Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 07 14 Public Hearing A First Reading - Ordinance 2003-27 Annexation near Carroll Property COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM A Consent Informational Public Hearing X Regular Julv 14. 2003 Meeting Mgr. / Att. / Dept. REQUEST: On remand from the Circuit Court of Seminole County, Florida, the City Attorney requests that the City Commission approve on first reading Ordinance No. 2003-27 that would annex approxim~tely ..-- ten (10) acres of the Carroll property ("Carroll Property"). PURPOSE: The annexation of the Carroll Property has been remanded to the City Commission by the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion dated July 7,2003. The purpose of this request is to annex the Carroll Property located generally on the north side of State Road 434 about 600 feet west of the intersection of State Road 434 and DeLeon Street. APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY: 1. The Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act. 2. Chapter 171, Florida Statutes 3. Order of Judge James E. C. Perry ofthe Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, Florida, dated July}, 2003 ("Order"). 4. Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Certiorari as to City of Oviedo for Lack of Standing by Judge James E. C. Perry ofthe Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, Florida, dated July 7,2003 ("Oviedo Dismissal Order"). Page 1 of 4 CONSIDERATIONS: 1. On November 27,2000, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2000-36, annexing the Carroll Property pursuant to a voluntary annexation request made by the property owner. 2. In addition, at the same time, the City Commission adopted Ordinance Nos. 2000-40 and 2000-41, annexing the Minter and Weaver properties, respectively. 3. All three ordinances were challenged by Seminole County and the City of Oviedo on numerous grounds. 4. Pursuant to the Order, the Circuit Court upheld Ordinance Nos. 2000-40 and 2000-41. However, the Circuit Court quashed (invalidated) Ordinance No. 2000-36. 5. Furthermore, pursuant to the Oviedo Dismissal Order, the Circuit Court dismissed the City of Oviedo from the lawsuit for lack of standing. 6. The Circuit Court remanded this case to the City Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion as to Ordinance No. 2000-36. 7. Based on the Court's order, no further action is requested of the City Commission with respect to Ordinance !'Jos. 2000-40 (Weaver) and 2000-41 (Minter). The City has prevailed on defending these ordinances. However, Seminole County and Oviedo may appeal the Circuit Court's decision. 8. Although the Court quashed Ordinance No. 2000-36 (Carroll), it is very important to note that the Court did so based only on a technical advertisement issue. The Court found that the "advertised map" ofthe Carroll Property fell "far short of the statutory requirement that the map clearly show the land proposed to be annexed." See last page of Order. Particularly, the Court opined that the "roadways depicted on this map cannot be read, the names ofthe cities on the map are illegible and can only be read by this court because the court has seen the larger version of this map in the record." 9. The Court rejected all the substantive legal arguments raised by Seminole County challenging Ordinance No. 2000-36 and generally opined as follows: a. The Carroll Property does not create an "enclave." b. The Carroll Property does not create a "pocket." c. The Carroll Property is a "logical expansion of its [City of Winter Springs'] eastern boundary." Page 2 of 4 d. V oluntary annexations are not required to satisfy the requirements of Section 171.043, Florida Statutes (2000). e. The County's "urban sprawl" argument is premature and may be addressed in the future pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, when the City seeks to change its Comprehensive Plan to allow higher intensity development of the Carroll Property. f. The title of Ordinance No. 2000-36 was not required to be contained in the legal advertisement pursuant to Section 171.044(2), Florida Statutes. 10. The Circuit Court held in the Oviedo Dismissal Order, the Joint Planning Agreement between the City of Oviedo and Seminole County did not provide the City of Oviedo with jurisdiction over the Minter, Weaver, and Carroll properties. Therefore, the City of Oviedo did not have standing to sue the City of Winter Springs on that basis. 11. The City of Oviedo did not have standing as an "affected party" under Section 171.031 (5), Florida Statutes, to sue the City of Winter Springs. 12. The Order and Oviedo Dismissal Order are currently the "law ofthe case." See, e.g., Parker Family Trust Iv. City of Jacksonville, 804 So. 2d 493 (Fla. pt DCA 2001). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City should correct the teclmical deficiency in the legal advertisement noticing the Carroll annexation and re-annex the subject property by adoption of a new ordinance. Therefore, the City Attorney recommends that the City Commission adopt Ordinance No. 2003-27 in furtherance ofthe Court's Order and the Oviedo Dismissal Order. Upon passage at first reading, the Ordinance will be advertised in the Orlando Sentinel for two consecutive weeks pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 2003-27 2. Order 3. Oviedo Dismissal Order Page 3 of 4 COMMISSION ACTION: 1. The Commission previously annexed the Carroll Property pursuant to Ordinance No. 2000- 36. 