Book L, Page 279

March 5, 2008

The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a special session inCommission Chambers at 9:05 a.m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at the Marion CountyGovernmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida.

Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Charlie Stone, District5; Vice-Chairman Jim Payton, District 2; Commissioner Andy Kesselring, District 1; andCommissioner Barbara Fitos, District 4. Commissioner Stan McClain, District 3, arrivedshortly after the meeting commenced. Also present were Deputy Clerks Bonnie Walker andCindy Bonvissuto, County Attorney Thomas L. Wright, a representative of the Sheriff’sOffice and a member of the news media.

Comprehensive Plan/Ordinance - Deputy Clerk Walker presented Proof ofPublication of a display advertisement entitled, “Notice of Change of Land Use MarionCounty Comprehensive Plan” published in the Star Banner newspaper on February 22,2008.

It was noted that the Planning Department presented the following documents forthe record: a large spiral bound document entitled, “Marion County 2008 First Cycle LargeScale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Text Amendments-PlanningDepartment Report for the Marion County Board of County Commissioners TransmittalPublic Hearings March 5 and March 6, 2008", a 2 page double-sided Agenda; a 3 pagedocument regarding the surrounding Property Owner Notification Summary and 2 lettersof objection.

Commissioner McClain arrived at 9:06 a.m.Chairman Stone passed the gavel to Commissioner Payton who assumed the Chair.Assistant Planning Director Jimmy Massey stated this was the first of two transmittal

public hearings scheduled to consider transmitting Large Scale Comprehensive PlanAmendments to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for an Objection,Recommendation and Comment (ORC) Report. He advised that DCA had 60 days toreview the proposed amendments and issue the ORC Report, noting once the Boardreceived the report staff would then schedule an adoption public hearing for Boardconsideration.

Comprehensive Plan - Assistant Planning Director Jimmy Massey offered thefollowing Amendments for consideration on the Consent agenda, which wererecommended for approval by both Planning Department staff and Planning Commission,noting staff had not received any written opposition and no one had signed up to speak inregard to the following amendments:

1. 08-L01 by Southeast 73rd Avenue, LLC, owner, Landis V. Curry, Jr., Esq.,agent, changing the land use from Low Density Residential to MediumDensity Residential.

2. 08-L06 by Midland Professional Investment Corp., owner, W. James GoodingIII, agent, changing the land use from Rural Land to Specialized CommerceDistrict.

March 5, 2008

Page 280, Book L

There was no public comment.A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner Stone,

to approve the Consent agenda (08-L01 and 08-L06). The motion was unanimouslyapproved by the Board (5-0).

Comprehensive Plan - Planning Director Dwight Ganoe advised there were twoother amendment requests (08-L26 and 08-L27), which were mediated amendments thathad been through various public hearing processes in the past, noting staff had originallyrecommended denial on both requests in 2006 (06-L43 and 06-L45). He stated there wereno new issues with staff, no one had signed up to speak in regard to the amendmentrequests and questioned if it was the Boards desire to approve on a second Consentagenda: as follows:

1. 08-L26 by Bradford Farms, Phase 3-5, LLC, owner, and Steven Gray, agent,changing the land use from Rural Land to Medium Density Residential.

2. 08-L27 by Bradford 159 P2, LLC, owner, and Steven Gray, agent, changingthe land use from Rural Land to Medium Density Residential.

Chairman Payton recalled that the requested land use changes were in regard toincreased densities for Bradford Farms. He clarified that after the mediated hearings, staffrecommended mediated settlements.

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to adopt the second Consent agenda (08-L26 and 08-L27). The motion was approved bythe Board by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Kesselring voting nay.

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director JimmyMassey presented Amendment No. 08-L02 by Pedro and Olga Adrian, owners, W. JamesGooding III, agent, for a land use change from Urban Reserve to Medium DensityResidential on 90.21+ acres located 3/4 mile west of US 301 on the south side of SE 59th

Street in Section 04, Township 16, Range 22. He noted staff recommended denial on theoriginal request, however the application was amended from Urban Reserve to Low DensityResidential at the Planning Commission meeting. He advised that staff’s recommendationon the amended request was still for denial because there were no planned utilities in thearea, but noted that the subject property was located within the recently acceptedGreenway Corridor Study and low density designation was consistent with the Study.

Commissioner Kesselring questioned if a decentralized system and/or smallcentralized private wells were installed, would it address staff concerns in regard to utilities.Mr. Massey stated it would.

Jimmy Gooding, SE 36th Avenue, attorney representing the applicant, presented a5 page proposed Developer’s Agreement, a 1 page Conceptual Plan Aerial Map entitled,“Hacienda 4 Aces” and a 1 page excerpt map (Map 5) from the Greenway Study AreaRecommended Master Plan showing the location of the proposed property. He reiteratedthat the Amendment was modified to change the land use request from Medium DensityResidential to Low Density Residential. Mr. Gooding noted the original consideration fordevelopment of the property was as a hamlet, which was not possible at this time becauseof the amendment to the County’s Comprehensive Plan that provided there would be nohamlets developed in the Urban Reserve area. He referred to the excerpt map (Map 5),noting the proposed development was located near the northern portion of the UrbanReserve area and approximately 1/4 mile away from the Ocala city limits. Mr. Gooding

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 281

stated the southern boundary of the property was contiguous to the Country Club of Ocala,which consisted of lots with a minimum size of one acre. He advised that under theproposed provisions of the Springs protection program, central water would be required aswell as a decentralized/centralized sewer, noting the requirement was not included in theDeveloper’s Agreement, but was willing to include the provision. Mr. Gooding stated thedevelopment would provide for a minimum lot size of 1 unit per acre, with an estimated 37lots. He noted one of the design challenges was that the applicant had built a barn andexercise ring (horse track) on the property to be used as an amenity to the homeownersin the neighborhood.

In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Mr. Gooding stated the conceptual planwas not attached to the Developer’s Agreement. Commissioner Kesselring questioned ifthe applicant would be willing to attach the conceptual plan aerial map to the agreement.Mr. Gooding stated he would prefer it to be limited to the number of lots rather than theconceptual plan to allow flexibility in the design. He expressed concern that the conceptualplan aerial map had not been engineered and the property may be developed as a PlannedUnit Development (PUD).

Mr. Massey advised that the Country Club of Ocala included approximately 237 lotson 249 acres, including a golf course.

Mr. Ganoe stated at the time the report was drafted by staff, the proposed propertywas not in the receiving area for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), but noted thatchanged last year when the receiving area was modified to include all Urban Reserve areasinto the TDR program, which was found to be in compliance by DCA.

Upon call for public comment, Woody Gilliland, SE 19th Court, commented on thetraffic problems and road conditions that existed in the area. He noted SE 59th Street wasa slag road and did not believe it could be widened. Mr. Gilliland stated the issues andconcerns from the previous meeting (when staff recommended denial) still existed.

Doug Shearer, SE 85th Street, representing the Citizens Against Urban Sprawl,commented on the traffic. He stated new growth was not needed in the area and requestedthe Board deny the amendment.

Roy Duckett, SE 59th Street, commented on the lack of school capacity in the area.He provided a brief overview of other communities in the area that were not yet built out,noting new growth was not needed. Mr. Duckett stated many communities in the area wereon private wells and expressed concern that new growth could affect water quality. Heexpressed concern with there not being enough area to allow for horses in the proposeddevelopment.

Carol Angelbeck, SE 59th Street, stated she did not believe the development wouldbe conducive to horses. She expressed concern with traffic and overcrowded schools.

Nancy Gallinaro, SE 59th Street, advised that her 5th grade daughter Ashley wantedto attend today’s meeting, but instead wrote a letter requesting the Board deny theproposed land use change, which was read into the record. (Ed. Note: the Deputy Clerk didnot receive a copy of the letter for the record).

Janine Morse, SE 59th Court, stated she agreed with the comments made by othercitizens in regard to overcrowded schools, traffic issues and incompatible zoning.

