ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING … library/all meeting...applicant public hearing # district p.h. time orange county board of zoning adjustment september 6, 2013 please turn off your

ApplicantPublic

Hearing # District P.H. Time

ORANGE COUNTYBOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT

SEPTEMBER 6, 2013

PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONEIF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE SIGN-IN AT FRONT DESK

10:00AM

11:00AM

1:00PM

9:00AM

VA-13-09-070 Robert White 3

SE-13-09-076

Jan Charles Potter

2

SE-13-10-079

Mark Hurlbutt, Agent for Montessori School of East Orlando

5

SE-13-09-071

Mercury Towers, LLC

2

VA-13-09-072

Keith Clarke

1

VA-13-09-073

Keith Clarke

1

SE-13-09-075

M. Rebecca Wilson Agent for Richard Hidalgo

4

SE-13-10-078

Dr. Phillips YMCA

1

SE-13-07-046

West Orange Relief High School

1

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2013

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Betterman - Chairman Zachary Seybold- Vice Chairman Vishaal Gupta Pinkie P. Freeman Tony Rey Ka'Juel J. Washington Gabriela Ortigoni

STAFF PRESENT: Rocco Relvini, AICP, Chief Planner, Zoning Division Kimberly Catrett, Development Coordinator, Zoning Division Jeffrey Ball, Development Coordinator, Zoning Division Debra Phelps, Recording Secretary, FOS Division

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the following applications, as advertised,

were called up for public hearing.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The Chairman requested a motion approving the minutes of the August 1, 2013, Board

of Zoning Adjustment meeting.

A motion was made by Vishaal Gupta, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni, and unanimously

carried to approve the minutes of the August 1, 2013, Board of Zoning Adjustment

meeting.

ROBERT WHITE VA-13-09-070

REQUEST: Variance is R-1AA zone to enclose and extend existing carport 25ft. from front property line in lieu of 30 ft.

ADDRESS: 810 Buckwood Dr. LOCATION: South side of Buckwood Dr., 200ft. east of S. Summerlin Ave., east of S.

Orange Ave. S-T -R: 12-23-29 TRACT SIZE: 75ft. x 135ft. DISTRICT#: 3 LEGAL: BUCKWOOD SUB T/131 LOT 14 PARCEL ID: 12-23-29-1008-00-140 Development Coordinator Kimberly Catrett identified the location of the subject property

and its surrounding properties of the request. Ms. Catrett stated the applicant is

proposing to extend and enclose the existing carport 25 feet from the front property line

in lieu of 30 feet. Ms. Catrett presented the site plan, elevation drawing and several site

photographs and informed the BZA that the applicant desires to provide extra living

space for their growing family in an older neighborhood on a dead end street. Staff

received eleven (11) commentaries in favor and none in opposition of the request. Ms.

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 - 1-

Catrett stated staffs recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions as set

forth in the staff booklet.

Alan Arthur, 301 North Fern Creek Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32803, architect on behalf

of the applicant, addressed the Board and explained the need for the expansion along

with the new gable roof overbuilt of the flat roof to enhance the appearance of the

residence and concurred with staffs presentations.

No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment approved the request, subject to the condition.

A motion was made by Tony Rey, seconded by Vishaal S. Gupta and unanimously

carried to approve the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the

requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said

approval is subject to the following condition: Pursuant to Section 125.022, Florida

Statutes, issuance of this development permit by the County does not in any way create

any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency

and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of the permit if

the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a

state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal

law. Pursuant to Section 125.022, the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or

federal permits before commencement of development.

JAN CHARLES POTTER SE-13-09-076

REQUEST: Special Exception and Variance in A-1 and A-2 zones as follows: 1) Special Exception to operate a landscape and nursery business (no retail from this site). 2) Variance to allow unpaved parking and drive aisles in lieu of paved.

ADDRESS: W Ponkan Rd., 5656 W Ponkan Rd.

LOCATION: South side ofW. Ponkan Rd. and W. of N. Orange Blossom Trail

S-T-R: 27-20-27

TRACT SIZE: 3.069 acres

DISTRICT#: 2 LEGAL: NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 (LESS E 105 FT OF N 290 FT & LESS

FROM NW COR OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 RUN S 665.82 FT E 448.51 FT N 667.37 FT W 456.5 FT TO POB) OF SEC 27-20-27

PARCEL ID: 27-20-27-0000-00-001 27-20-27-0000-00-034 Development Coordinator Jeffrey Ball explained the location of the subject property and

the request. Mr. Ball stated this case was continued to the October 3, 2013 BZA

hearing to allow the applicant additional time to address staffs concerns.

Jan Charles Potter, PO Box 302, Tangerine, Florida 32777, applicant, addressed the

Board and agreed with staffs recommendation.

Matthew Johnson, 23139 Oak Prairie Circle, Sorrento, Florida 32766, spoke on behalf

of the applicant.


A motion was made by Pinkie P. Freeman, seconded by Ka'Juel J. Washington and

unanimously carried to continue to the October 3, 2013 BZA hearing.

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 - 2-

MARK HURLBUTT, AGENT for MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF EAST ORLANDO SE-13-1 0-079

REQUEST: Special Exception and Variance in R-1 zone as follows: 1) To modify an existing Special Exception approval (approved 4/1/2004) to construct a 40' x 40' classroom addition and increase the number of students from 70 to 100 students. 2) Variance for additional associated parking to be unpaved in lieu of paved.

ADDRESS: 2526 Percival Rd. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Percival Rd. and Lake Pickett Rd. S-T-R: 14-22-31 TRACT SIZE: 1.46 acres DISTRICT#: 5 LEGAL: COMM SE COR OF S1/2 OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF SEC 14-22-31 TH

N89-45-29W 56.92 FT FOR POB TH CONT N89-45-29W 195.68 FT N00-09-51E 300 FT S89-45-29E 219.60 FT S00-02-08W 177.79 FT S11-20-55W 102.77 FT TO POB

PARCEL ID: 14-22-31-0000-00-008 Development Coordinator Jeffrey Ball explained the location of the subject property and

the request. Mr. Ball gave a presentation stating private schools are allowed by Special

Exception in an R-1 zone. Applicant received BZA approval in 2008 for 70 students.

Applicant is requesting to increase the number of students from 70 to 100 and add a

1,600 square foot classroom addition as current student body is at capacity. Approval

was granted with grass parking to include drive aisles and handicap spaces to be

paved. Existing landscaping provides for sufficient buffering. Parking is based on four

(4) parking spaces per classroom. Applicant states that there are four (4) classrooms,

which require sixteen (16) parking spaces. Based on the CMS database dated August

20, 2013, there is one failing roadway segment within a one mile radius. Mr. Ball

indicated a traffic study will be required and to please contact Mirna Barq at 407-836-

7893. Staff supported the request since this was a logical expansion of an existing

educational facility. A community meeting was not conducted. Staff received two (2)

commentaries in opposition to this request. Mr. Ball stated staff's recommendation is

for approval subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff booklet.

Marcia Hurlbutt, 2424 Lake Pickett Road, Orlando, Florida 32826, on behalf of the

applicant, addressed the Board stating that she was in agreement with the staff

recommendation and conditions.


BZA concluded that this was a reasonable request since this is an existing educational

facility.

A motion was made by Zachary Seybold, seconded by Tony Rey and unanimously

carried to approve the Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the

requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code,

Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect

general public interest; and to approve the Variance request in that the Board made the


finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met;

further, said approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. Pursuant to Section 125.022, Florida Statutes, issuance of this development permit

by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to

obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the

part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite

approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes

actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section 125.002,

the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before

commencement of development;

2. Development in accordance with the site plan dated June 6, 2010 and all other

applicable regulations. Any deviations, changes, or modifications to the plan are

subject to the Zoning Manager's approval. The Zoning Manager may require the

changes to be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative

approval or determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing;

3. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans through the County's

commercial site plan review process (commercial permitting) and obtain a Certificate

of Occupancy;

4. A Capacity Encumbrance Letter (CEL) will be required prior to obtaining a building

permit.

