HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 10 06 - O-04-18 sent to DCAan of
SIESASTMN
Z�;. r
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
1225 MAIN STREET ■ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 589-5537 ■ FAX (772) 589-2566
October 6, 2004
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Plan Review Administrator
Division of Community Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: DCA Ref. # Sebastian 04-2 — Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Amendment.
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
In response to Mr. Gauthier's letter dated August 5, 2004 concerning the above amendment package, the City of
Sebastian rescinded the following ordinances and readopted said amendments as a single ordinance (0-04-18,
attached hereto) on September 28, 2004. Please see attached memo from City Attorney Rich Stringer to Deputy
General Counsel David Jordan for further details with regards to this matter.
Ordinance No: 0-03-16 commonly known as Cross Creek Subdivision (map reference #1)
Ordinance No: 0-03-24 commonly known as Sebastian Crossings (map reference #4)
Ordinance No: 0-03-26 commonly known as River Oaks Preserve (map reference #5)
Ordinance No: 0-03-20 commonly known as Ashbury Subdivision (map reference #3)
Ordinance No: 0-03-18 commonly known as The Spencer Project (map reference #2)
Accordingly, the city requests continuance of the review for Sebastian 04-2 consistent with Section 163.3184,
Florida Statutes.
As stipulated within previously submitted supporting documentation, the City of Sebastian supports the land
use amendments under review and requests affirmative confirmation from the Department of Community
Affairs in this respect.
Thank you for your continued assistance, and if you require additional information to complete your review,
please do not hesitate to contact me, or my staff, at (772) 589-5518.
Sincerely,
Z", racy E. Hass
Director of Growth Management
Attachment(s)
cc: Deputy General Counsel David Jordan
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP
TO DESIGNATE AN INITIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR ANNEXED
LAND; ADOPTING RECORD FROM PRIOR HEARINGS; AUTHORIZING
FINDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
EFFECT ON OTHER ENACTMENTS, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has considered the application of landowners of each of the subject
parcels for an amendment designating an initial land use for property to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided notice of the proposed Plan Amendment and
has conducted the required public hearings to receive citizen input; and
WHEREAS, the said public Bearings were conducted with due notice in compliance with
law, and all parties were provided an opportunity to present record evidence and the hearings
were opened to receive citizen input; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the criteria identified in the Land
Development Code and Florida Statutes together with the findings and recommendations of its
staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the applicable provisions of the existing
Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes in the City
Comprehensive Land Use Map, are consistent with the existing comprehensive plan and the
future development goals of the City of Sebastian; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, mindful of the review schedule modifications under the
Department's Supplemental Order to Executive Order 04-192 relating to Hurricane Frances and
dated September 10, 2004, desires to adopt the amendments with a single ordinance for
transmission in a format preferred by the Department of Community Affairs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
I
Section 1. ADOPTION OF RECORD. The record as established pursuant to the
public adoption hearings held May 26, June 2, and July 14, 2004, for Ordinance No. 0-03-16,
Ordinance No. 0-03-18, Ordinance No. 0-03-20, Ordinance No. 0-03-24, and Ordinance No. 0-
03-26 is hereby incorporated and adopted as the record for this ordinance for all legal purposes.
Section 2. DESIGNATION. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is
hereby amended to include and designate these properties as LDR (Low Density Residential):
A. The Cross Creek Parcel.
The South % of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, Florida, LESS the East 35 feet thereof for right-of-way AND
ALSO the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, excepting the West 5 acres thereof, in
Section 30, Township 31 South Range 39 East;
containing 115 acres more or less.
B. The Spencer Parcel.
The Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 31 South Range 38
East, LESS the West 65.3 feet for Road Right of Way;
containing 38.27 acres more or less.
C. The Ashbury Parcel.
The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, and the South 534.5 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Southwest 1/4, LESS the North 250 feet of the West 200 feet, all in Section 6,
Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida;
containing 56.25 acres more or less.
D. The Sebastian Crossings Parcel "B".
See attached Schedule 1
E. The River Oaks Preserve Parcel.
PARCEL 1:
West %i less the West 40 acres of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, Township 31
South, Range 38 East, less right-of-way for County Road 510;
together with
I
PARCEL 2:
The South 100 feet of the North '/2 of the Northeast '/4 of Southeast '/4 and South %2
of Northeast '/4 of Southeast '/4 and Southeast '/4 of Southeast '/4; less canal right-
of-way: less South 40 feet for road right-of-way, Section 25, Township 31 South,
Range 38 East. Said parcel containing 60.74 acres more or less;
together with
PARCEL 3:
East '/2 of Northeast '/4 of Southwest '/4, Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 38
East, less canal right-of-way and that portion lying westward thereof,
together with
PARCEL 4:
North '/z of the West 40 acres and the East 10 acres of the South 'h of the West 40
acres of the Southeast '/4 of Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 38 East less
right-of-way for County Road 510;
containing a total of 152.21 acres more or less.