Greg Kelly, SE 12th Circle, commented on a letter he wrote to the Board of CountyCommissioners (BCC) dated March 3, 2008, which cited several issues with the proposedland use change including: 1) demand, noting there were 1,041 vacant lots in the vicinityof the proposed project, which would take approximately 3 1/2 years before being

March 5, 2008

Page 282, Book L

absorbed; and 2) school capacity at Shady Hill Elementary, Belleview Middle and Highschools, which were already overcrowded. He read an excerpt from a letter he wrote to thePlanning Department dated January 25, 2008, “The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) ofthe Marion County Comprehensive Plan clearly states this classification of Urban Reserveprovides for the expansion of the Urban Area in a timely manner”. Mr. Kelly noted his beliefthat a “timely manner” included the requirements for school capacity and centralwater/sewer.

Dr. Robert L. Hood, SE 59th Street, stated his primary concern was in regard totraffic on SE 59th Street, noting the high speeds that were driven on the road, which wasvery dangerous. He requested the Board deny the proposed change.

Lauren Merriam, SE Broadway, attorney representing surrounding property ownerWilliam Schettine, advised of his client’s concerns in regard to overcrowded schools, roadconditions as well as level of service (LOS) issues. He noted because of the County’schanges in policies regarding hamlets, the proposed property could now be developed attwice the original density. He stated there was no need for additional development in thearea and requested the Board deny the change in land use. (Ed. Note: A copy of a letterdated March 4, 2008 in opposition was received from Lauren Merriam by the Deputy Clerk).

It was noted for the record that Dr. Dinesh Rao did not appear when called to speak.Charles Berk, SE 59th Street, attorney, advised that he had just built a home directly

across the street from the proposed project. He expressed concern in regard to roadconditions and traffic impact. Mr. Berk provided a brief overview of the nature of the area,noting it was primarily large tracts of land with horses and stated the proposed density wasnot compatible.

Darlene Weesner, SW 80th Street, commented on supply and demand, noting therewas no need to increase the density on the proposed property. She stated it was locatedon a very sensitive geologic area and requested the Board deny the request. Ms. Weesnersuggested the County remove the Urban Reserve designation.

Jeff Daum, SE 59th Street, advised that he moved to Ocala from Atlanta, Georgia,noting it was his belief that real estate developers had ruined that city and expressedconcern with rapid growth in Marion County. He noted the importance of sustaining thewater supply as well as maintaining infrastructure (fire/rescue, law enforcement, schools,etc.). Mr. Daum stated he had called 9-1-1 five times because of the high rate of speeddriven on the road (SE 59th Street), yet law enforcement never responded.

Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, representing members of the Shady GreenwayConservation Alliance, stated the requested land use change was inappropriate for thearea.

Sherry Strohmeyer, Serendipity Farms, commented on the differences between theSE 59th Street area and the Country Club of Ocala. She expressed concern that theproposed development would lower the value of surrounding homes.

Mr. Gooding stated in regard to the issue of needs the lots would be developedslowly (approximately 3 1/2 years). He noted the development would have centralizedwater and a decentralized system to provide more protection for the Springs than thesurrounding homes, which were on well and septic tanks. Mr. Gooding advised that therewere three choices: 1) grant the application with certain conditions imposed; 2) grant LowDensity Residential (1 unit per acre) with a maximum number of units of 18 (in order todevelop as a hamlet); or 3) deny the application.

Commissioner Kesselring questioned, whether staff would change its

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 283

recommendation based on the presentation by the applicant and the proposed Developer’sAgreement. Mr. Massey stated staff would still recommend denial based on the issues ofcompatibility, noting the predominant size of lots in the immediate area was greater than1 unit per acre. Commissioner Kesselring questioned how the County would reconcile theissue in order to expand into the urban service area. Mr. Massey stated there were no longterm plans by Marion County Utilities to provide services in the area and without thoseservices staff would not recommend a higher density.

In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Mr. Massey stated if the proposedComprehensive Plan Ordinance was currently in place, the project would exceed schoolcapacity. Commissioner Kesselring questioned whether SE 59th Street was below capacityin regard to LOS. Mr. Massey advised that because SE 59th Street was a slag road therewere no traffic counts, but noted one could assume it would be classified the same as SE52nd Street, which had a traffic count of 4,500. Commissioner Kesselring noted the Boardhad recommended no hamlets in the Urban Reserve and questioned if there were anyoptions to allow hamlet-like densities. Mr. Ganoe advised that the applicant would have toapply for Low Density Residential classification with a Developer’s Agreement that specifiedthe size of the lots allowed. Mr. Massey noted it was the intent of the Board to develophigher densities in the urban reserve areas, but noted it was also intended that centralwater and sewer be brought into the developments.

Commissioner McClain noted one of the reasons the Planning Departmentrecommended denial was that the proposed land use change was not consistent with theGreenway Corridor Study, which allowed for Low and Medium Density Residential andquestioned why it was not compatible. Mr. Ganoe advised that the reason was based onthe applicant’s original request for Medium Density Residential, noting each application wasconsidered on an individual basis and taking into consideration the larger surrounding lotsstaff felt it was not consistent.

Commissioner Fitos noted the proposal had merit and was based on how the Countywas going to decide to grow in the future, but believed it was premature at this time. Shecommented on the current process of updating the Comprehensive Plan to address criticalinfrastructure, capacity needs, school concurrency, etc. Commissioner Fitos stated moretime was needed for studies to be codified in order to let the development community seethe direction the County was headed toward.

A motion was made by Commissioner Fitos, seconded by Commissioner Stone, todeny transmittal to DCA on the proposed land use change from Urban Reserve to LowDensity Residential based on Planning Department staff and Planning Commission findingsand recommendations that the amendment would adversely affect the public interest, wasnot consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was not consistent with Chapter 163, FSand Rule 9J-5, FAC. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0).

Commissioner Kesselring questioned if the applicant would consider the opportunityof developing the property with a more hamlet-type density. Mr. Gooding stated theapplicant would consider developing at a Low Density Residential land use, which wouldcap the density at 18 units, but did not want to develop at a 5 acre minimum.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring to approve a Low DensityResidential land use with a total number of 18 units with the assumption of centralizedwater and a decentralized septic system.

Chairman Payton questioned if there would need to be a motion to reconsider theamendment request first. County Attorney Wright stated what was being discussed was an

March 5, 2008

Page 284, Book L

amended application.A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner

Kesselring, to reconsider Amendment No. 08-L02. The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, withChairman Payton, Commissioners Stone and Fitos voting nay.

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk received the following documentsin regard to 08-L02: a one page letter of opposition from William J. Rodgers III; two onepage letters of opposition from Greg Kelly dated January 25 and March 3, 2008; and a onepage email dated March 4, 2008 from Douglas Shearer in regard to 08-L02, 08-L03, 08-L05and 08-L21.

Comprehensive Plan - Assistant Planning Director Jimmy Massey presentedAmendment No. 08-L03 by TW&P Investments, LLC, owner, and Michael W. Radcliffe,Radcliffe Engineering, Inc., agent, for a land use change from Urban Reserve to HighDensity Residential on 12.9± acres, Commercial on 15.2± acres and Limited Commercialon 27.8± acres, for a total of 55.9+ acres with a Land Use Blend Overlay (LUBO) located1/4 mile north of CR 484 and east of I-75 on the west side of SW 16th Avenue in Section12, Township 17, Range 21. He stated the subject property was located within theGreenway Corridor Study Area and the request as submitted was inconsistent with thecorridor study. Mr. Massey advised that Planning Department staff’s recommendation ofdenial was based on two issues: 1) uncertainty of provisions for central water and sewer;and 2) provision of transportation related facilities, noting the only access proposed wasonto Shady Road and based on maximum development potential would exceed therecommended LOS.

