, which is not
what Robert's Rules ~27 intended it for--it should be used only to ask a question.
. The acting Moderator should take care when offering debate to limit his or her comments to those
of a factual nature and should avoid betraying his or her own opinions on the matter at hand. If the
chair through its debate can be shown to be partial toward one side or the other on a particular
issue, Robert's Rules state that the chair must step down for the remainder of the debate.
. Per Robert's Rules ~4, p. 32, the following motions are in order even when another individual has
the floor: call for the orders of the day, division of the question, point of inquiry or information,
point of order, point of personal privilege, motion to withdraw, objection to consideration, motion
to appeal. All other motions (except some obscure ones) are in order only when their sponsor has
obtained the floor by being recognized by the acting Moderator.(ilJ
. Per Robert's Rules ~45, p. 187, the following motions are not debatable: motion to adjourn or
recess, call for the orders of the day, lay on the table, objection to consideration, point of order, call
the question, point of personal privilege, motion to withdraw, suspend the rules, take from the
table, extend or limit debate, reconsideration. All other motions (except for rare motions and
special cases of common ones) are debatable by the Society.[m
. Per Robert's Rules ~33, pp. 146-147, the following motions are not amendable: motion to adjourn,
call for the orders of the day, lay on the table, objection to consideration, call the question, motion
to withdraw, suspend the rules, take from the table, appeal, postpone indefinitely, and all points of
order, privilege, inquiry, and information. All other debatable motions (except for some
uncommon exceptions) are amendable by the Society.
[ Main Robert's Rules Pa~ I Philo HomeP-3g~ I Mail Philo]
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~philo/roberts-rulesltidbits. html
R/24/00
Tdbles for Robert's Rules
Pdge 2 of 8
CEIJILay on the table (3.2.5) L~I II No II No IImajorityl
fEjlMain motion or question (3.1.1) II II II Ilmajorityl
I ~261INominations, to open [20] II No II II No Ilmajorityl
I ~261INominations, to close I I II No II 112 thirds I
I ~23110bjection to consideration (3.3.3) [12] I No No II No II No 112 thirds I
[EDIOrder, question of, or point of (3.3.1) No No II No I No II [19] I
I ~20 IIOrder, to make a special 112 thirds I
I ~20 IIOrders of the day, to call for No I No No No IImajorityl
I ~271lParliamentary inquiry, point of (3.3.4) No No No No II [19] I
~IPostpone definitely, or to a certain time II Ilmajorityl
I ~341lPostpone indefinitely (3.2.1) I No IImajorityl
I ~291lPrevious question (3.2.4) (14] No [21] 112 thirds I
~IPrivilege, point of personal (3.2.6) I No No No No II [19] I
I ~271lReading papers II No No Ilmajorityl
[iliJIRecess, when privileged [1] II [11] Ilmajorityl
I ~361lReconsider (3.3.5) [22] II I No I No Ilmajorityl
I ~371lRescind or repeal (3.1.3) II II 112 thirds I
I ~221lSuspend the rules (3.3.2) I II No No II [23] I
I ~281ITable, to, or "Lay on the table" (3.2.5) No No Ilmajorityl
I ~3511T ake from the table (3.1.2) No I No Ilmajorityl
I ~22IITake up a question out of its proper order II No II No 112 thirds I
I ~2511V oting, motions, other than division No II Ilmajorityl
I ~27l1Withdraw a motion (3.3.4) No No II No II [24] I
IRR~IIMOTION NAME (SUMMARY) IIFLOORllsECONDllDEBATEllAMENDII VOTE I
Notes to the Table
Notes 1 through 14 are summarized from Robert's Rules.
The following deviations from the original were made: Notes 6 and 16 were dropped from the table
because they are habitually not observed by the Philomathean Society. Note 12 was moved to the
appropriate column. Notes 2, 8, 13, 15 and 17 are not reprinted because they appear in columns of
the original table that were not included above. Note 18 was dropped as superfluous. Notes 19 and
up were added for the purposes of this summary and do not appear in the original document.
"Reconsider" row: In the Philomathean Society, the floor is required to move to reconsider, and a
motion to reconsider is not debatable.
L The three highest ranking privileged motions are not always privileged, but the exceptions
are rare. See the second footnote on p. 5 of Robert's Rules of Order, Revised (1915 edition).
2. An amendment to a pending motion is very narrowly defined in Robert's Rules; see ~33.
3. This motion is undebatable when the motion to be amended is ot debatable.
h up:.!/ dol ph in .11pen n .edl1/ - ph ilo/ roberts-rulesltables. html
8/24/00
Tables for Roben's Rules
P~lgC 4 of S
5.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF DEBATE
What follows is a suggested set of moderatorial procedures for handling a motion, summarized
from Robert's Rules ~4 through 11, and 44 through 48, with special additions tailored for the
Philomathean Society. The "you" that appears in the text below--explicitly or implied-refers to the
Moderator who chairs the consideration of this motion.