Section 3. DESIGNATION. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shall
be amended to include and designate this property as CG (Commercial General):
Sebastian Crossings Parcel "A" as per attached Schedule 2
Section 4. TRANSMITTAL. The City Manager is directed to transmit a certified
copy hereof to the Department of Community Affairs as Sebastian 04-2 (previously 04-1)
Adopted Amendment, and proceed in accordance with the provisions of Fla. Stat. Chapter 163.
Section 5. CONFLICT. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed. More specifically, Ordinance No. 0-03-16, Ordinance No. 0-03-18, Ordinance No.
0-03-20, Ordinance No. 0-03-24, and Ordinance No. 0-03-26, are all hereby rescinded.
Section 6. EFFECT ON OTHER ENACTMENTS. Any and all enactments
having an effective date dependent upon the effectiveness of the ordinances rescinded in Section
5, above, or otherwise cross-referencing the same, shall instead in the same manner be effective
1
or otherwise dependent upon this ordinance, specifically including but not limited to the
following enactments:
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-07
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-09
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-03
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-11
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-08
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-10
ORDINANCE NO. 0-03-21
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-12
ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-13 ORDINANCE NO. 0-04-14
Section 7. SEVERABILITY. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall
determine that any part of this Ordinance is invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be
affected and it shall be presumed that the City did not intend to enact such invalid provision. It
shall further be assumed that the City would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance
without said invalid provision, thereby causing the same to remain in full force and effect.
Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment shall be
the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration
Commission finding the amendment in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3 :)1
Fla. Stat., whichever is applicable. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the
Administration Commission, this amendment may nonetheless be made effective by adoption of
a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs.
The foregoing Ordinance was moved for adoption by Councilmember
Coniglio
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Heptinstall and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Mavor Nathan B. McCollum aye
Vice -Mayor Joe Barczyk aye
Councilmember Ray Coniglio aye
Councilmember Lisanne Monier aye
Councilmember Mike Heptinstall aye
The Mayor thereupon declared this Ordinance duly passed and adopted this 22nd day of
September, 2004.
ATTEST:
Sally A. Maio/CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
Approved as to form and legality for
reliance by the City of Sebastian only:
Rich Stringer, City Atto" y
SCHEDULE 'T'
PA,ECEL 'E°
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (BY SURVEYOR,)
A parcel of land lying in Section 2?, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, Indian Rivet
County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 23, said point
being the POINT -OF -BEGINNING of the herein described parcel; thence run North
39°4724" West along the South line of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said
Section 22, said line also being the North line of lands described in Deed Book 0015,
Page 0305, of the Public records of said Indian River County, a distance of 209.00
Feet; thence South 00'1 TIC" West along the West line of said Deed Book 0015, Page
0305, a distance of 238.46 Feet; thence leaving said line run South 37'40''3" West,
a distance of 80.10 Feet to a point on the North line of said Deed Book 0015, Page
0305; thence North 89'47'50" West along the North line of said Deed Book 0015,
Page 0305, a distance of 448.66 Feet; thence South 00`12'10" West along the Wes;
line of said Deed Book 0015, Page 0305, a distance of 317.03 Feet; thence South
82`19'08" West, a distance of 448.89 Feet; thence South 65°5741' West, a distance
Of 588.45 Feet to the East line of lands described in O.R. Book 0697, Page 0901, 01
the said Public records of Indian RiverCounry; thence North 00°08'39" East along
said East line, a distance of 1,586.20 Feet a point on the North line of the South 1/2
of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 22, said line also being the South line of lands
described in O.R. Book 1092, Pages 0616-0620, of the said Public records of Indian
River County; thence South 89°47'50" East along said North and South line, a
distance 0'11,691.79 Feet to a poirrt the East line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section
22; thence South 00'25'23" 'Nest along said East line, a distance of 663.99 Feet to
the POINT -Or BEGINNING.
Containing 45.691 Acres of land more or less.
SCHEDULE "2"
PARCEL 'A'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (BY SURVEYOR)
A parcel of land lying in Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, Indian River
County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast comer of the Southeast 1/4 of.said Section 22; thence
South 00°12'10" West along the.East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section .LL
said line also being the East line of lands described in Deed Book 0015, Page 0305,
of the Public records of said Indian River County, a distance of 367.71 Feet to the
POINT -OF -BEGINNING of the herein .described parcel; thence continue South
00°12'10" West along the said mast line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 22, a
distance of 101.34 Feet to the Northeast corner of Romar Subdivision, according to
the platthereof, as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 31, ofthe said Public records of
Indian River County; thence South 80°52'01" West along the North line or said
Roma r Subdivision, a distance of 715.88 Feetto the Northwest corner of said Romar
Subdivision; thence South 00012'10" West along the West line of said Romar
Subdivision and its Southerly, extension, a distance of 221.00 Feet to the North
Right -of -Way line of County Road 512 (as described in F.D.O.T. Maintenance Map
88040-2515); thence run along said North Right-cf-Way line forthe following seven
calls: North 89°39'26" West, a distance of 161.45 Feet; thence North 89°5S' 3T' West,
a distance of 200.09.Feet; thence North 39°42'12" West, a distance of 199.94 Feet;
thence North 38°33'28" West, a distance of100.02 Feat; thence North 31°x'02" West,
a distance of 100.98 Feet; thence North .82°51'38" West, a distance of 100.72 Feet;
thence North 89°42'12" West, a distance of 119.41 Feetto the Southeast comer of
lands described in O.R. Book 069 ,, Page 0901, of the said Public records of Indian
River County; thence North 00°08'39" Eas: along the cast line of said O.R. Book
0697, Page 0901, a distance of 355.D8 Feet; thence leaving said East line run North
65°57'41" East, a distance of588.45 Feet; thence North 82°19'08" East, a Distance of
448-89 Feet to the Nest line of said Deed Book 0015, Page 0305; thence South
00°12'10" West along said West fine, a distance of 364.81 Feet; thence North
8.0°52'01" East along the South line of said Deed Book 0015; Page 0305, a distance
of 715.88 Feet to the PO1N T -OF -B EGINNING.