Commissioner McClain questioned if the requirement would be to mitigate anytransportation concurrency issues. Mr. Massey concurred and noted the applicant wouldalso be required to provide whatever support services were needed to get the central waterand sewer in place. He advised that one of the elements considered by staff in regard tothe impact on facilities was whether or not there were any plans in the TransportationImprovement Plan (TIP) or the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) plan to providefacilities, which was factored into the conclusion.

Mike Radcliffe, SE Lake Weir Avenue, engineer representing the applicant, waspresent and stated the maps discussed at the Planning Commission meeting illustrated thearea and high points. He noted the original request for a Specialized Commerce Districtwas submitted at the end of October 2007 and the Greenway Corridor Study was approvedby the Board on November 6, 2007. Mr. Radcliffe advised that after the corridor study wasreviewed, revisions were made to the application to reflect mixed uses with the LUBO mapto conform to the Greenway Corridor Study.

Mr. Radcliffe advised that the Greenway Corridor Study had a mixed use commercialnode at the intersection of I-75 and CR 484. He advised that the map showed that thecommercial core (first band) radiated 1,320 feet out from the intersection, the mixed usearea (second band) of Professional Office, retail, commercial and residential uses radiated1/4 to 1/2 mile out and the potential for Medium Density Residential (third band) as may beapproved by the PUD zoning process, radiated out 1/2 to 3/4 mile. Mr. Radcliffe noted theproject application fit within the middle band and was consistent with the GreenwayCorridor Study, however Planning staff recommended denial. He stated at the February 6,2008 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted for approval and property ownerssupported the land use change. Mr. Radcliffe noted the needs analysis outlined in the staff

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 285

report did not convey the most accurate picture as it was based on Planning District 14. Hestated while it was located in the sparsely populated District 14 (approximately 8,000people), it was almost centrally located between four planning districts, providing a muchhigher populous within the radius that would actually use the goods and services occurringon the subject property. Mr. Radcliffe stated there was a minimum two year process fromthis point before construction of the building would occur as infrastructure must be in place.

Mr. Radcliffe commented on the horse park located 1 & 1/2 mile to the north of thesubject property and the provision of goods and services for those using the facility wereneeded to make it a success. He stated there was capacity for water and sewer, howevergetting it to the location was the issue and a Developer’s Agreement would have to beentered into before construction would commence during the two to three year process. Mr.Radcliffe noted there was County water and sewer approximately 1,000 feet from theproperty that would be extended. He stated Radcliffe Engineering had submitted plans fora force main upgrade to be constructed as part of the CR 484 project currently underway.Mr. Radcliffe stated the original plan was without water and sewer under the roadway,however the applicant was working with the Marion County Utilities to have the pipeinstalled at the appropriate time. He advised that the traffic study would be conducted byKimley-Horn and improvements to CR 475 south from the property would need to beaddressed and approved before moving forward. Mr. Radcliffe stated the LUBO had twoaccess points to the south and as properties to the south came online they would be relianton the County to require cross access and interconnection. He acknowledged theDeveloper’s Agreement was the current vehicle used by the County to bring infrastructureto the project and asked for confirmation of the Planning Commission’s approval of theproject.

In response to Commissioner Fitos, Mr. Radcliffe stated the property to the southin the Special Commerce District was zoned A-1 and did have an occupied privateresidence. Mr. Radcliffe stated the buffer for the high density residential piece (currently forsale) bordering the farmland to the north would be a 30 foot by 5 foot by 8 foot berm,double hedgerow and 4 trees per 100 feet, barring any changes.

Upon call for public comment, Doug Shearer, SE 85th Street, representing CitizensAgainst Urban Sprawl as well as owning a business approximately 1 & 1/2 miles from thesubject property, noted the Gammon’s owned a parcel in the area and were not in favor ofthe proposed land use change. Mr. Shearer commented on a recent zoning change thattook place on the land behind the Gammon farm (located adjacent to the Interstate) wherea recreational vehicle park was planned and the two changes would crowd them out. Hecommented on heavy traffic, dangerous road conditions and the proposed hotel entrancedenied by the County. Mr. Shearer stated the area was still waiting for a grocery store andquestioned how much commercial was needed since there was minimal density. He notedthe property was originally a horse farm and the current proposed land use change was notcompatible with the area, therefore he requested denial by the Board.

Shawn Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, stated he owned property north of the subject siteand commented on heavy traffic on CR 484. He addressed the need for commercial growthin the area, noting he was in favor of new growth and recommended approval of the landuse change.

Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, stated she and her husband owned Live OakAnimal Clinic located on CR 475A and noted the road was busy because of it being

March 5, 2008

Page 286, Book L

4-laned. She stated the parcel was not located in the commercial node set up by theComprehensive Plan. Ms. Shearer commented on the scenic, canopied two lane roads thatprovide unique character to the area. She stated the commerce area on the west side ofI-75 was not yet full and requested the Board deny the land use change.

Darlene Weesner, SW 80th Street, stated the signature industry of Marion Countywas horse farms that created spinoff jobs and services with a finite amount of landavailable to be equine utilized, as sandy, dry or wet areas were not appropriate for highquality equine production. She noted land became sandier on the west side of I-75 and hadbeen heavily developed over the last 25 years because of SR 200. Ms. Weesner stated theland east of I-75 was still pristine acreage with horse and cattle farms. She commented onleaving the geologically sensitive lands for agricultural and forest reuses and noted HighDensity Residential designation was not good for the County in this area and would allowfor a creeping in of degradation designation. Ms. Weesner opined no expansion ofcommercial or high density should ever be granted in this particular area as it should berural and requested denial of the land use change.

Pamela Waddell, SW 123rd Place, stated she was opposed to the development ofcommercial land in the area and requested Ocala be kept as the horse capital of the world.

Raven Walters, SW 16th Avenue, stated she owned a large horse farm and was infavor of development that would benefit the horse park and surrounding area.

Nan Bonfield, SW 16th Avenue, stated while she was unsure if the change proposedwas the correct one for the parcel, she agreed a land use change was needed. Shecommented on the difficulty of operating horse farms and hauling 15 horses at a time withingress/egress on CR 475A that had a 55 mph speed limit with heavy traffic flow (8,000cars per day). Ms. Bonfield stated her preference for something other than residential thatwould benefit the area, the horse community and Marion County.

Marian Halpin, SW 16th Avenue, stated riding her horse along the road to theGreenway was dangerous with traffic being so dense as well as the 55 mph speed limit,making it inappropriate to consider the amendment. She commented on the issue of trashalong the roadway and noted the road was unsuitable for large commercial expansion. Ms.Halpin stated the County was fortunate to have the horse park and should take advantageof the prosperity it would bring to Marion County, but the correct type of commercialenterprises and high quality facilities should be considered that would enhance theGreenway rather than more fast food restaurants. She stated she was not againstdevelopment in the area, however she was against the High Density Residential land usechange.

Linda Samuel, SW 107th Place/CR 475B, commented on the unique combinationof open spaces, peacefulness and serenity. She noted postponing the increase inpopulation density and commercialism would benefit the community as most residentswere willing to drive a little way to preserve the uniqueness of the area.

Mr. Radcliffe stated the hill on CR 475A was south of the property and the proposedroad took that into consideration. The Gammon’s driveway with ingress/egress below thecrest of the hill was the issue and better access to their property was needed. He noted theapplicant was proposing to extend a road to the property providing the choice of goingthrough the property rather than continuing to use their driveway. Mr. Radcliffe stated thesite distance issue would have to be resolved for the project to move forward. To the northand east of the property the soils (Candler) were more conducive to horse farms andhamlets. He agreed the strip center was not successful, but the plan was more consistent

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 287

with good planning and development today. In summary, Mr. Radcliffe reiterated that the proposed land use change was

consistent with the Greenway Study, the property fit in the middle of the commercial mixeduse node band, growth may be slow but would continue as there was a large populationbase radiating from the intersection. He requested Board approval and confirmation ofPlanning Commission approval, noting it was consistent with the County’s future plans.