5. All handicap spaces and driving aisles shall be paved;

6. All drop-off, pick-up and parking of vehicles associated with the school shall be

on site;

7. Outdoor sound amplification devices shall be prohibited; and

8. Total students at the facility shall not exceed 100.

MERCURY TOWERS, LLC SE-13-09-071

REQUEST: Special Exception in A-1 zone to construct 140 ft. high camouflaged communications tower (flag pole with flag) and Variances as follows: 1) To construct tower 208 ft. and 217 ft. from single family residences in lieu of 350 ft. 2) To waive the landscaping requirements of Section 38-1427(d)(11)

ADDRESS: 6324 Lakeville Rd.

LOCATION: West side of Lakeville Rd., western end of Beggs Rd. S-T -R: 35-21-28

TRACT SIZE: 2.4 acres DISTRICT#: 2

LEGAL: NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 (LESS S 268FT & LESS W 372FT & LESS E 30 FT FOR RD RIW) OF SEC 35-21-28

PARCEL ID: 35-21-28-0000-00-081 Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the

request. Mr. Relvini stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 140 foot high

monopole cell tower camouflaged as a flag pole and will be lit. Mr. Relvini gave an

analysis and staff findings of the subject property located inside the Clarcona Rural

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 -4-

Settlement. Future Land Use Policy 6.2.5 of the County's Comprehensive Plan states

"The permitted densities and intensities of land use within Rural Settlements shall

maintain their rural character. Factors to be considered shall include lot size, open

space and views, tree canopy, building location and orientation, and compatibility with

existing land uses. Density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation shall be defined as

the language specified in Future Land Use Element Policy FLU1.1.2(C). Staff's position

was this request does not meet this policy. Section 38-78 (1) Special Exception Criteria

states "The use shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan". The proposed

use does not meet Section 38-78(1 ), Orange County Code. The request does not blend

with the area comprised of single family homes on minimum 1 acre size tracts. The

proposed tower is not compatible with the uses in the surrounding area. The request

does not meet 38-78(2), Orange County Code. Specifically, "The use shall be similar

and compatible with the surrounding area and shall be consistent with the pattern of

surrounding development." Section 38-1427(n)(6) requires a 350 foot separation

between the base of the tower and any single family residence. The residents to the

north and to the west are within 350 feet of the tower. Initially, this tower will have one

carrier; however, it will be constructed to accommodate up to 5 total carriers. There are

other residents nearby, all of which are beyond the required 350 foot setback. Further,

if this tower is approved, the applicant has the administrative right to increase the height

of the tower up to forty (40) additional feet without the need of any public hearing. Staff

received two (2) commentaries in favor, one from an owner who has withdrawn the

vote, and the owner of the subject property; and twenty-two (22) commentaries in

opposition to the request. A petition with 4 7 signatures in opposition was received and

submitted into the record at the BZA Meeting. Mr. Relvini stated the applicant

voluntarily withdrew Variance request #2.

Wayne Bennett, Orange County Chief Planner, addressed the Board explaining the

need to rezone the parcel as it relates with the Future Land Use Policies of the

Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Bennett identified those policies that required the

rezoning.

Joel Prinsell, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board concerning the request.

Mr. Prinsell advised the Board that the Special Exception Criteria cannot be met based

on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning was required before making

this request; therefore, this request should be denied due to the necessary 2 part

process.

Mary Doty Solik, 121 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1500, Orlando, Florida 32801, attorney

on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and disagreed with County staff. Ms.

Solik felt the BZA was required to review the merits of this case as submitted and the

policies quoted by the Planning Division were not accurate.

Edward Williams, 920 S. Delaney Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32806, planner on behalf of

the applicant, addressed the Board stating he was a planner in Orange County and left

in 1992. Mr. Williams further stated that no rezoning was required in Rural Settlements

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 -5-

as there are provisions for expansion and part of zoning was consistent with provisions

in tower codes for Rural Settlements.

Ms. Solik added that there was not any impact other than only visual.

The following residents in the area addressed the Board in opposition to the request:

Rafael Camps, 6401 Hawksmoor Drive, Orlando, Florida 32818, stated the community

desired to maintain the rural nature; in addition, a tower would have an adverse impact

on property values;

Rozanna Hernandez, 6280 Lakeville Road, Orlando, Florida 32818; stated the unsightly

tower would detract from the natural beauty and wildlife of the area, and fear of radiation

would cause property values to plummet;

Stephany Byrne, 7003 Charingmoor Court, Orlando, Florida 32818; stated where will

commercial versus residential end; and further, stated this request would cause a

financial barrier to the sales of homes. Ms. Byrne requested the BZA to err on the side

of the homeowners;

William Cierebie, 6448 Timberwind Place, Orlando, Florida 32818, petitioned the BZA to

preserve and protect the Rural Settlement and displayed photographs of nature, eagles,

and other wildlife in the area that were submitted into the record;

Amy Sullivan, 6622 Nightwind Circle, Orlando, Florida 32818, stated the community

chose to live in the Rural Settlement for privacy, and did not desire to lose the canopy of

its beauty by the invasion of this ugly tower. Ms. Sullivan stated that two towers in close

proximity of one another were unnecessary.

LeeAnne Denney, 6246 Lakeville Road, Orlando, Florida 32818, cited FLU6.22 as

related to the detrimental intrusion of a lighted and dangerously high voltage tower

would not preserve the residential Rural Settlement area.

Susy Waller, 7175 Foster Lane, Orlando, Florida 32818, spoke on behalf of her

daughter, Jamie Dearivey, stating she was in a wheelchair and chose this site as her

sanctuary for its safety and off the beaten path lifestyle allowing her to have a peace of

mind. Ms. Waller further emphasized that a tower is not capable or consistent with the

neighborhood; and

Paul Robinson, 6200 AI beth Road, Orlando, Florida 32810, stated 99% of the

neighborhood was residential and only one (1) lot for this proposed tower does not

belong in the neighborhood. It would be an eye sore and cause the homes to become

even more upside down in this economy.

Ms. Solik addressed the Board in rebuttal stating she had compassion for the

community; nonetheless, the concerns do not rise beyond a certain level for the Special

Exception. Ms. Solik stated the tower can be reduced by 15 feet with only light at the

bottom as the flag does not need to be lit.

The BZA discussed the case and concluded this request did not comply with the Special

Exception Criteria.

A motion was made by Pinkie P. Freeman, seconded by Ka'Juel J. Washington,

Zachary Seybold, Gabriela Ortigoni, Pinkie P. Freeman and Peter Betterman voting

AYE by voice vote, Vishaal S. Gupta, Tony Rey voting No by voice vote, and carried to BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 -6-

deny Special Exception in that the Board finds it did not meet the requirements

governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78,

and that the granting of the Special Exception does adversely affect general public

interest; and to deny Variance request #1 in that there was no unnecessary hardship

shown on the land; and further, it did not meet the requirements governing variances as

spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3).

Recessed at 11:31 a.m. and reconvened at 11:41 a.m.

KEITH CLARKE VA-13-09-072

REQUEST: Variance in R-3 zone to construct retaining wall along the front property line 10 ft. to 8 ft. in height in lieu of 4 ft. Note: The wall will have a 42 inch high pedestrian railing along top of wall as fall protection. This is a double frontage Jot, so both streets constitute a front yard.

ADDRESS: 7336 Harlie St. LOCATION: East side of Harlie St., east of Dr. Phillips Blvd. and south of Wallace Rd. S-T -R: 26-23-28 TRACT SIZE: 9,889 sq. ft.

DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: PHILLIPS COVE CONDO CB 27/1 UNIT 30 PARCEL 10: 26-23-28-7110-00-300 Development Coordinator Kimberly Catrett identified the location of the subject property

and its surrounding properties. Ms. Catrett stated the applicant is proposing a retaining

wall 10 feet to 8 feet in height with a 42 inch high black decorative aluminum fence in

lieu of 4 feet in height. The finished height of the wall will be at 2 feet 8 inches below

the finish floor level of the proposed home. On April 4, 2013, the BZA approved a

variance (case# VA-13-04-0 11) for a retaining wall 1 0 feet to 17 feet in height with a 42

inch pedestrian railing, lot 31. Today's request was for the adjacent Jot's (lot 30) portion

of the retaining wall. Ms. Catrett informed the BZA that the property has double

frontage with significant sloping and presented the site plan, elevation drawing, design

sheet of the wall along with several site photos explaining the location, varying height of

the wall, and the materials proposed to construct the retaining wall. Due to

topographical conditions, a retaining wall was necessary so the owner may construct a

swimming pool, ensure erosion control, and proper site drainage.

Ms. Catrett further informed the BZA that the applicant received a letter of approval from

the HOA; however, the HOA president contacted staff and stated the approval Jetter

was only for the type of materials. The Development Engineering Division had no

objection to the Variance request by this applicant. Ms. Catrett advised that both the

applicant and HOA representative were present to discuss the issue, and hopefully,

come to an agreement. Staff received four (4) commentaries in favor of the request.

Ms. Catrett stated staff's recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions as

set forth in the staff booklet.

Keith Clarke, 7665 Somerset Shores, Orlando, Florida 32819, applicant, addressed the

Board concurring with staff's recommendations and stated the need for the retaining


wall. Mr. Clark further stated he was now in agreement with the HOA regarding the

placement of the retaining wall.

Chris Hassall, 7063 Phillips Cove Court, Orlando, Florida 32819, on behalf of the HOA,

addressed the Board and expressed concerns about the need for the retaining wall to

be constructed 5 feet from the easement of the rear property line.

The Board discussed the case and determined that the agreement between the

applicant and the HOA resulted in an additional condition of approval to reflect that the

retaining wall shall be constructed 5 feet inside the rear (along Phillips Cove Ct.)

property line.

A motion was made by Vishaal S. Gupta, seconded by Tony Rey and unanimously

carried to approve the Variance request in that the Board made the finding that the

requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43(3) have been met; further, said

approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. The retaining wall shall be constructed as follows: "Oidcastle Classic, Paver

retaining wall system", beige in color with a 42 inch high black decorative aluminum

fence along top of entire wall.

2. Landscaping along the base of the retaining wall shall be planted as follows:

Creeping Fig Plants at 12 inches on center and two 14 ft. tall Magnolia trees at a

minimum 25 ft. on center.



obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on

the part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain

requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or

undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to

Section 125.022, the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal

permits before commencement of development.

4. The retaining wall shall be constructed 5 ft. inside the rear (along Phillips Cove Ct.)

property line.

KEITH CLARKE VA-13-09-073

REQUEST: Variance in R-3 zone to construct retaining wall along the front property line 8 ft. in height in lieu of 4 ft. Note: The wall will have a 42 inch high pedestrian railing along top of the wall as fall protection. This is a double frontage lot, so both streets constitute a front yard.

ADDRESS: 7330 Harlie St. LOCATION: East side of Harlie St., east of Dr. Phillips Blvd. and south of Wallace Rd. S-T -R: 26-23-28 TRACT SIZE: 8,748 sq. ft.

DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: PARCEL ID: 26-23-28-7110-00-290 Development Coordinator Kimberly Catrett identified the location of the subject property

and its surrounding properties. Ms. Catrett stated the applicant is proposing a retaining

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 -8-

wall 10 feet to 8 feet in height with a 42 inch high black decorative aluminum fence in

lieu of 4 feet in height. The finished height of the wall will be at 2 feet 8 inches below

the finish floor level of the proposed home. On April 4, 2013, the BZA approved a

variance {case# VA-13-04-011) for a retaining wall 10 feet to 17 feet in height with a 42

inch pedestrian railing, lot 31. Today's request was for the adjacent lot's {lot 30) portion

of the retaining wall. Ms. Catrett informed the BZA that the property has double

frontage with significant sloping and presented the site plan, elevation drawing, design

sheet of the wall and several site photos explaining the location, varying height of the

wall and the materials proposed to construct the retaining wall. Due to topographical

conditions, a retaining wall was necessary so the owner may construct a swimming

pool, ensure erosion control, and proper site drainage.

Ms. Catrett further informed the BZA that the applicant received a letter of approval from

the HOA; however, the HOA president contacted staff and stated the approval letter

was only for the type of materials. The Development Engineering Division had no

objection to the Variance request by this applicant. Ms. Catrett advised that both the

applicant and HOA were in agreement from the previously approved similar request with

the additional condition. Staff received four {4) commentaries in favor of the request.

Ms. Catrett stated staff's recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions as

set forth in the staff booklet.

Keith Clarke, 7665 Somerset Shores, Orlando, Florida 32819, applicant, addressed the

Board and concurred with staff's recommendation.

The Board discussed the case and concluded the request was similar to the previous

request of Public Hearing #VA-13-09-072, and accepted staff's recommendation to

proceed for approval with the additional Condition #4, to reflect that the retaining wall

shall be constructed 5 feet from the rear property line.


A motion was made by Vishaal S. Gupta, seconded by Zachary Seybold and

unanimously carried to approve the Variance request in that the Board made the

finding that the requirements of Orange County Code, Section 30-43{3) have been met;


1. The retaining wall shall be constructed as follows: "Oidcastle Classic, Paver

retaining wall system", beige in color with a 42 inch high black decorative aluminum

fence along top of entire wall.

2. Landscaping along the base of the retaining wall shall be planted as follows:

Creeping Fig Plants at 12 inches on center and two 14ft. tall Magnolia trees at a

minimum 25 ft. on center.






BOARD OF ZONING ADillSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 - 9-




4. The retaining wall shall be constructed 5 ft. inside the rear (along Phillips Cove Ct.)

property line.

M. REBECCA WILSON, AGENT FOR RICHARD HIDALGO SE-13-09-075

REQUEST:

ADDRESS: LOCATION:

S-T-R: TRACT SIZE: DISTRICT#: LEGAL:

PARCEL ID:

Special Exception in A-2 zone to construct an outdoor recreational facility (baseball field, three batting cages, a gymnasium with bathrooms, and associated parking). (Note: The facility will be used to train up to ten athletes during daylight hours).

14042 Bicky Rd. West side of Bicky Rd., north of New Hope Rd., east of Boggy Creek Rd. 34-24-30

9.13 acres 4 ORLANDO KISSIMMEE FARMS 0/117 1/2 THE S1/2 OF LOTS 5 & 6 SEE 4070/1247 34-24-30-6368-00-051

Development Coordinator Kimberly Catrett identified the location of the subject property

and its surrounding properties. Ms. Catrett stated the applicant is proposing to

construct an outdoor recreational facility use in A-2 zone consisting of a baseball field,

three batting cages, and a gymnasium with bathrooms and associated parking. Ms.

Catrett presented the site plan and aerial photographs while explaining the hours of

operation and type of activities.

Ms. Catrett informed the BZA that the applicant previously went to the BZA for a Special

Exception on February 7, 2008, referenced as Public Hearing #SE-07 -12-006, for the

same use and same location as today's request for a Special Exception in A-2 zone to

construct and operate recreational use of a baseball field for children in training and

practice. Both the BZA and the BCC denied the request finding that the use was

incompatible with the surrounding area. The proposed baseball field and amenities

would be used by Mr. Hidalgo and up to 10 athletes to train with approximately 3

coaches and/or trainers. Staff has no control over the number of people who would use

the facility. The facility would not be open to the public and would not be rented out for

use by third parties. Paved drive aisles and 12 paved parking spaces to include 2

handicap parking spaces are shown on the site plan. A 6 foot high opaque fence exists

around on the North, South and West property lines; and a wrought iron fence in the

front or East property line. The field would be used during daylight hours. Staff cannot

support any outdoor lighting. The character of the area is rural residential with isolated

plant nurseries. The inclusion of an outdoor baseball field and batting cages for training

athletes is not compatible with the rural residential nature of the area. The request is no

different than the request that was denied by the BZA and BCC in 2008.