2. The Commission has been vigorously defending the City's right to voluntarily annex the Carroll Property. Page 4 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2003-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ANNEXING REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS APPROXIMATELY TEN (10) ACRES MORE OR LESS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 434 AND DELEON STREET (LUTHER AND JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY) AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO; PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF'WINTER SPRINGS CHARTER, ARTICLE II, BOUNDARIES TO INCORPORATE THE REAL PROPERTY INTO THE CITY BOUNDARIES; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF THE REVISED WINTER SPRINGS CHARTER WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES UPON SAID APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, this is a voluntary annexation which shall be pursuant to the annexation procedures contained in Section 171.044, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that the subject real property is reasonably compact and contiguous with the boundaries ofthe City of Winter Springs and will not create an enclave and otherwise satisfies the requirements for annexation; and WHEREAS, this annexation is in compliance and consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, Charter, and City Code; and WHEREAS, upon effective date of this Ordinance, the municipal boundary lines ofthe City of Winter Springs, contained in Winter Springs Charter, Article II, shall be redefined to include the subject real property; and WHEREAS, the City Commission previously annexed the subject property pursuant to Ordinance No. 2000-36; and WHEREAS, Seminole County and the City of Oviedo challenged Ordinance No. 2000-36 on numerous grounds; and City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2003-27 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, on July 7, 2003, the circuit court quashed the ordinance and remanded this annexation to the City Commission for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision; and \VHEREAS, Ordinance 2000-36 was quashed because the court determined that the legal advertisement, supporting said ordinance, did not contain a legible map; and 'VHEREAS, the court, however, also held that the annexation ofthe subject property by the City of Winter Springs did not create an enclave, did not create a pocket, did not create urban sprawl, was a logical expansion ofthe City of Winter Springs' eastern boundary, and was otherwise lawful under Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, except for the aforementioned advertised map; and 'VHEREAS, the court also held, by separate order dated July 7, 2003, that the City of Oviedo had no standing to challenge Ordinance No. 2000-36; and \VHEREAS, the City Commission hereby adopts by this reference the findings ofthe circuit court which are contained in the two July 7,2003 orders in support of the City of Winter Springs' lawful right to annex the subject property; and 'VHEREAS, the City Commission ofthe City of Winter Springs, Florida, hereby finds that this Ordinance is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Winter Springs, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Annexation of Real Property. The area of real property, which is more particularly described in the metes and bounds legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby armexed into the City of Winter Springs by the City Commission. Exhibit "A" is hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. City Boundaries Redefined; Winter Springs Charter Amended. Pursuant to Section 166.031(3), Florida Statutes, and Section 171.091, Florida Statutes, the City of Winter Springs Charter, Article II, Section 2.01, shall hereby be amended to redefine the corporate boundaries ofthe City of Winter Springs to include the area of real property described in Section 1 of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall file the revised Winter Springs Charter, Article II, Section 2.01, with the Department of State within thirty (30) days upon said approval. The City Clerk shall also file this Ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, the Chief Administrator of Seminole County, and the Department of State within seven (7) days of the effective date. City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2003-27 Page 2 of 3 Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All ordinances and resolutions or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Severability. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance, or any portion hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereto as a whole or part thereof to be declared invalid. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and pursuant to City Charter. ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular meeting assembled on the _ day of , 2003. John F. Bush, Mayor ATTEST: Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, City Clerk Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Winter Springs only: Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney First ReadIng: Second Reading: Effective Date: F:IDocslCily of Winter SpringslOrdinanceslCarroll_Annexation. wpd City of Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2003-27 Page 3 of 3 .. EXHIBIT A METES AND BOUNDS SURVEY FOR LUTHER & JOANN CARROLL PROPERTY I I Lot 19, VAN ARSDALE OSBORNE BROKERAGE CO. 'S ADDITION TO BLACK HAMMOCK, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1. Page 31. Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, Less road right of way, being more particularly described as follows. Begin at the Northwest corner of Lot 19 VAN ARSOALE OSBORNE BROKERAGE CO. 'S ADDITION TO BLACK HAMMOCK. according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1. Page 31. Publ ic Records of Seminole County, Florida said point being a 1/2" Iron Rod LB6300 set in p I ace: thence run SOOo 38' 50" W a long the Easterly right of way I ine of Beacon Street. a distance of 629.07 feet to a po i nt on the Norther I y right of way line of State Road 434 per Right of Map Section 77070-2520, said point being a 1/2' Iron Rod LB6300 set in place; thenl;e 589033' 16"E along the Northerly right of way I ine of said State Road 434 a distance of 639.98 feet to a 1/2" Iron Rod L86300 set in pI ace; thence departing said northerly right of way run NOo038'50'E along the Easterly line of lot 19, a distance of 625.68 feet to a po i nt on the Souther I y right of way I ine of Florida Avenue; said point being a 1/2' Iron Rod LB6300 set in place; thence NS9015'37'W along said Southerly right of Hay I ine a distance of 639.98 feet to the point of beginning. \ EXHIBIT A (continued) L FLORIDA AVENUE '. ....... lQ.W'k;" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -;.~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I :1Il'" """1\'tJ.~~lw',II1 I f\.~- . --~ \ :-'i::.'/.:'c.:: - ,~ ---........ .. I ~o .- I - I I . I I I I I I I I I J lJ.J1 f51 <I), : .... ~F 0; to' '9 LI - ".C~Ht - "(I ..~ 5~ :t- ~I _II -II $I... , ;5 !II::! I ~ ~ I I "- I I I I I I I ___t;.==~.C':' - I- I 1..0' - I V...-....- I 1 I r-"'" I -...-- ..... /':t:.:'C:'.~ - '.- __r {~...... c: _........ ......_ In"Jr,,*( "',.,.. - I- ~':'L- ~:'_-...:-=-": _ =-- _.::-.-:. -=- _ -=- -=- =-=- _',r...,!.:....::.-- _ -=--=- _ =-=-._ _ -=--=- _ --.::__-.::..: _ __.::...- _ -=- ~ -=-_ - STA TE ROAD 434 -;1 " .., N I " , ',I' IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CITY OF OVIEDO AND SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellate Division. Case No. 00-89-AP Petitioners, vs. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, ! Respondent. / Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Seminole County Catherine Reischmann, Esq. Karen Zagrodny Consalo, Esq. Sanford, for Petitioner Anthony a. Garganese, Esq. Orlando, for Respondent Seminole County has petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari quashing three ordinances passed by the Winter Springs City Commission annexing three parcels of property in Seminole County which are adjacent to the eastern boundary of the City of Winter Springs. The City of Winter Springs has conceded that Seminole County is an "affected party" with standing to file this petition. Section 171.031 (5), Fla. Stat. (2000). In "first-tier" certiorari review of annexation cases this court is limited to examining the record to determine whether: 1) procedural due process was afforded the Petitioner by the legislative body; 2) whether the legislative body observed the essential requirements of law and 3) whether substantial competent evidence supports the decision to pass the annexation ordinance. Educational Dev. Center v. City of West Palm Beach, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989). The City of Winter Springs suggests that only the second prong of certiorari review is at issue in this case. Seminole County contends, however, that the City Commission not only departed from the essential requirements of law, but also failed to provide Seminole County with procedural due process because of irregularities in the newspaper publication of the annexation and in the reading of the legal descriptions of the parcels of property. DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW Seminole County first argues that the City Commission departed :from the essential requirements of law when it passed Ordinance Number 2000-36, annexing the Carroll parcel. Seminole County argues that the annexation of this parcel creates an enc1a~e or pocket of unincorporated Seminole County property in violation of Section 171.031(12), Fla. Stat. (2000). The record reveals that the Carroll annexation creates an area of unincorporated Seminole County approximately in the shape of a square, which is bounded on three sides by the City of Winter Springs and on one side by the City of Oviedo. Pursuant to Section 171.031 (13), Fla. Stat. (2000), the Carroll annexation does not create an enclave because the square area is not bounded on all sides by a single municipality. It also does not create a pocket. Although the term "pocket" is not defined in Chapter 171, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has construed the term to mean "a small isolated area or group." City of Sanford v. Seminole County, 538 So. 2d 113 (Fla 5th DCA 1989). The prohibition against creation of enclaves and pockets is designed to insure creation of geographically unified, compact municipalities. City of Sunrise v. Broward County, 473 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In the present case the City of Winter Springs correctly argues that the annexation of the Carroll property is a logical expansion of its eastern boundary. Furthermore, the unincorporated Seminole County area claimed to constitute a pocket is bordered on one side by State Road 434, providing Seminole County with a means of accessing the property for the provision of services. Reference Op. Atty. Gen. Fla. 80-84. Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this ground. Seminole County next argues that the Winter Springs City Commission departed from the essential requirements of law in annexing these three parcels because the parcels failed to meet the requirements of Section 171.043(1), Fla. Stat. (2000) as well as subsection (2) or (3) of that statute. The court finds it unnecessary to resolve whether the parcels met those requirements, because this was a voluntary annexation, and Section 171.043, Fla. Stat. (2000) does not apply to voluntary annexations. Reference Gp. Atty. Gen. Fla. 78-121. Seminole County correctly notes that opinions of the Florida Attorney General are not binding on this court. However, this court agrees with the logic in the above Attorney General opinion. Furthermore, in May v. Lee County, 483 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) the court held that the state of development of the property to be annexed is not necessarily relevant to the propriety of voluntary municipal annexations. Since the character (state of development) of the property to be annexed is a critical inquiry under Section 171.043, Fla. Stat. (2000), the May court implicitly held that I Section 171.043, Fla. Stat. does not apply to voluntary annexations. Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this ground. Seminole County next argues that passage of these ordinances departed from the essential requirements of law because they will create urban sprawl. However, these annexations did not cause a change in the rural zoning classification of these three parcels. The City of Winter Springs correctly asserts that Seminole County's "urban sprawl" argument is premature. If and when Winter Springs seeks to change its comprehensive plan to allow higher intensity development of the property, Seminole County may file an action pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Martin County v. Department of Community Affairs, 771 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this ground. DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS Seminole County argues that the Winter Springs City Commission denied it procedural due process because the legal description of the three parcels was changed between the first and second reading of the ordinances. The record reveals that, at the first reading of the ordinances, the legal description of the three parcels did not include metes and bounds. Notice of the annexation was then published in the local newspaper. At the second reading of the ordinances, the legal descriptions of the properties included a metes and bounds description. Because the legal description of the properties had changed between the first and second readings, albeit only to make the descriptions more precise, in an abundance of caution the Winter Springs City Commission treated the second reading of the ordinances as a first reading, republished notice of the annexation in the local newspaper, and then held a third reading of the ordinances with a metes and bounds legal description of the properties. Furthermore, Seminole County failed to raise this argument in the proceedings below, and therefore has not preserved it for review by this court. The court rejects Seminole County's argument that Seminole County cannot be deemed to have waived this objection by failing to raise it below, because it is responsible for protecting the interests of all Seminole County citizens. One of the purposes of the requirement that objections must first be made in the lower tribunal is to 1 ensure that the lower tribunal has an opportunity to correct the error. A government entity is no more exempt from this requirement than a private person would be. Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this issue. Seminole County next argues that it was denied procedural due process because the published notices of the proposed annexations did not include the title ofthe ordinances. Seminole County contends that the general requirement for publication of proposed municipal ordinances contained in Section 166.041(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000) applies to proposed annexation ordinances, and that Section 171.044(2), Fla. Stat. (2002) merely imposes other requirements when the proposed ordinance is an annexation ordinance. The court rejects this argument. If the Legislature intended for the procedures set forth in Section 166.041(3) to apply to voluntary municipal annexations, it would have said so, as it did in the case of involuntary annexations. Section 