Commissioner McClain questioned, in light of the Greenway Study, if the proposalfit the criteria for the band where it was located. Mr. Massey concurred.

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner Stone,to transmit the proposed land use change from Urban Reserve to High Density Residential,Commercial and Limited Commercial with a LUBO based on the Planning Commissionfindings and recommendations that the amendment would not adversely affect the publicinterest, was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was consistent with Chapter163, FS and Rule 9J-5, FAC.

Commissioner McClain stated the outer band was Low or Medium DensityResidential, then High Density Residential and moved into Commercial, which was whatthe County was trying to achieve by setting up the three bands around the intersection. Headvised that (as he lived in the area) when contemplating road construction and impactfees, it was about length of trips to reach a service and to meet daily needs, noting thecurrent options were to travel into Ocala or The Villages. Commissioner McClain stated theroads and water/sewer would have to be provided. Commissioner Fitos agreed withCommissioner McClain’s analysis in terms of fitting in with the step-down from theGreenway Corridor Study, but was concerned with access from CR 475A, noting today itwas not currently appropriate. She stated the single family residence zoned A-1 would besurrounded by commercial and questioned if it could be made contiguous with thecommercial development already fronting on CR 484, while securing a more stringentbuffer on the High Density Residential piece not only fronting CR 475A, but also the partthat fronted the more rural land to the north from lighting, noise mitigation, etc. In responseto Commissioner McClain, Mr. Massey stated this would be a blending overlay and therewould be an opportunity at zoning to review the layout and design, as it was required to gothrough the PUD process.

Chairman Payton stated there was unfortunately nothing else suitable for that pieceof property. He stated he was not in favor of CR 475A becoming ingress/egress as it wasnot the best situation, but as a practical matter he saw no other options and would supportthe motion. Chairman Payton called the question.

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0).It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk received the following documents

in regard to 08-L03: a one page email in opposition dated January 23, 2008 from Dr. LoriWarren; and a one page email dated March 4, 2008 from Douglas Shearer in regard to 08-L02, 08-L03, 08-L05 and 08-L21.

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director JimmyMassey presented Amendment No. 08-L04 by Ramputi-Butler Investments, Inc., owners,and W. James Gooding III, agent, for a land use change from Natural Reservation toMultifamily Residential High Density on 13.99+ acres located 1,000 feet east of SE 41st

Court on the southwest side of Juniper Court in Section 11, Township 16, Range 22. Hestated the Planning Department and Planning Commission both recommended denial (5-2).

March 5, 2008

Page 288, Book L

Mr. Massey advised that staff recommendation of denial was based on the issue of need.He noted the majority of the existing high density designated properties in the bandremained undeveloped and approximately 1,500 residential lots with 80% still vacant. Mr.Massey advised that central water/sewer services being provided at the site wereundetermined and a concern to staff.

Commissioner Kesselring out at 11:03 a.m.Commissioner McClain questioned how the parcel received Natural Reservation yet

was privately owned. Mr. Massey stated there were a number of parcels along theGreenway that were privately owned and policies existed that allowed properties to beconsidered rural within the boundary, therefore the request was from Rural Land use toMultifamily Residential High Density. In response to Commissioner Fitos, Mr. Masseyclarified the different zoning codes surrounding the parcel.

Commissioner Kesselring returned at 11:06 a.m.Commissioner Fitos questioned if the parcel to the west that was developed was

something called Conrad’s Wood Recycling and all the other land was platted lots. Mr.Massey stated Conrad’s Wood Recycling was located there and the lots were parcels ofrecord. In response to Commissioner Fitos, Mr. Massey advised that access would be offof Juniper Court.

Chairman Payton passed the gavel to Commissioner Kesselring who assumed theChair. Commissioner Payton out at 11:08 a.m.

Chairman Kesselring questioned if the applicant was present.Jimmy Gooding, SE 36th Avenue, attorney representing the applicant, appeared and

presented an aerial map entitled, “Marion County Data Viewer”, a 5 page Developer’sAgreement and a Letter from the City of Belleview regarding water and sewer availability.He stated he had confirmed with Ms. Weesner that most of the natural reservation land useparcels were in private ownership and not public land. Mr. Gooding advised that the landidentified by staff as Rural or Natural Reservation land use contained a Construction &Debris (C&D) or regular landfill and was not what would typically be recognized as ruralproperty. He noted the land was intensely developed property and staff did not raisecompatibility in the analysis. Mr. Gooding advised that it was an entirely different productthan what the applicant proposed.

Commissioner Payton returned at 11:12 a.m. Chairman Kesselring returned thegavel to Commissioner Payton who resumed the Chair.

Mr. Gooding stated staff raised a concern with water and sewer, noting the parcelwas located in the City of Belleview water and sewer area. He stated Silver Springs Shores,Unit 24 was to the east of the parcel and currently on well and septic, noting there was asignificant number of undeveloped lots. Mr. Gooding commented on the development tothe south paying a utility easement to come through the property so that one day the Cityof Belleview could run lines into Unit 24. He stated his client had designed a utility systemthat would run the water and sewer lines into Unit 24 and up to the property, thus openingup the entire area for central water and sewer. This would allow homes that wouldotherwise be on well and septic tanks to be developed on central water and sewer at thedeveloper’s expense to run the lines. Mr. Gooding stated the letter from the City ofBelleview confirmed the parcel was in its service territory and upon execution of theappropriate Developer’s Agreement, the City of Belleview could provide service to theproposed development. He stated this was the type of project that should be encouragedby Marion County. Mr. Gooding summarized by stating the proposed land use change was

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 289

compatible with the area, with a landfill adjacent to the property, as well as other highdensity next to them and proposed to bring significant central water and sewer utilities thatwould open up an entire area. He noted that the Table (bottom of page 6 of 7) showed 112acres of High Density Residential of which only 10% was vacant so there appeared to bea large amount that had been approved. Mr. Gooding reiterated that the product in the HighDensity Residential area to the east (going into Unit 24) was a different product (primarilytownhouses, triplexes, quads) than what was being proposed today (apartments) and notedwhile they were on well and septic, this proposal provided central water and sewer. Hestated there was a need for this type of product to be in that location. The County hadidentified the need to hook up vested lots to water and sewer and until the County couldfind a funding mechanism to provide for it, the developers would have to bear the burden.Mr. Gooding noted in this instance here was a developer with compatible property in anappropriate area for the type of land use it was seeking, willing to undertake that burdenand run water and sewer lines a very long distance that would open up the other area forseparate utilities. He requested a transmittal of the proposed amendment to DCA.

Commissioner Kesselring questioned how the school capacity issue was beingaddressed. Mr. Gooding stated the school capacity issue would have to be addressed asfar as the concurrency analysis. The School Board proposed a new middle school belocated on Maricamp Road (next to the Post Office), which would alleviate some of it andthe rest would have to be dealt with as part of the regular school concurrency analysisaddressed with the School Board under the new Interlocal Agreement. CommissionerKesselring stated the School Board did not want the County to approve anything that wouldraise the capacity over 100% and questioned how to approach the issue. Mr. Goodingcommented on Osceola Middle School having a 148% capacity that the School Board hadtolerated for years while maintaining they were properly educating children. CommissionerKesselring noted it was also the best rated school. Mr. Gooding acknowledged that theSchool Board had provided the capacity numbers, noting the impact fee was set at a levelvastly below what anyone expected in adjacent counties. Commissioner Kesselringquestioned if the thought process was that if the development would put it over 100%capacity, basically the concurrency would be met by paying money. Mr. Goodingconcurred, stating it would cost about $7,000 to $8,000 per unit, but a credit was givenagainst the impact fee (probably paid up front) so the net consequence was paying it earlyand paying twice as much as it would otherwise have been and that money went into aschool building fund.