Ms. Catrett summarized the concerns of the citizens in opposition at the Community

Meeting on August 28, 2013 at the Wyndham Lakes Elementary School. In addition to

the community meeting, staff received six (6) commentaries in favor and six (6)

commentaries in opposition to this request. Staff's position is not in support of the

request finding that the proposed use is not consistent with the existing uses in the

surrounding area and the use acts as a detrimental intrusion into a rural residential

community.

Rebecca Wilson, 215 N. Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida 32801, attorney for the applicant,

addressed the Board and stated the use meets the Special Exception criteria referring

to Section 38.1253, regarding Recreational Facilities. Ms. Wilson further stated the

applicant was willing to consider adding conditions of approval to alleviate some of the

resident's concerns.

The following residents in the area addressed the Board in opposition to the request:

Sharon Trump, 14055 Bicky Road, Orlando, Florida 32824;

Robert E. Smith, 6406 New Hope Road, Orlando, Florida 32824; and

Terry Hutchins, 6415 New Hope Road, Orlando, Florida 32824.

The neighbors spoke in opposition with concerns regarding the applicant not living on

the premises so he would not be affected or inconvenienced. There were complaints of

renters holding loud parties until 4:00 a.m. in the morning; a decline in property values;

a disruption to the neighborhood with the increase of heavy traffic; the only route to the

site would be through a very narrow black top roadway of New Hope Road; strangers

driving fast and inattentive would create very dangerous safety issues since no

sidewalks or street lights exist for adults and children riding bikes, joggers, and

horseback riders; noise travels significantly long distance because of the open space;

the applicant does not reside at the existing residence; intrusion on a rural residential

community; hours of operation; drainage; and the potential for expansion of the

proposed use. The residents expressed that they were there first and promised that the

area would never be developed; what about their dream based on buying property in

this area to live with a rural lifestyle of nature, wildlife, space, horses, and raising

livestock; to enjoy peace and quiet; and the reasons for having five (5) acre lots. Lastly,

the neighbors felt this request for a business-like venture in baseball would not fit in this

area. Two baseball fields already exist near the area that the applicant can participate

in these activities if he desires to do so.

Ms. Wilson addressed the Board in rebuttal raising the issue of noise from the Orlando

International Airport flight paths in this area; and other recreational uses and public

community parks were in residential districts throughout Orange County.

The BZA discussed that there was clearly significant neighborhood opposition with a

certain reasonable expectation when they purchased property there which did not

include the excessive noise from the operation of a baseball field because they were

there first; the BCC has made it very clear in other hearings that the neighbors who

were there first are very key to everything else; this request is very similar to the

previous request of BZA denial that was upheld by the BCC; some BZA members felt BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 20 I3 - II -

being there first did not play a role because of growth and change; other uses allowed

such as a church would deem more traffic; a medical center will be developed North of

this property in the City of Orlando; and the location of other public parks in Orange

County. The Board was split in their votes with various viewpoints on both sides of the

argument.

A motion was made by Peter Betterman, seconded by Ka'Juel J. Washington to deny

the Special Exception. The motion died for lack of a majority vote.

Another motion was made by Tony Rey, seconded by Pinkie P. Freeman, Zachary

Seybold, Vishaal S. Gupta, Gabriela Ortigoni, voting AYE by voice vote, Ka'Juel J.

Washington, Peter Betterman voting No by voice vote, and carried to approve the

Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing

Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the

granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest;


1. Development in accordance with site plan dated January 21, 2013 and all other



changes be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative

approval or to determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public

hearing;

2. Use approval is for Mr. Hidalgo, a maximum of 10 athletes and 3 coaches or

trainers;

3. The facility shall not be rented out to third parties;

4. Concession stands are prohibited;

5. No outdoor speakers or other audio amplification;

6. Lighting for the outdoor recreational areas shall be prohibited;

7. Hours of operation shall be restricted to daylight hours;

8. Development shall comply with Chapter 24 (Landscaping) except where conflicts

exist. In the event there is a conflict between Chapter 24 and the site plan, the

provisions of Chapter 24 shall prevail;

9. Signage shall be in accordance with 31.5, Orange County Code;

10. Access, drainage, roadway improvements and concurrency management shall be

determined by the Public Works Department;

11. Construction plans shall be submitted within 3 years or this approval becomes null

and void.

12. Failure to comply with the above conditions shall result in Code Enforcement

action, not BZA action.

13. Prior to the issuance of permits the applicant shall complete a Conservation Area

Determination;

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER06, 2013 - 12-

14. No construction, clearing, filling, alteration or grading is allowed within or

immediately adjacent to a conservation area without first obtaining permission from

EPD. Approval of this request does not authorize any direct or indirect impacts to

conservation areas or protective buffers.

15. Approval of this request does not constitute approval of the use of septic tanks and

wells. The use of septic tanks and wells shall be in accordance with all applicable

regulations;









DR. PHILLIPS YMCA SE-13-10-078

REQUEST: Special Exception in R-1A zone to construct a 26,300 sq. ft one-story addition to the existing building and a 2-level (approximately 29 ft. high) parking garage.

ADDRESS: 7000 Dr Phillips Blvd. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Wallace Rd. and Dr. Phillips Blvd. S-T -R: 27-23-28 TRACT SIZE: 26.78 acres DISTRICT#: 1

LEGAL: SE1/4 OF NE1/4 (LESS BEG 75FT W & 525.66 FT N OF SECOR OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4 SWLY ALONG CURVE 1173.27 FT S 42 DEG W TO S LINE OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4 E TO POB (LESS RD RIW) SEC 27-23-28

PARCEL ID: 27-23-28-0000-00-025 Development Coordinator Jeffrey Ball explained the location of the subject property and

the request. Mr. Ball presented the case and indicated that an R-1A zone allows for

recreation facilities as a Special Exception. There have been three Special Exception

approvals on this property since 1975. The applicant is seeking approval for an

additional 26,300 square foot and a 2-story parking garage. The existing building

contains 51 ,386 square feet of building area. Parking is based on 1 space per 5

members. Based on the applicant's calculations, there are 2,350 members which

require 470 parking spaces. The site plan shows 476 spaces. The proposed addition

and site improvements are intended to enhance facility operations for the existing

membership and not to expand membership. The proposed parking garage will help

alleviate the existing parking situation. Based on the Concurrency Management System

database dated August 12, 2013, there is one failing roadway within a one mile radius

of this project. Wallace Road from Dr. Phillips Boulevard to Turkey Lake Road is failing

and there is no capacity available to be encumbered for this project. This information is

dated and is subject to change. There is no application for a Capacity Encumbrance


Letter (CEL) on file for this project. A community meeting was held on August 8, 2013.

Several residents spoke regarding the current and proposed traffic conditions. There

were several conditions that addressed the transportation related issues.

Notwithstanding the required roadway improvements, the proposed use is a reasonable

expansion of the existing use. Staff received eight (8) commentaries in favor and

eleven (11) commentaries in opposition to this request. Mr. Ball stated staffs

recommendation is for approval subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff booklet.

No one spoke at the hearing.

Allison Turnbull, 200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 2600, Orlando, Florida 32801, attorney

for the applicant, addressed and Board and presented a short video showcasing the

role the YMCA plays in the community. Ms. Turnbull addressed the letter submitted by

the adjacent development; and further, stated that she was in agreement with the staffs

recommendation and conditions. Ms. Turnbull also stated that they were in agreement

to build a sidewalk along Forrest Brook Lane.


BZA discussed the case and concluded this was a reasonable request since it was an

existing recreational facility. BZA approved the request with an additional Condition #8,

as a result of the agreement by the applicant to build a sidewalk along Forrest Brook

Lane.