Containing 14.403 Acres of land more or less.
Tracy Hass
From:
Rich Stringer
Sent:
Friday, August 27, 2004 3:48 PM
To:
'david.jordan@dca.state.fl.us'
Cc:
'tcloud@gray-robinson.com'
Subject:
Sebastian04-02 (previously 04-1) adopted amendment
August 27, 2004
Dear David,
First of all, too bad that things didn't work out for me last year so we could work together there. I would have
enjoyed DCA, though I'm probably better off not dealing with Tallahassee headaches.
I have had discussions with Mr. Dennis of your legal staff concerning the Department's response to our
Sebastian 04-2 Amendment dated August 5 (signed by Mr. Gauthier). I understand that the Department has
interpreted the "two -per -year" amendment cycle as requiring that all the ordinances in each amendment package
be adopted the same day, and that this interpretation can only be modified at a high level in the chain of
command.
First of all, I believe there is nothing in the statutory language to prevent multiple hearing dates that are then
bundled for submittal as an amendment package. Even 9J -11.011(5)(b)2 seems to allow for multiple adoption
dates for FLUM amendments, other interpretations of this rule seem somewhat strained.
Beyond this, from a practical standpoint, if there are to be meaningful public hearings on the adoption of
amendments, then the single day rule will at times be impossible to follow. We went through over thirty hours
of public hearings on these amendments, which were tied in with annexations of land within the County's
adjoining urban service area. The agenda for one meeting, due to time limitations in the procedural rules of our
Council, had to be continued over to a second meeting date and it still was not completed.
Further, most rules of procedure provide for motions to reconsider. Two of the amendment items were subject to
reconsideration, which then involved a new public notice for the rehearing, which put these items off -kilter with
the amendment ordinances that were all originally bundled together. Under the interpretation proffered by the
Department, it would be necessary to rehear all the amendment ordinances just to have a reconsideration of one
item. By the way, one of these rehearings resulted from a 2 -2 split vote when a Council member was absent and
a tie equated to defeat of the ordinance.
In discussions with one of your planners, the only suggestion on how to deal with extensive hearings on
amendment ordinances was to hold the public hearing on each item but continue the matter to a future time for a
vote. Since you could not be sure when all the hearings would be concluded, this continuance would have to be
to a time uncertain. If you did that on a contentious matter, as these were, the public would go berserk. There
would be accusations that the council was waiting to vote until the opposition was absent, that back -room deals
were being made, etc. It is not a practical solution.
The letter of 8/5/04 suggests that we rescind the ordinances and do the hearings again. This was the most
volatile issue this City has faced in ten years and it ripped the community into two camps. Public hearings
would still take days to complete, so this suggestion is unworkable.
We did adopt the amendments in distinct individual ordinances as referenced in Rule 9J-11.009(7) and the
Department could have reviewed them piecemeal, which seemingly would have allowed us to adopt them
piecemeal. Is it too late to consider this procedure to be applicable?
Talking with Tom Cloud, we were thinking that the City could do a new ordinance that, while not rehearing the
merits of the amendments, would state that Ordinances x, y and z, are hereby deemed to be a single amendment
package and are, effective this date, authorized to be submitted to the Department and all appeal dates shall run
henceforth.
I know you are sensitive to the local -level realities and understand what goes on at public hearings where the
rubber meets the highway (God bless small-town politics, right?) ... do you have any suggestions for a solution
that won't involve hearing these issues again and, thus, igniting Sebastian Civil War Part II?
Rich Stringer
Sebastian City Attorney
Tracy Hass
From: Rich Stringer
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:23 PM
To: Tracy Hass
Subject: Sebastian LUMA 04-02
In reference to the Ordinance readopting our Land Use Map Amendments, I would advise submitting a copy of it, the
advertisement for the public hearing, and any submittals from the public hearing, through the regular channels at DCA.
However, since I worked out the procedure and language for the Ordinance with Deputy General Counsel David Jordan,
please submit a copy of the ordinance to him for informational purposes.
Thank you.
Rich