Commissioner Kesselring questioned if the capacity issues listed were based onpermanent student stations (excluding portables). Mr. Massey agreed, noting the numberswere provided by the School Board. Commissioner Kesselring stated that was the truestpicture based on what the County anticipated addressing.

Upon call for public comment, Darlene Weesner, SW 80th Street, stated she hadworked extensively for years to complete the Greenway as a wildlife corridor and creategood will for the State to be able to purchase the property in what was called the SantosGap. She noted the State owned land almost to the Gulf as part of the Greenway Corridor.Ms. Weesner stated the Silver Springs Shores high density designation was made manyyears ago and had been vacant for 20 plus years, until recently. Bears and other wildlifehad been seen by residents on a 40 acre piece of land that needed to be preserved. Shestated she was trying to obtain national scenic designation for the Santos area to receiveFederal money for development of the history and resources in the area. Ms. Weesner

March 5, 2008

Page 290, Book L

noted a high density designation would compromise the natural preservation of theGreenway, which was a tremendous economic advantage for the County and would hedgeagainst over developing the area. She stated the area needed to be enhanced with Bed &Breakfast establishments, preserving the natural environment, while supporting the trailsutilized by hikers, horseback riders and bicyclists and requested denial of the land usechange.

Cathy Priest, SE 79th Street, advised that she previously submitted a letter to theBoard as well as the Planning Commission regarding her opposition to the land usechange. She noted she purchased her home in an A-2 rather than an A-1 zone becauseshe wanted some restrictions on the land, but never expected the proposed developmentto be so close to her backyard. Ms. Priest requested the Board deny the proposed land usechange.

Guy Marwick, NE 1st Street Road, commended the Board on its second review ofthe landfill issue. He stated philosophically the Greenway and conservation areas shouldbe buffered and have transitional zoning up to them as it seemed overdone for an areanestled in the Greenway Corridor.

Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, member of the Shady Greenway ConservationAlliance, stated the Greenway was a diamond that needed to be protected and buffered forfuture generations. She requested the Board ensure that occurred. Ms. Shearer stated itwas unneeded development and recommended waiting a year for a better perspective inlocating development to appropriate areas. She asked that the Board deny the request fora land use change.

Mr. Gooding stated he disagreed with Ms. Weesner’s comments regarding theState’s interest in purchasing the land for preservation as the parcel that protruded from thenatural reserve was isolated as an island, had high density residential to the north and eastof it with a landfill to the west. He advised in response to Mr. Marwick and Ms. Shearer’scomments that it would not buffer the Greenway, but would in fact provide a buffer betweenhigh density residential and the landfill. Mr. Gooding stated the parcel was not suitable fora buffer or a Bed & Breakfast next to a landfill. He noted it was compatible with thesurrounding property, was exactly what the County should want in that location andpipelines for central water and sewer would be installed at the applicant’s expense to alarger area (Silver Springs Shores Unit 24).

Commissioner Kesselring stated it was unclear if the conceptual plan addressedsome of the larger lots directly south that was not part of Silver Springs Shores. He noted1) it would have to come back for zoning; and 2) questioned if it would it be developed asa PUD. Mr. Gooding stated it could be an R-3 zoning classification.

Mr. Gooding stated a six to eight foot vegetative or solid buffer along the southernportion of the project was promised to the landowners, however it was left out of theDeveloper’s Agreement, but would be added when it came back from DCA. CommissionerKesselring stated in addition to the screen some space was needed and may be an issueaddressed later, assuming the Board approved transmittal. He questioned the absence ofschool concurrency in the proposal. Mr. Gooding advised it was removed because of theInterlocal Agreement, which was about to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Henoted it could be added if the Board wanted it included.

Commissioner McClain questioned the buffering requirement. Mr. Gooding statedthe required buffer was six to eight feet solid vegetation or a wall buffer along the southboundary.

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 291

A motion was made by Commissioner Fitos, seconded by Commissioner McClain,to disagree with the Planning Department and Planning Commission and transmit theproposed land use change from Natural Reservation to Multifamily Residential High Densityto DCA based on findings that the amendment would not adversely affect the publicinterest, was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was consistent with Chapter163, FS and Rule 9J-5.

Commissioner Fitos stated it would provide necessary housing, a buffer to theGreenway, would address the critical issue of water and sewer for the area, was notcontiguous to the plan for the Greenway, would provide the right kind of buffer and, ifdesigned properly, would be a viable piece of development.

Commissioner McClain agreed with the stated reasons for approving the motion andnoted a discussion with Deputy Secretary Bob Ballard, Land and Recreation, Departmentof Environmental Protection, revealed that it would be a stretch for the State to considerpurchasing the parcel due to limited funds. Commissioner McClain stated his preferencewas to have central water and sewer on a project of this nature with higher density.

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0).It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk received: a one page letter of

opposition dated March 3, 2008 from Catherine A. Priest.

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director JimmyMassey presented Amendment No. 08-L05 by Sandy McBride, Trustee, owner, and W.James Gooding III, agent, for an initial land use change from Rural Land to Medium DensityResidential on 986.63+ acres. He stated the application was amended to reduce thenumber to approximately 298± acres with a limit on the density to 2 dwelling units per acreor approximately 600 units. Mr. Massey stated the property was located 2/3 mile east ofSW 180th Avenue Road and west of the Marion County-Dunnellon Airport on the northernside of CR 484 in Sections 20, 22, 27, 29, 32, 34, Township 16, Range 19.

Mr. Massey advised that the site had a platted, large lot single family residentialsubdivision referred to as Blue Run Ranches, which allowed the existing lots to be split fora total of 64 lots that could currently be developed on the entire 986± acre site. He notedthe Planning staff initially recommended denial, which was unchanged. Mr. Massey statedthe proposed land use was compatible to the Specialized Commerce District in the area,however the corridor study along US 41 showed this property as rural (a reflection of whatwas already approved). He noted some recurring issues were: 1) no indication given byCounty Utilities Department that there were any planned facilities to service this site forwater and sewer; 2) no plans for expansion of CR 484 in the area (within the next 10 years)in Marion County’s TIP or Department of Transportation (DOT), noting there would beanticipated traffic impacts from this scale of development; and 3) the needs analysisshowed within a three mile radius approximately 15,000 lots with 10,000 still vacant. Mr.Massey reiterated that the proposed land use was generally compatible with some of theland uses in the area (particularly to the east), however Marion County had no plans toprovide water and sewer in the area and noted the preponderance of existing plattedvacant lots was the basis of staff’s recommendation for denial. He stated the PlanningCommission recommended approval (4-3), with the general consensus showing supportfor water and sewer, as proposed by the developer, being brought to the site. Mr. Masseystated the Planning Commission consideration when viewing some of the compatible usesas well as the fact the developer proposed to serve the site with central water and sewer

March 5, 2008

Page 292, Book L

led the recommendation for approval to be forwarded to the Board. Jimmy Gooding, SE 36th Avenue, attorney representing the applicant, appeared and

stated that the amended application reduced the acreage to 298± (lower portion) of the986± acre site, which was adjacent to the airport. He noted the city limits for the City ofDunnellon was the western boundary of the property, which had an urban land use of oneunit per 10 acres. He stated the issue was not compatibility, but rather water/sewer, trafficand need.

Mr. Gooding stated the developer originally proposed installing a water and sewerplant on the site to serve the City of Dunnellon (everything east of the river), however theCity was not in favor. He noted the developer was still planning to build a facility on the site,but the County Utility Department indicated a preference to run water and sewer from SR200 down CR 484, which was a distance of 5 to 6 miles. Mr. Gooding stated there was nowa Developer’s Agreement requiring water and sewer, however he opined that was anunnecessary obligation to undertake as the County would never allow the density todevelop without water and sewer; nevertheless his client was prepared to proceed.

Mr. Gooding presented the Developer’s Agreement and addressed the issue inregard to traffic on CR 484, noting the developer was not at the concurrency reservationstage, but at the planning stage and would need to provide a more detailed analysis thanwhat had been completed.