A motion was made by Vishaal S. Gupta, seconded by Gabriela Ortigoni and

unanimously carried to approve the Special Exception request in that the Board finds it

met the requirements governing Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County

Code, Section 38-78, and that the granting of the Special Exception does not adversely

affect general public interest; further, said approval is subject to the following conditions:



obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the

part of the County for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite

approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes

actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Pursuant to Section 125.002,

the applicant shall obtain all other applicable state or federal permits before

commencement of development.

2. Development in accordance with the site plan dated July 16, 2013.and all other



changes to be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) for administrative

approval or determine if the applicant's changes require another BZA public hearing.

3. Landscaping shall be in accordance with Chapter 24, Orange County Code.

4. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans through the County's

commercial site plan review process (commercial permitting) and obtain a Certificate

of Occupancy.


5. An approved CEL is required prior to obtaining a building permit. In addition, based

on the proposed development this project will generate approximately 68 pm peak

hour trips therefore the applicant will be required to submit a traffic study to the

Transportation Planning Division for review and approval.

6. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement

(coordinated through the RAC) to address any mitigation requirements in addition to

detailing the proposed improvements to Wallace Rd.

7. Any traffic calming measures as well as signage regarding street parking shall be

coordinated with Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Divisions.

8. A sidewalk shall be constructed along the southern property line to allow for

pedestrian access from Dr. Phillips Blvd. to the driveway.

Recessed at 1 :06 p.m. and reconvened at 1 :35 p.m.

WEST ORANGE RELIEF HIGH SCHOOL SE-13-07 -046

REQUEST: Special Exception in R-CE zone to construct a public high school ADDRESS: 5505 Winter Garden Vineland Rd. LOCATION: East side of Winter Garden Vineland Rd., just north of the intersection of

Winter Garden Vineland Rd. and Fiquette Rd. S-T-R: 14-23-27 TRACT SIZE: 66.4 acres DISTRICT#: 1 LEGAL: COMM AT THE NE COR OF SE1/4 OF SEC 14-23-27 TH S89-19-43W

1323.12 FT TO POB S00-05-37E 1325 FT CONT S00-05-37E 956.24 FT S89-32-57W 1286.92 FT N00-14-55W 953.74 FT CONT N00-14-55W 1322.43 FT N89-19-43E 1323.12 FT TO POB (LESS PT TAKEN FOR RNV ON W PER 982

PARCEL ID: 14-23-27-0000-00-013 Chief Planner Rocco Relvini explained the location of the subject property and the

request. Mr. Relvini stated the applicant is proposing a public high school on the

subject site to relieve the overcrowding conditions at the current West Orange High

School and to provide a high school for the surrounding school age population. Mr.

Relvini presented staffs findings which included an analysis of the Special Exception

criteria. Mr. Relvini advised the BZA the request did not comply with Sections 38-78(1),

(2), (3) and (5). Staffs position was the request was located in the West Windermere

Rural Settlement and the homes surrounding the proposed school site were built prior to

the Orange County Public Schools purchase of the site.

Mr. Relvini stated the required public notice for this request is 500 feet; however,

Orange County notified all property owners within a range of 4,000 feet to 7,000 feet

from the property boundaries of this site. In total, 2105 hearing notices were sent out

for this request. Three _(3) community meetings were held for this request, and were

well attended by both those in favor and in opposition. Project data included but is not

limited to: 66.4 acres of land; 2,850 students proposed; 870 parking spaces; an outdoor

lighted stadium and track; unlit baseball and softball fields; lighting to have cut-off

fixtures; building heights range from 22 feet to 55 feet; band practice will be held in the


parking lots; and a 6 foot high wall will be constructed along the north and east property

lines. The property is located within the West Windermere Rural Settlement which was

included in the Rural Settlement in 1991. Mr. Relvini further stated the Planning Division

will present CP Policies to BZA regarding the Rural Settlements. The subject site is

surrounded by seven (7) single family residential subdivisions. These subdivisions were

platted between 1988 and 2004. There is a neighborhood commercial/office use

Planned Development adjacent on the south side of the site. The applicant purchased

the subject property in 2004 and 2006.

Mr. Relvini indicated the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has informed Zoning

staff that all related noise and sound from football games and the crowd is not subject to

the County's Noise Ordinance. The Zoning Division's position was that submitting a

Special Exception application instead of going through the rezoning process does not

make this site any more consistent with the CP Policies cited by the Planning and

Zoning Commission (P&ZC) in 2008 or compatible with the surrounding homes. The

proposed use will generate excessive noise and traffic which will adversely impact the

surrounding rural residential communities. The request does not comply with Special

Exception Criteria 38-78 (1, 2, 3 and 5). In addition, one of the primary objectives of a

Zoning Ordinance is to provide the highest level of certainty to potential buyers about

adjacent land uses. The subject site was and is still zoned R-CE for single family on one

(1) acre size lots when the adjacent homeowners purchased their lots. Staff received

72 commentaries in favor and 164 commentaries in opposition to the request. In the

final analysis, Mr. Relvini advised the BZA the importance of the Zoning Ordinance as a

tool that citizens could rely on to make informed decisions about land and/or home

purchases.

John Smogor, Chairman of the Development Review Committee (DRC), addressed the

Board and presented the DRC's findings to the BZA stating the DRC met twice on this

project and on August 28, 2013, wherein the DRC recommended denial of the request

due to inconsistencies with numerous policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This same

request was reviewed by Orange County's Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC) on

September 18, 2008. The P&ZC made a finding of inconsistency with the Orange

County Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) and the rezoning was not compatible with the

surrounding area. Specific policies cited were CPP 2.1.8 and 3.2.25. Mr. Smogor

further advised the BZA that there were several policies the request did, in fact, comply

with; however, the policies which did not support approval of this project far outweighed

those that did support it.

Marcos Marchena, 976 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite 101, Orlando, Florida 32814, attorney

for applicant, addressed the Board and introduced a presentation that a team of

consultants would provide outlined as the School Need, Acquisition History, School Site

Coordination, Special Exception Criteria, and Closing. Mr. Marchena stated this site

went to DRC in 2008, and recommended approval; however, the Planning and Zoning

Commission then recommended denial on the P-D. The item was proposed and then

withdrawn since the school site was not needed at the time. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 - 16 -

Sandy Simpson, 445 W. Amelia Street, Orlando, Florida 32801, Director of the Pupil

Assignment for the School Board, addressed the Board regarding the school need

relative to the student population; the increased density around the site; projection maps

for 2018; and the projected HS students at buildout with all approved future

development and CEAs which this site would serve for the expected need.

Mr. Marchena gave a brief presentation on the acquisition history of the site. In 2003 to

2006, prices were going up on real estate. A consistency letter was requested from

Orange County, and relied on the School Board ordinance. The unsigned consistency

letter from Mr. Testerman was read into the record at DRC and indicated that the site

appeared to be consistent with the School Siting Policies. They indicated anticipation of

strong neighborhood opposition; however, it did not indicate that the site was not

consistent with the Comp Plan.

Mr. Smogor responded with clarification that the consistency letter about the site

appeared to comply with the School Siting Ordinance but did not address anything

about consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Marchena rebutted with when the procedure calls for the School Board to submit a

letter to the County asking for consistency as the School Board did so, the response

that came back was, it is consistent with the School Siting Ordinance. If you are

requesting a consistency letter and that is the kind of letter you get back, you expect

that their finding is consistent with the Comp Plan not anything different. As, in fact,

DRC found in 2008.

Mr. Marchena explained the Florida Community Plan Act and the Education Code both

required the County and School Board to coordinate a Comprehensive Plan. This

proposed school site satisfied the Coordination requirements. Orange County and the

School Board expended considerable effort to coordinate and adopt Future Land Use

Plans and Public School Elements, Goals and Objectives and Policies. This School

Siting Ordinance and the School Facilities Element was approved by the School Board

on August 27, 1996, and September 9, 1997, respectively. In all of these well thought

out and coordinated Goals, Objectives and Policies ("GOPs"), none preclude a high

school in a Rural Settlement as noted in Sec. 38-1751(1), subject to the site and

development standards as set forth in Sections 38-1753 and 38-1755.