I. Obtain the motion
A. Yield the floor to Member X.
B. Member X states his or her motion.
C. Member Y seconds the motion.
D. You state the motion. "The motion under consideration is. . ." .or "The motion
before the Society is to. . . ." This allows the Scriba to write down the motion, and it
allows the membership to hear it clearly.
II. Open up debate
A. Yield the floor to Member X for opening debate. "MrjMs. X, do you have any
debate? "
B. Ask the Society for questions. "Does anyone have a question for MrjMs. X?" or
"Questions for MrjMs. X?"
C. Exhaust all questions for Member X. Yield to questions only, not to debate or
secondary motions. Afterwards, ask MrjMs. X to take his or her seat. (Matt Miller,
this is for you.)
D. Invite debate. "Does anyone have debate to offer?" or "Debate?"
i. Ask individuals to rise before speaking.
ii. Do not yield the floor to the same person again if someone else who has not
yet spoken seeks the flooL
iii. Do not yield the floor to an individual who speaks out of turn, without being
recognized by the Moderator (except for points of order, inquiry, privilege,
objections to consideration, or appeals). Use your gavel!
iv. Do not allow cross-talk between individuals who do not have the floor;
suppress angry back-and-forth cross-talk by giving each side the opportunity to
offer debate in turn.
v. If someone has obtained the floor properly, be sure to allow him or her to
finish when interrupted by a secondary motion or by improper debate. Put off
contentious debate or points of information until after the person who has the
floor has finished speaking.
III. Secondary motions during consideration
A. Object to consideration:
i. This is in order only at the beginning of the consideration of main motions,
when no debate has been offered.
ii. If it is in order, it requires no second, and permits no debate or amendment.
http:.!/dolphin.upenn.edu/ - philo/robens-ruleslrahles.hrml
8/24/00
Tables for Robert's Rules
Page 6 of 8
friendly amendment to (do such- and-such) was (was not) accepted." This allows
the Scriba, who was too busy writing down the friendly amendment to hear the
outcome, to note whether or not it was accepted.
D. Call the question, or extend or limit debate:
i. Make sure the secondary motion is in order. Do not entertain motions to call
the question from individuals who have not been recognized by you, or from
points of personal privilege.
ii. Wait for it to be seconded.
iii. Announce the secondary motion. "The motion is to call the question on the
motion to (do such-and- such)," or "The motion is to limit (to extend) debate on
the question to (do such-and-such) to (such-and-such time)." This keeps the
membership, always easily confused, abreast of what's going on, and it gives
members a chance to raise privileged point, or to amend.
iv. These secondary motions are not debatable. If a friendly amendment is offered
for the motion to limit or extend debate, follow the procedures above. If a formal
amendment is offered, follow the procedures above; note that amendments to
these motions are not debatable.
v. Having already announced the secondary motion, it is not necessary to re-
announce it, unless amendments or other points have intervened. However, you
should announce the majority required: "This motion requires a two-thirds
. . "
maJonty.
vi. Call for those in favor, those opposed. Announce the tally.
vii. If two-thirds vote in favor:
. If the motion to call the question passes, debate on the pending question is
closed; proceed to a vote.
. If the motion to limit or extend debate passes, appoint someone other than
yourself or the Scriba to keep time; debate on the pending question
resumes. After the limit has expired, invite a motion to extend debate. If
none is moved, debate is closed, and you proceed to a vote.
E. Points of information, inquiry, order, and personal privilege; appeal:
i. Determine if the privileged motion is admissible. Of these motions, only the
appeal requires a second.
ii. If it is admissible, the person who had the floor is interrupted.
iii. The following action is to be taken:
. For points of inquiry or information, answer the question, redirect it to the
member who had the floor, or invite the membership to answer that
question only. "Can anyone respond to Mr./Ms. l's question regarding
(such-and- such)?" Do not permit debate or extraneous information to enter
into the response. Try to limit, or at least to moderate, requests for further
clarifications, to prevent the issue from being muddled.
. For a point of order, rule on it immediately, possibly seeking the counsel of
others. If you are completely unsure, it is in order to put the member's
point before the Society. The latter recourse is undebatable; restate the
point, and ask for those in favor of the interpretation as expressed in the
point of order, and for those opposed. A simple majority carries.
http:// dolphin.upenn.edul - philo/roberts-rules/tables.html
8/24100