Traffic Consultant Jonathan Thigpen, Kimley- Horn & Associates, Inc., SE 25th Loop,stated the project would not be able to go vertical without maintaining the level of servicestandards (LOSS) on CR 484. He advised that based on general analysis, there wereapproximately 10,000 cars per day on CR 484 and the LOSS was C, with available capacityin near term growth rates to be addressed, historic growth rates versus what could beexpected in the future and build out time frame of the project were all factors that woulddetermine what traffic improvements were needed. Mr. Thigpen advised the level of detailhad not yet been reached, but was willing to participate in the process and would do so inconjunction with staff.

Mr. Gooding stated that either Dunnellon middle or high school had a package plantthey wanted to get rid of and the developer was interested in assisting in that effort. Henoted in regard to the need analysis that Mr. Massey pointed out there were a hugenumber of undeveloped lots in that part of the County. Mr. Gooding stated that none ofthose lots were on water and sewer except for Cool Springs and Juliet Falls, noting thiswould be the only central utilities east of the river. He stated from a planning perspective,the urban densities should be on central water and sewer located between the airport andthe City boundaries. Mr. Gooding stated as a final point the Airport Manager raised theissue of residents complaining about the airport being next to the development and advisedthe applicant had included in the Developer’s Agreement a provision for an abrogationeasement, which would be provided before the property was developed.

Mr. Gooding summarized by acknowledging the applicant wanted the airport to bedeveloped as did the County, but also wanted appropriate adjacent growth. He noted theproject was lower scale (600 units) than previously proposed and would appreciatetransmittal to DCA.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring to agree with Planning staff todeny the land use change as he was unconvinced of the need. Chairman Payton advisedthat a motion was out of order.

Chairman Payton stated that the discussion by the Board was that the water and

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 293

sewer system would be run from the intersection of SR 200 and CR 484, however that wasnot what was stated in the Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Gooding stated they would run ithowever the Board deemed appropriate and would incorporate that into the Developer’sAgreement.

Mayor Fred Ward, City of Dunnellon, appeared and stated that the Dunnellon CityCouncil was not against growth, but rather was concerned for the quality of life. He notedthe County sold the property (zoned A-1 with a density of 1 unit per 10 acres) to the Cityof Dunnellon and they were in the process of changing the City’s Comprehensive Plan landuse to be compatible with the County’s land use of 1 unit per 10 acres. Mayor Wardcommented on the very long and arduous process and noted the Commissioners wereperforming a study for usage of the airport. He commented on the four SpecializedCommerce Districts he had seen (CR 318 at I-75, CR 326 at I-75, CR 484 at I-75 and 3small parcels by the airport). Mayor Ward commented on the land use change on a parcelowned by Sandy McBride that was approved by a 3-2 vote for a zoning change to B-5/M-1(the original request was for B-5/M-2) at the last Board meeting, which seemed prematureif the County was implementing a usage study of the airport. He stated he was encouragedby the smaller amount of units and acreage on the amendment, knowing the remainder ofthe parcel would be addressed in a Developer’s Agreement, however he did not recognizean urgency of need. Mayor Ward noted the schools were over capacity with Dunnellon Highat 138% and the middle and elementary schools were between 113% to 138%. He advisedthis had a tremendous impact on the City of Dunnellon with a tax base of 2,000 residents.

Mayor Ward stated he wanted to correct the statement earlier by Mr. Gooding thatthe sewer plant was on the east side of the river. He commented on the impact to such asmall city without at least revisiting the Interlocal Agreement with the Fire Department andSheriff as the City of Dunnellon could not continue to absorb the surrounding urbanization.Mayor Ward requested the Board take into consideration the Dunnellon City Council’sviews and concerns. He stated the hope was for Dunnellon to be a world class small town,which would not occur without regional cooperation. Mayor Ward commented on the studythe city performed within a six mile radius that showed the amount of vacant lots to be triplethe amount Mr. Massey stated. He agreed with the Planning Commission that approvalwould open the area up for sprawl and would be a very expensive proposition. Mayor Wardstated the City of Dunnellon could run a force line to the location and connect the propertyto its system. He summarized by stating this was premature and if the Board could notdeny it, then at least table it until after the airport study was completed.

Chairman Payton commented on a recent article in the Star Banner newspaperwhere Mayor Ward was quoted regarding Board votes. Mayor Ward acknowledged makingthe statement in a different context than what was written.

Commissioner Stone out at 12:08 p.m.Bob Matthews, SW 111th Street, Dunnellon, stated he did not object to growth, but

to residents owning homes around airports and commented on his experience withresidential development being close to a southern New Jersey airport and the issues thatarose. Mr. Matthews commented on the aeronautical easement used at the Ocala Airportand recommended changing all home sales contracts within a five mile radius of an airportto contain language advising the airport was there and had a right to exist so that futureobjection could not arise. He noted when CR 484 developed and the turnpike camethrough, the airport would grow and the noise would increase.

Commissioner Stone returned at 12:10 p.m.

March 5, 2008

Page 294, Book L

Mr. Matthews stated an aeronautical easement that precluded being able to sue fornoise or complaints developed at the airport was absolutely critical and future home buyersshould be aware before buying property in the area.

It was noted for the record that Doug Shearer was not present.Paul Marraffino, SW 82nd Place Road, Dunnellon, appeared and stated his

opposition to the proposed land use change because of the property location next to theairport. He noted while the modified plan was limited to the left part of the “L” shapedproperty, the agreement contained words about “phasing in” and showed continuing lotsfor the completion of the “L” as being in the long range plan of the developer. He stated itwas too close to the airport to have a development and requested the Board vote for denial.

Guy Marwick, NE 1st Street Road, Silver Springs, stated more sewage treatmentplants that brought in more residents and more water use was not necessarily a good ideafor the area. He commented on the water cautionary areas springing up throughout theState along with the County concern for the Withlacoochee and Rainbow Rivers. Mr.Marwick noted his concern with thousands of people (doubling the size of Dunnellon) usingtwice as much water from the County. He noted the number of vested lots was immenseand there was no need. Mr. Marwick stated that subdivisions around the head of RainbowSprings should never have occurred as it was in the primary zone and the springshed,noting Rainbow Springs was suffering. He noted piped in water and sewer was better thanseptic tanks, but if there was a smaller treatment plant then there was a much smallernumber of people with a smaller impact. Mr. Marwick stated the County should never fill inthe area around the airport needed for future expansion. He noted too many exceptionshad been made to the Comprehensive Plan when there were enough vested properties andrequested denial of the land use change.

Margaret Longhill, Palmetto Court, Dunnellon, thanked Commissioner Fitos for hercomments on how the County would grow being the bottom line. She stated three elementsof the Dunnellon Comprehensive Plan had come back from DCA and the first ORC Reportwas received, which showed very recently they were able to succeed in changingDunnellon’s agricultural density to match Marion County’s (1 unit per 10 acres) and nowthis application wanted 20 units on 10 acres. She pointed out this development would beon top of the recharge area of the aquifer. This type of development had proven to causeurban sprawl. Staff had stated that CR 484 was a Level C and from Dunnellon to SR 200it became worse every day. She requested the Board listen to staff and deny theapplication.

Darlene Weesner, SE 80th Street, stated the Dunnellon Airport was strategicallylocated to serve several counties. She commented that a task force to determineplacement of a regional airport several years ago determined it would be financiallyimpossible (no matter how much population growth) to have a major airport similar toTampa or Orlando. Ms. Weesner opined with energy and fuel changes, the airport couldbecome quite important. She stated the Dunnellon Airport was a free gift from the Federalgovernment after World War II. Ms Weesner questioned why compromise the futurediversity or options of the airport by allowing such density to be so close.