Mr. Marchena explained that the Special Exception Criteria #1 and #2 were met and/or

exceeded in landscape buffering.

Jimmy Sellen, 225 E. Robinson Street, Orlando, Florida 32804, planner on behalf of

applicant, addressed the Board and explained that the applicant disagreed with the

County staff's analysis and indicated that Special Exception Criteria #3 and #4 were met

by those policies the high school request complied with. Fundamental to their position

was that the area is no longer rural or historical in nature. Since the plan was adopted in

1991, there has been a substantial change in the development and character of this

area. Rather now the area is suburban; and therefore, the Rural Settlement policies

should not apply as noted in Policy Future Land Use Objective 6.2.

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 - 17 -

David Torbert, 200 E. Robinson Street, Suite 300, Orlando, Florida 32801, architect on

behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and explained Special Exception Criteria

#5 and #6 were met by comparing the previously site plan versus the new layout of the

revised site plan. A 6 foot wall was proposed along the eastern and northern part of the

property, and a sizable setback between the school and residential neighborhoods that

were established. Refinements were made to the new site plan to enhance the

compatibility of the site consisting of: a) the school facilities and the football stadium

were switched from the different ends of the site; b) turning lanes were added to three

(3) access points to improve traffic flow on C.R. 535; c) the reconfiguration of the

parking Jot to allow for additional on-site stacking of cars for parents picking up and

dropping off children by 25%; and d) an additional step to enhance the buffer with a row

of trees to the south eastern wall that goes beyond the minimum and to be a good

neighbor in the development of this site plan. Mr. Torbert further explained that the

High School would not be a detrimental intrusion because: a) its necessity to serve

residents in the Community; b) all access for traffic and pedestrian are on C.R. 535; c)

no access through neighborhoods; d) location on high capacity and volume road as

required by County guidelines; and e) no basis for argument that it is an intrusion simply

because it serves both the Rural Settlement and West Orange County.

The BZA referred to Policies 6.2.9 and 6.2.12, for a response from the applicant which

reads, "only those commercial and office uses that will support existing residential uses,

i.e. neighborhood commercial shall be permitted in Rural Settlements .... any proposed

use within a Rural Settlement intended for new construct and gross buildable area over

50,000 square feet may be considered inappropriate for a Rural Settlement if the

following conditions exists: the use is primarily intended for those whose daily activities

do not occur within the Rural Settlement." It appears that development should only be

for those within the Rural Settlement. Mr. Marchena responded stating the first policy

was addressing commercial use only, not a public governmental institution. So that

policy is not applicable for this particular use. The second one is addressing the type of

uses in commercial settings. The proposed site is on the edge of a Rural Settlement

which should not give rise to a condition that says you may not utilize this site to

education students from within the Rural Settlement and on the outside. Schools are to

serve all students in Orange County.

Mr. Torbert further explained the Lighting Ordinance in that the football stadium lighting

used for sporting events are more advanced and an improvement from the sporting

lights used with the older technology at Olympia High School. The lights would be well

below the threshold required by the County for compliance.

Adrian Baus, 130 Candale Drive, Maitland, Florida 32751, lighting expert on behalf of

the applicant, addressed the Board and described the significant energy reduction with

the green technology, in addition to controlling the glare and lighting only the field, which

is used in this new lighting system as depicted in a project diagram obtained from a

lighting factory in the Fort Myers area.


Dante Gabriel, 2602 E. Livingston Street, Orlando, Florida 32803, traffic

engineer/planner on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board and explained the

traffic study submitted to Orange County for review. They met with Orange County

Public Works staff and during the DRC Meeting, staff concluded the traffic study

demonstrated that there was an access capacity on County Road 535 to accommodate

the high school.

The BZA questioned with great concern about the residents that would be most affected

by the level of noise from band practice on the football field at the northern side of the

site. Mr. Marchena's response was that he would later give an appropriate answer

before his rebuttal statement after he has conferred with his professionals.

Mr. Marchena stated in closing that an estimated amount of 2,850 students were

expected for this high school and showed all of the Special Exception Criteria was

satisfied.

The BZA asked if alternate sites were analyzed, such as, the site on Tiny Road, and if

so, what their findings were. Mr. Marchena responded that the site on Tiny Road parcel

is owned in part by Orange County and the City of Orlando, and there has been talk

about some type of lease to the School Board. The items addressed with respect to this

school site were: a) it is much further away from the concentration of students that this

Relief High School site is intending to serve; b) Tiny Road is a two lane road which does

not satisfy the requirement of the school ordinance which calls for a high volume and

capacity road; c) this site is on top of a hill which creates a great deal of concern with

regards to safety; and d) there in an indication of a potential protected species that can

only be checked to see if they exist on a site between March through May, and if that is

the case then there will be significant issues in utilizing this site. The School Board is

charged with what is the most appropriate location for serving the students by a very

carefully thought out process and has determined that this is the best site for future

projections.

Recessed at 3:27 p.m. and reconvened at 3:37 p.m.

Karen Consalo, 836 Highland Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32803, attorney for Citizens

United for Sensible Growth, addressed the Board and gave her presentation. Ms.

Consalo represented numerous homeowners and citizen associations opposed to this

request and stated the impact of allowing such a massive structure in a Rural

Settlement would create a precedent to allow this type of structure in any Rural

Settlement area. Ms. Consalo gave a presentation and explained that the DRC

recommended denial for this application; further, two different hearings were held on

this matter with regards to consistency with the Comp Plan and staff recommended

denial. Ms. Consalo advised the BZA that the Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3194(1)(a)

mandates that all developments must be strictly in compliance with all local

governmental policies related to the Comprehensive Plan which is most important as

these were extensively developed Comprehensive Plans by Growth Management and

were intended for the best interest of their citizens. This statute has over and over

again been affirmed by the Florida courts that, "All land development regulations BOARD OF ZONING ADruSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 - 19-

enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or

element or portion thereof ... " Secondary to Comp Plan policies, the majority of the

Special Exception Criteria clearly are not met. Orange County has duly designated this

area as a Rural Settlement through a duly adopted ordinance. Ms. Consalo stated that

the rules under which Rural Settlements are protected from massive structures, such as

a high school, was not appropriate for this area and does not satisfy the rules. A signed

Letter of Consistency does not exist to find consistency or non-consistency with the

Comp Plan; and unfortunately, the School Board did not follow up with the County to

obtain this letter.

Ms. Consalo further stated this massive structure with thousands of trips a day coming

in and out onto one single road, C.R. 535, at peak times, would cause a great deal of

traffic congestion, stacking, traffic backups, and safety issues. There are approximately

ten (1 0) alternative sites to build this proposed school in relation to this amount of

massive size; height, excessive noise, and lighting that is not compatible with the

surrounding land uses of a Rural Settlement.

Ms. Consalo indicated that a high school at this location would violate numerous

Comprehensive Policies as follows:

Maintenance of Compatible Uses- a) Future Land Use Objective 8.2, and b) Policies

8.2.1 & 8.2.10; Protection of Rural Settlements - a) Future Land Use Element

Objectives 6.2 & 6.3, and Policies 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.12 and 6.2.14; Rural Settlement Area

(RSA) policies are a fundamental promise to residents of RSAs, since 1991, to preserve

and protect a low density, rural lifestyle. West Windermere Rural Settlement has been

recognized by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners as deserving the

protections of the Rural Settlement designation. FLU1.1.4 H. RS 1/1 and OBJ FLU 6.2,

protect these rapidly diminishing rural areas; and Creation of Schools that Enhance their

Community - a) Public School Facilities Goals 2 and 3, and b) Future Land Use

Element 5.11.1.