171.0413, Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 166.041(3)(a) is not mentioned in Section 171.0413, Fla. Stat. (2000). Seminole County is not entitled to certiorari relief on this ground. Seminole County argues that the advertised maps depicting the areas proposed to be annexed were confusing and misleading because they lacked any directional arrow and were turned sideways, giving the appearance that the north property is the east property line. The maps of the Minter and Weaver properties are relatively simple but they do depict the location of the properties with respect to a major landmark (Lake Jessup) as well as the location of the City of Winter Springs and roadways adjacent to the properties, including State Road 434, Deleon Street and Howard Avenue. Seminole County does not contend that the areas depicting the properties are not properly oriented with respect to these landmarks. The maps of the Minter and Weaver properties satisfy the requirements of Section 171.044(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). The same cannot be said of the advertised map of the Carroll property. The names ofthe roadways depicted on this map cannot be read, the names ofthe cities on the map are illegible and can only be read by this court because the court has seen the larger version of this map in the record. Most importantly, the location of the property proposed to be annexed cannot be clearly discerned. The advertised map falls far short of the statutory requirement that the map clearly show the land proposed to be annexed. I It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: A) That Seminole County's Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED as to Ordinance Numbers 2000-40 and 2000-41, concerning the Weaver and Minter properties, respectively. B) That Ordinance Number 2000-36 is QUASHED. C) That this cause is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion as to Ordinance Number 2000-36. DONE AND ORDERED in Sanford, S mi ole County this.:It day of July, 2003. Copies furnished to: Catherine Reischmann Esq. 200 West 151 Street, Suite 22 Sanford, FL 32771 Anthony A. Garganese, Esq. P.O. Box 2873 Orlando, PI 32802-2873 Karen Zagrodny Consalo, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Interofffice Mail This 1~ay of July, 2003. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CITY OF OVIEDO AND SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellate Division. Case No. 00-89-AP Petitioners, vs. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, I Respondent. / ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS TO CITY OF OVIEDO FOR LACK OF STANDING THIS CAUSE came on for consideration by the court upon a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by the City of Oviedo. This court, having reviewed the petition, Respondent's response and the reply brief of the City of Oviedo, FINDS as follows: 1. The City of Oviedo seeks a writ of certiorari quashing ordinances passed by the Winter Springs City Commission which annexed three parcels of property into the City of Winter Springs. 2. The record reveals that prior to the annexation the three parcels lay within the territorial jurisdiction of Seminole County. The City of Oviedo and Seminole County had previously executed a Joint Planning Agreement which encompassed the three parcels. The Agreement provided, among other things, that if property owners within the area encompassed by the Agreement requested annexation of their property into the City of Oviedo, Seminole County would not oppose the annexation, provided that certain requirements were met. At the time the City of Winter Springs instituted voluntary annexation of the three parcels at issue, however, the City of Oviedo had not sought to annex the parcels. The Joint Planning Agreement contemplated a more streamlined annexation of unincorporated property in Seminole County into the City of Oviedo once voluntary annexation was requested by owners of the unincorporated property. The Joint Planning Agreement did not provide the City of Oviedo with jurisdiction over such unincorporated property absent annexation. Therefore, the City of Oviedo was not a governmental entity with jurisdiction over the area at the time the City of Winter Springs instituted annexation, and has no standing to sue on that basis. 3. There is no evidence in the record that the City of Oviedo otherwise has standing to sue as "affected party", as that term is defined in Section 171.031(5), Fla. Stat. (2000). 4. The court finds that it must evaluate a party's standing to sue by resort to the statutory framework in Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. The cases from other jurisdictions cited by the City of Oviedo in support of its standing argument are not persuasive. It is therefore ORDERED: That the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by the City of Oviedo is DISMISSED due to lack of standing. DONE AND ORDERED in Sanford, minole County, lorida, this J!!r. day of July, 2003. ,/ Copies fiirnished to: Catherine Reischmann, Esq. 200 West 15t Street, Suite 22 Sanford, FL 32771 Anthony A. Garganese, Esq. P. O. Box 2873 Orlando, FL 32802-2873 Karen Zagrodny Consalo, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Interoffice Mail ."ft...- Thi day of July 2003.