Burton Eno, SW 193rd Circle, referred to a letter he previously submitted outliningobjections to the proposal, as follows: 1) difficulty of services from Dunnellon; 2)overcapacity of schools; 3) traffic; 4) environment; 5) located in the primary Springsprotection zone; and 6) Rainbow River, which was one mile from the proposeddevelopment and clearly in the recharge area. He indicated this would represent a loss of

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 295

open space and farmland (that would provide the recharge) to replenish the aquifer. Mr. Eno noted it was 8+ miles from any sewer and water facility and there were

10,000 vacant lots in the vicinity. He noted Dunnellon had deliberately maintained its ruralzoning on the west side of the property and the County need not impact it with this type ofdevelopment. Mr. Eno stated Dunnellon had recently completed the second phase of agrant project to service homes with central water and sewer and take residents off of septictanks. He noted the Ocala airport would be a good place to establish an industrial park andsetting the area around the Dunnellon airport as a Special Commerce District appeared tobe a mistake. Mr. Eno opined this was not smart growth, but sprawl and the downturn inthe economy was a good opportunity to determine the sustainable economy for the County.He stated continuing to depend on growth for the economy was a mistake and highertechnology should be considered. Mr. Eno stated the growth industry brought manylaborers that did not necessarily add to a strong economy for the County.

Art Ross, SW 99th Lane, appeared and stated that there were five package plantseast of the river. He stated he was opposed to the amendment as there was no need fordevelopment. Mr. Ross commented on a new development in the area that was currentlynot selling any lots and reflected on the thousands of currently vacant lots within a 3 to 5mile radius of the area. He noted the lack of infrastructure was an ongoing problem. Mr.Ross questioned if the Board had considered another fire station on CR 484 between SR200 and Dunnellon. He suggested rather than an industrial complex, turning the airport intoanother airport community similar to Jumbolair so there would be no noise complaints. Mr.Ross questioned if any study had been conducted regarding hazardous waste or ordinancedisposal from the vicinity of the World War II airport.

Nicki Connors, Palmetto Lane, Dunnellon, stated she was speaking as a residentand echoed the many concerns heard today by others as well as the quality of life forherself, her family and her many neighbors. She requested the Board deny the application.

Susan Woods, NW 90th Avenue, stated every new house built in northwest MarionCounty compromised recharge for the Rainbow River and Rainbow Springs.

Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, stated the development was not needed at thistime. She stated the two reasons for the decrease of individuals moving to Florida was dueto the diminishing quality of life. Ms. Shearer stated the County needed to do somethingwith the vested lots and ensure that whatever was approved was appropriate to thesurrounding neighborhoods, therefore she requested denial of the amendment.

Mr. Gooding summarized by stating the property was purchased from an individualand not the County. He noted after a brief discussion today between Mayor Ward and Mr.McBride there were no plans to ever seek to change the land use on the property andwould be willing to commit to that in the Developer’s Agreement. Mr. Gooding advised theproject was large enough to provide for school concurrency and could donate land for a firestation to meet the infrastructure needs of the County. He addressed the confusionregarding the sewer plants on the east side of the river and stated the correct statementwas that there was no sewer capacity (not sewer facilities) east of the river. Mr. Goodingstated because of the number of vacant lots was exactly the reason why this project shouldbe approved, as it would allow the vested lots access to the central water and sewer facilityand running it down CR 484 was a good idea.

Mr. Gooding commented on being the author of the abrogation easementsmentioned by Mr. Matthews and welcomed the changes as recommended. He opined thathaving the homes there would help, not hurt the airport. He commented on it being a

March 5, 2008

Page 296, Book L

shorter drive for the project residents than other residents in the County to get to theairport. Mr. Gooding stated the Primary Springs Protection Zone (SPZ) included most ofOcala and the City of Dunnellon and was not put there to preclude growth, but to provideadditional overlay protection to govern development. He noted this was a different type ofproduct than the vested lots, central water and sewer utilities were needed in the areas, itwas contiguous to the city limits of Dunnellon, it was the type of urban development theCounty should encourage and therefore requested approval of the land use change.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerStone, to deny the proposed land use change from Rural Land to Medium DensityResidential based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that theamendment would adversely affect the public interest, was not consistent with theComprehensive Plan and was not consistent with Chapter 163, FS and Rule 9J-5 FAC.

Commissioner Fitos questioned, assuming nothing was decided today, what couldbe done on the property. Mr. Massey advised that it was properly zoned and currently hada platted subdivision with each 30 acre lot allowed to split one time for a maximum of 64lots (all lots on “L” shaped piece). Commissioner Fitos stated she would argue that thedensities were not compatible with the surrounding Specialized Commerce District. Mr.Massey agreed, but stated the 1 unit per 20 acres versus the 1 unit per 30 acres wasgenerally compatible with rural lands. Commissioner Fitos stated that it may be time toconvene a joint meeting with the Dunnellon City Council and the BCC to discuss issues ofsustainability, goals and objectives for both entities as to how it correlated to the broaderpicture for growth and development. She commented on the incompatible zoning for theSpecial Commerce District being grandfathered in (in 1992) when the Comprehensive Planwas prepared. Commissioner Fitos stated she did not agree that development of the 298±acres, while leaving 700+ acres as rural land, to be urban sprawl since it bordered the citylimits of Dunnellon. Commissioner Fitos stated it would be beneficial, rather than to approveor deny the application today, to have the discussion on the long range vision for Dunnellonand the County to determine how the development could be compatible.

Commissioner Kesselring disagreed, noting when driving SW 180th Road (HighSchool Road) it was all rural land and almost everything on the east side of the river wasthe last opportunity to preserve the Rainbow River. Commissioner Kesselring stated eventhough the Dunnellon city limits were there did not mean it was an urban area. He notedeven if the 30 acre lots were divided once to 15 acre parcels, it was absolutely compatiblewith the surrounding area. Commissioner Kesselring commented Rolling Hills should neverhave been developed in the area and if the Board believed that more subdivisions of thisnature would not change the small town dynamics of Dunnellon, it was mistaken.

Chairman Payton called the question. The motion was approved by the Board by avote of 4-1, with Chairman Payton voting nay.

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk received the following documentsin regard to 08-L05: an email dated February 28, 2008 from Nathan Garcia including anarticle entitled, “City Won’t Rollover for Blue Run Ranches” by Pat Faherty; a two pageletter dated January 28, 2008 from Mayor Fred Ward and the City Council of Dunnellon;an email dated March 3, 2008 from Ron McAndrew; an email dated March 3, 2008 fromRobert R. Burke; an email dated March 3, 2008 from Susan von Ammon; an email datedMarch 3, 2008 from K. Chesterfield; an email dated March 4, 2008 from Cheryn Conly; a2 page letter dated February 19, 2008 from Burton E. Eno; and an email dated March 4,2008 from Douglas Shearer in regard to 08-L02, 08-L03, 08-L05 and 08-L21.

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 297

There was a recess at 12:50 p.m.The meeting resumed at 2:01 p.m. with all members present.

Comprehensive Plan - Assistant Planning Director Massey presented AmendmentNo. 08-L07 by Castro Realty Holdings, LLC; Austin International Realty, LLC; and HalcyonHills, LLC, owners, Steven H. Gray, agent, for a land use change from Urban Reserve toMedium Density Residential (with a well site) on 3+ acres located one mile north of US 27and easterly of NW 90th Avenue in Section 25, Township 14, Range 20. He noted both staffand the Planning Commission recommended approval (7-0).

Mr. Massey noted the amendment was associated with a previously approvedrequest that was found in compliance by DCA. He advised that the request was the resultof a Comprehensive Plan requirement for well pipes of a certain size.