Richard Unger, 301 Beckett Court, Winter Park, Florida 32792, a planning expert in

opposition, addressed the Board and gave a presentation explaining the purpose and

intent of the Rural Settlement policies is to preserve and protect the low density, rural

residential lifestyle, and to allow for a quiet, peaceful and calm atmosphere as

appropriate in this area regardless of whether lots are large or smaller. RSA policies

apply only outside Urban Service Area, where residents prefer a rural lifestyle with

limited services. At the time the Comp Plan was adopted in 1991, the maximum density

in this area was one (1) development unit per acre to recognize and preserve existing

development patterns of Rural Settlements. FLU1.1.4 H. RS 1/1, and OBJ FLU 6.2.

Mr. Unger cited, FLU6.2.12 Any proposed use ... with a Gross Buildable Area of

50,000 SF ... may be considered inappropriate for a Rural Settlement if the following

conditions exist: a) the proposed use is located in a Rural Settlement that has

maintained a rural and historic character, consistent with the intent of Rural Settlements;

b) the proposed use(s) by size, massing and traffic, will unduly impact the historic and

rural character of the Rural Settlement; c) the use . . . is primarily intended for those BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 - 20 -

whose daily life activities do not occur within the Rural Settlement; and d) it is not

demonstrated that other potential sites were evaluated as being suitable. Mr. Unger

explained that this area was originally set up with a rural character and lifestyle. This

proposed school will unduly impact the character of this area immediately to the east

and immediately to the north which is in the Rural Settlement area. The proposed

school is primarily intended to serve residents of Horizon West as indicated on the

matrix map. It has been established that there are other alternative sites to consider,

although, they may not be perfect sites.

Mr. Unger referred to five (5) objectives and policies of the Comp Plan violated by

proposal for traffic and pedestrian safety as outlined in the Maintenance of Safe and

Efficient Roads and Schools - a) Transportation Elements Objectives 2.1 and 2.5, and

Policies 2.2.1 and 2.5.13; and b) Public School Facilities Policy 8.7.4. The Roadway

Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) for Orange County Transportation Element are

dominated by goals and objectives to move vehicles smoothly, as fast and unimpeded

as possible. Roads are classified by desired Levels of Service (LOS): A - being least

congestion, F- being most congestion (failing), whereby the street is widened to avoid

as little impact as possible. The LOS does not consider pedestrian or bicyclists travel.

Traffic studies consider congestion and impacts to roads, not impacts to adjacent and

nearby properties; roads, cars and congestion mitigation. Traffic impacts of congestion,

noise and exhaust to residents across the street generated by the proposed school will

be approximately: a) 3,953 daily additional vehicle trips; b) AM Peak of 1,483 additional

trips where it is dark much of the time during the year raising safety concerns and

impacts for the pedestrians and traffic; c) PM Peak of 1 ,049 additional trips; d) two

signaled intersections on CR535; e) dual left turn lanes (Southbound), single right turn

lane (Northbound); f) widening CR535 to seven lanes; and g) LOS of F in the AM at

CR535 and Winter Garden-Vineland. This would not be compatible or match with the

current character of this Rural Settlement relative to small streets, minimum traffic,

peace and quiet, calm area, and large lots as demonstrated by photographs of the

eastern properties from the proposed site. The transportation system of commercial

vehicles to include: a) buses and trucks would be approximately 90 AM; 80 PM bus trips

for the school creating conflict points with traffic; b) 2,850 high school students plus

faculty entering campus within the same approximate time period each year; cars driven

by inattentive, distracted high school students; c) rush hour work drivers not paying

attention; and d) students walking, talking or texting in the dark much of the year would

be a dangerous situation which is not addressed in the traffic study. Orange County is

already one of the most dangerous areas for pedestrians and bicyclists. CR 535 and

Winter Garden-Vineland has averaged one (1) accident per month for the past 5 years.

Mr. Unger demonstrated a compatibility comparison chart and the intrusion impacts

consisting of: a) high school versus residential; b) 350,000 square feet versus 1 acre

single family lots and/or 60 dwelling units; c) 4,800 additional trips versus 600 additional

trips; d) ball field noise with sports practice and games, bands playing, coach whistles,

loud cheering of crowds, megaphones, cars honking, loud speakers, band practice and BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER06, 2013 -21-

lighting emission and glare versus residential peace and quiet; and e) 50 foot building

height versus 2 story residential. Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan compatibility

policy FLU 8.2.1 0, "strict performance standards" include but not limited to the following:

a) building height restrictions; b) requirements for architectural design compatible with

the residential units nearby; c) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitations; d) lighting type and

location requirements; e) tree protection and landscaping requirements including those

for infill development; and f) parking design.

Mr. Unger stated the proposed school fails four (4) of the six Special Exception criteria

as follows: a) Section 38-78, the use is not consistent, at minimum, with all

Comprehensive Plan Policies, Comprehensive Plan Objective FLU6.2; Policy FLU

6.2.5, Policy 6.2.12 in part, Objective FLU 8.2 and Policy FLU 8.2.1 Policy FLU 8.2.10.

The applicant wants to ignore these conflicts with the Comp Plan policies when DRC

acknowledged noncompliance findings thereby failing this one criteria alone warrants

denial of this application; b) the school mass and scale of 350,000 SF, 50 foot height,

excessive noise, and traffic impacts, alone render the project incompatible with adjacent

rural residential uses of 1 acre residential lots; c) loss of property value as not

compatible with the pattern of a Rural Settlement area; d) intrusion within the RSA

creates negative impacts; e) school would generate 4,000 vehicle trips per day and

increased dangerous and/or deadly pedestrian-vehicular conflict points and accidents;

e) wrong location for this proposed school as it does not preserve or protect the original

intended purpose of the RSA; f) proposed school does not meet similar uses in noise,

vibration, dust, odor, glare, heat producing and other characteristics that are associated

with the majority of uses currently permitted in this Zoning District; and g) approval

would set a bad precedent for all other Rural Settlement areas.

Mr. Unger further stated other alternative Horizon West HS sites exists, one site on SR

429 and Seidel Road, where property is owned by OCPS located in Village F of Horizon

West. The greatest population of students attending the proposed school will live in

Horizon West. While Horizon West population base attending this new high school will

continue increase, West Windermere RSA will not. New residents purchasing in the

area will have full knowledge and opportunity to exercise buyer beware of an existing

school.

Ms. Consalo added OCPS was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and the

residents are the ones who are going to suffer.

The following citizens addressed the Board in favor of the request:

Ann Wincey, 4434 Begonia Court, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Marci Sgattoni, 12948 Freeman Street, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Blakely Meyers, 2405 Ridgewind Way, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Paul Marcuccia, 12669 Lake Sawyer Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Brian Pyko, 13267 Reyboro Road, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Judy Paulsen 11714 Camden Park Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Jane Dunkelberger, 6590 Helmsley Circle, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Warren Dunkelberger, 6590 Helmsley Circle, Windermere, Florida 34786; BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 -22-

Rakesh Singh, 12940 Lang Staff Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Fatima Saied, 7555 Tattant Blvd., Windermere, Florida 34786;

Joe Milazzo, 13243 Charfield Street, Windermere, Florida

Carol Johnson, 16605 Sandhill Road, Winter Garden, Florida 34787

Marlene Kirtland, 6848 Mapperton Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786

Jane Benner, 12700 Bideford Avenue, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Lemarie Godsey, 13764 Darchance Road, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Ahmed Rasool, 11015 Hawkshead Court, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Dana Burnford, 80 Millholland Street, Oakland, Florida 34760;

Beth Siegmann, 11844 Sheltering Pine, Orlando, Florida 32836;

James Gustino, 13914 Eylewood Drive, Winter Garden, Florida 34787;

Julie Sadlier, 11343 Fenimore Court, Windermere, Florida 34786; and

Brain Paulsen, Jr., 11714 Camden Park Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786.

Most of the citizen's comments were about the urgent need to build a high school for the

area's student population due to the increased growth which has caused West Orange

High School to be overcrowded and with continued housing development, the problem

will only become worse unless a solution is found. The citizens further stated that there

was no perfect site and we have a moral obligation for the education of the children and

a successful future.

Zachary Seybold left the public hearing at 5:14p.m.

Recessed at 5:16p.m. and reconvened at 5:26p.m.

The following residents in the area addressed the Board in opposition of the request:

Cathy Tabela-Sailor, 6330 Little Lake Sawyer Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786, on

behalf of HOA;

Paul Wean, 646 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida 32803;

Michael Dowling, 13604 Lake Cawood Drive, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Sharai Pittman, 11717 Sheltering Dire Drive, Orlando, Florida 32836;

DeeDee Hughes, 5039 Tildens Grove Blvd., Windermere, Florida 34786;

Kim Warp, 5251 Tildens Grove Blvd., Windermere, Florida 34786;

Jim Coffey, 208 Wellow Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32833;

Sharon Newton, 17216 Davenport Road, Winter Garden, Florida 34787;

Susan Weingarten, 6318 Little Lake Sawyer Drive, Windermere, Florida 34787;

Paul Weingarten, 6318 Little Lake Sawyer Drive, Windermere, Florida 34787;

Suzanne Arnold, 13306 Lake Mary Jane Road, Orlando, Florida 32832;

Priscilla Stefan, 13414 Southern Way, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Beth Rushing; 13473 Southern Way, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Norma Verner, 5600 West Lake Butler Road, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Jay Gill, 5806 Oxford Moor Blvd., Windermere, Florida 34786;

Ed Misicka, 5221 W. Apopka Vineland Road, Orlando, Florida 32818

Luis Martinez-Fernandez, 5752 Oxford Moor Blvd., Windermere, Florida 32786;

Roland Prieto, 13438 Southern Way, Windermere, Florida 34786;

June Cole, 5836 Oxford Moor Blvd., Windermere, Florida 34786; BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06,2013 -23-

Ricardo Cumberbatch, 5710 Oxford Moor Blvd., Windermere, Florida 34786;

Charles Brown, (no physical address provided), Windermere, Florida 34786;

Victoria Trout, 13450 Southern Way, Windermere, Florida 34786;

Mike Smith, 13474 Southern Way, Windermere, Florida 34786; and

Steve Fisher, 5056 Carillon Lane, Windermere, Florida 34786.

Residents of other Rural Settlement areas appeared and spoke in opposition citing

concerns with land use compatibility; the intrusion to a Rural Settlement area and

wildlife; setting a dangerous precedent; traffic issues with student arrival and departure

times causing roadway back-ups; noise, lighting, preservation and protection of the

Rural Settlement area, etc. as related to the requirements established by the

Comprehensive Plan Policies and the Special Exception Criteria. The residents stated

they were there first and invested financially in a Rural Settlement expecting that the

boundaries of the pockets of Rural Settlement land to be respected. They felt there was

a need for a school but this location was inappropriate and other alternative locations

were more suitable.

Mr. Marchena addressed the Board in rebuttal stating the area has developed into a

classic suburban area; no precedent would be set when another high school already

exists less than a mile away; and there are no covenants with restrictions that exist on

this land.

Recessed at 7:17p.m. and reconvened at 7:28p.m.

The Board deliberated the pros and cons of having a high school at this location.

Several BZA members concluded no location was ideal for this use and the alternative

sites would also upset the residents in those areas. Some of the BZA members

concluded the request was, in fact, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies;

and it was noted that according to FLU 8. 7 .6, high schools are a Special Exception in a

Rural Settlement area where deemed an appropriate use based on an analysis of the

area. The Board questioned staff about the difference between Windermere Prep

school and a public high school and staff's responded that Windermere Prep School is a

private K through 12th grade school which is much different than a public high school;

the County has more control over the development of a private school, what it looks like,

etc.; and the permitting is through Orange County whereas this would not apply with

public schools. BZA questioned about the site being on the edge of the Rural

Settlement and staff stated just because the site is on the perimeter of a Rural

Settlement does not change the fact that it is in a Rural Settlement, and if the site is to

serve Horizon West, then the school should be located within Horizon West. The

general consensus of the BZA was the request met the Special Exception criteria;

compatible with the trend of development in the area; and the needs of the region

outweighed the adverse impacts to the surrounding residents. Four (4) BZA members

voted to approve the request; and amended condition #13, to reflect stadium lighting to

comply with exhibit submitted by the applicant; while 2 BZA members struggled with

Special Exception #2 and #3, affording protection of the Rural Settlement from a very

large complex that will have a massive impact in the environment of this area visually, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 - 24 -

excessive noise, traffic impacts, lights, etc., and voted against the request. All exhibits

from presenters and the public were obtained and submitted into the record.

A motion was made by Vishaal S. Gupta, seconded by Tony Rey, Gabriela Ortigoni,

Pinkie P. Freeman voting AYE by voice vote, Ka'Juel J. Washington, Peter Betterman

voting No by voice vote, (Zachary Seybold was absent), and carried to approve the

Special Exception request in that the Board finds it met the requirements governing

Special Exceptions as spelled out in Orange County Code, Section 38-78, and that the

granting of the Special Exception does not adversely affect general public interest;


1. Development shall conform to the West Orange Relief High School Special

Exception Site Plan dated "Received September 6, 2013", and to the following

conditions of approval. Development based upon this approval shall comply with all

applicable federal, state and county laws, ordinances and regulations, which are

incorporated herein by reference, except to the extent any applicable county laws,

ordinances and regulations are expressly waived or modified by these conditions,

or by action approved by the BCC, or by action of the BCC. In the event of a

conflict or inconsistency between a condition of approval of this site plan and the

actual site plan dated "Received * ", the condition of approval shall control to the

extent of such conflict or inconsistency.

2. This project shall comply with, adhere to, and not deviate from or otherwise conflict

with any verbal or written promise or representation made by the applicant (or

authorized agent) to the Board of County Commissioners at the public hearing

where this development was approved, where such promise or representation,

whether oral or written, was relied upon by the Board in approving the

development, could have reasonably been expected to have been relied upon by

the Board in approving the development, or could have reasonably induced or

otherwise influenced the Board to approve the development. For purposes of this

condition, a "promise" or "representation" shall be deemed to have been made to

the Board by the applicant (or authorized agent) if it was expressly made to the

Board at a public hearing where the development was considered or approved.









4. Prior to construction plan approval, hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to

Orange County Utilities demonstrating that proposed water, wastewater, and

reclaimed water systems have been designed to support the school site.


5. Prior to earthwork or construction, the developer shall provide a copy of the

completed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Notice of

Intent (NOI) form for stormwater discharge from construction activities to the

Orange County Environmental Protection Division, NPDES Administrator. The

original NOI form shall be sent to the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection.

6. All acreages regarding conservation areas, wetland buffers and conservation

encroachment are considered approximate until finalized by a state application and

permit to be provided to Orange County. Approval of this plan does not authorize

any direct or indirect conservation area impacts.

7. The Orange County Public Schools recognizes the prior use of this property as a

citrus grove.

8. Neither installation nor operation of potable or irrigation water supply wells using

local groundwater will be allowed on site.

9. The Developer shall obtain water, wastewater, and reclaimed water service from

Orange County Utilities.

10. Billboards and pole signs shall be prohibited. Ground and fascia signs shall comply

with Ch. 31.5.

11. A six-foot masonry wall shall be required along the east and north property lines,

except along the conservation area.

12. Per Orange County code public schools are exempt from transportation

concurrency. However an approved traffic operational analysis addressing

intersection operations, Pedestrian crossings and traffic circulation within the

impact area will be required prior to construction plan approval.

13. Sports field stadium lighting shall comply with the cutoff requirements of the Orange

County lighting ordinance and shall comply with the exhibit submitted by the

applicant. Parking lot lighting shall comply with the cutoff requirements in the

Orange County lighting ordinance.

ADJOURN:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m.

ATTEST:

Peter Betterman Chairman

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 -26-

~~ De ra Phelps Recording Secretary

Documents

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING … library/all meeting...applicant public hearing # district p.h. time orange county board of zoning adjustment september 6, 2013 please turn off your