Steven Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorney representing the applicant, was present andnoted the request was a follow up to a prior approval. He stated the well site was for asubregional water treatment plant to serve the Castro and other projects. Mr. Gray provideda brief history of the Castro property, noting the original plan was to expand the County’sGolden Ocala facility and pump to the subject site. He stated the current preference of theUtility Department was for the applicant to construct a subregional water plant, which theCounty would own upon completion. Mr. Gray noted Ashley Farms had also constructeda subregional plant and a triangulated set (of three plants) would provide the County withcomplete redundancy within the system. He commented on the Utility Department requiringall developers to construct facilities with the same design. Mr. Gray stated a 12-inch wellwould be involved along with another that would result in a total dimension of the two wellsthat would put them in a category where approval as a Map Amendment was required. Heopined that it was primarily to enable the County to keep track of where the wells werelocated.

Mr. Gray stated a larger area was dedicated than where the actual well site wouldbe located. He stated his client was in the process of other test wells to determine theactual location and once finalized the site would be reduced to approximately a 3 to 5 acreparcel. Mr. Gray noted the facilities was approximately a $3,000,000 expenditure, whichincluded the wells, tank and other improvements. He presented a map entitled, “WaterTreatment Site Exhibit” prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., which addressed theparcel the application covered. Mr. Gray noted there were several reasons for the location,one being that it was basically at the top of a hill and another was that Mr. Plumley (whosupported the project) owned all of the property to the south of the well field site. Headvised that the well field was backed 350 feet off of NW 90th Avenue and also had a 200foot natural buffer along 90th. Mr. Gray stated he did not believe the facility would be visiblefrom the roadway. He stated he could answer any technical questions the Board may haveat this time.

Mr. Gray noted DCA found the Amendment in compliance. Subsequent to that date,four individuals had filed a pro se appeal of the DCA findings, which was now pending.DCA’s next step would be to either forward the Appeal to the Department of AdministrativeHearings to be heard before a Hearings Examiner or DCA may review the pleadings todetermine whether sufficient and may return the pleadings to request that it be re-pled toproper standing. He stated he did not know which step DCA had taken, noting he wouldintervene in the case, which was the normal procedure. The fact that an Appeal had been

March 5, 2008

Page 298, Book L

submitted to DCA’s Notice of Intent could not be a factor in the Board determining whetherthe land use change for a well site was appropriate. Mr. Gray noted there were severalreasons, one of which was that if for some reason the DCA’s Notice of Finding inCompliance was reversed then the well field would not be constructed and if not reversedthen approval was warranted due to the long process to obtain the pre-engineering work.He stated he did not know if the Appellate’s were aware of the standard of review of a DCANotice of Intent as finding a case to be in compliance was very difficult to overcomebecause the legal standard of that review was not a greater weight of evidence on issues,but rather whether there was any reasonable basis for DCA’s actions in finding theAmendment was in compliance. Mr. Gray advised that he was very confident that DCA hada reasonable basis to find the Amendment in compliance.

Mr. Massey noted as a point of reference, that Ashley Farms (as referred to by Mr.Gray) was in direct relation to the Castro property, which would provide a triangularrelationship to services. Mr. Gray pointed out the location of the Golden Ocala facility,which would achieve an almost perfect triangle with the Castro subregional plant.

Upon call for public comment, Susan Woods, NW 90th Avenue, commented on herunderstanding of last year’s land use petition (07-L25), which was that water would besupplied by the Golden Ocala facility. She noted her concerns were with environmentalthreats that may be caused by the quantity of water being taken from a sensitive karst andrecharge area as well as the proximity of a documented swallet. Ms. Woods questioned ifit was the Board’s intent to require the proposed development to utilize the County’s waterfacility to protect Springs recharge and why it had not required an environmental impactstudy, soil samples, test boring and ground penetrating radar (GPR) prior to approval, aswell as consideration of the nature of the clay soil. She presented 3 pages of notes whichaddressed her comments.

Tony Beresford, NW 90th Avenue, noted his concern with the location of the well. Hestated the original presentation addressed a 200 foot conservation buffer to surround thesubject property and it appeared that the well was in the middle of the conservation area.Mr. Beresford commented on plans to build a water holding facility and recommended theapplication not be transmitted. He also questioned when the Transfer of DevelopmentRights (TDR) would be provided.

Mr. Gray briefly responded in regard to the Conservation Easements, which wasagreed upon a 200 foot easement along NW 90th Avenue and a 100 foot easement alongthe remainder of the boundary that did not back up to Golden Hills. He reiterated that theproposed site was 350 feet off of NW 90th Avenue and the well or any improvements wouldnot be within the 100 feet conservation area. Mr. Gray advised that he was referring to thetop of the hill on the subject property, not the top of the hill on Mr. Plumley’s property. Hestated the improvements would not be visible from US Highway 27.

Richard Bush, SE 25th Loop, professional engineer, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.,noted an environmental impact assessment would be conducted including drilling test wellsto determine the quality of the water, the different strata of soil underneath the ground,depth, etc. He stated if a three acre site was selected at this point there would not beenough data to identify something that small that would be bound by some kind of land useor special use overlay, however work could be performed within the confines of a largerarea and based upon what was found. Mr. Bush advised that all issues previouslymentioned were heavily regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)and assuming approval, those would be the next steps to be taken. He noted it would be

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 299

a collaborative effort with the Utilities Department as the facility would eventually be ownedby the County.

In response to Commissioner Kesselring, Mr. Gray stated the plant would be built,the wells installed, all permits would be obtained followed by a maintenance period afterwhich it would be conveyed to Marion County. Mr. Gray noted the same was true on theforce main system. Commissioner Kesselring questioned if there was no change in theamount of water being pumped. Mr. Gray concurred, noting the well would penetrate theconfining layers and would not be withdrawing water from the surficial layer, which waswhere most private wells were located. He advised that the facility would not be drawingfrom the same water source as private wells. Commissioner Kesselring questioned theTDR’s. Mr. Gray stated the TDR’s were available and commented on the Appeal, notingthe intent was to file the TDR’s when applying for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)zoning classification.

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to transmit the proposed land use change from Urban Reserve to Medium DensityResidential to DCA based on Planning Department staff and Planning Commission findingsand recommendations that the amendment would not adversely affect the public interest,was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and was consistent with Chapter 163, FS andRule 9J-5, FAC. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0).

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director Masseypresented Amendment No. 08-L08 by H. Randolph and Susan P. Klein, Trustees, owners,Steven H. Gray, agent, for a land use change from Rural Land to Medium DensityResidential on 10+ acres located 1/4 mile west of I-75 and south of SW 80th Street inSection 15, Township 16, Range 21. He noted staff recommended denial, however thePlanning Commission recommended approval (7-0).

Mr. Massey noted staff basis for denial was that the application was not consistentwith the SR 200 Corridor Study as well as the applicant had not demonstrated the need foradditional residential units. He stated the subject site was located within an urban area, butthere was also an abundance of vacant properties (commercial and residential) that hadnot yet been developed. Mr. Massey commented on events occurring in the area, such asexpansion of utilities, construction of SW 95th Street (from SW 60th Avenue to SR 200) andthe area could be generally characterized as urban even though it did not have an urbanland use category, which was a plus. The same could be said as being a negative as therewas an abundance of undeveloped residential properties in the area.

Chairman Payton stated there appeared to be a disconnect between the PlanningDepartment and Planning Commission and inquired if there was any circumstance thatwould have made staff agreeable. Mr. Massey advised that the main basis was the amountof current versus future inventory and opined that the Planning Commission considered thecompatibility of what was occurring in the area.

Steve Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorney representing the applicant, was present andstated his comments would apply to the next few applications (08-L08 and 08-L09). Hepresented 2 maps, one (aerial) was entitled, “Freedom Crossings Proposed Developments”and the other had no title.

Mr. Massey advised that he could read Amendment 08-L09 into the record, notingboth were adjacent to one another. It was the general consensus of the Board to concur.

Assistant Planning Director Massey presented Amendment No. 08-L09 by Paul A.

March 5, 2008

Page 300, Book L

Louis; Karen A. Skinner, Trustees, owners, Steven H. Gray, agent, for a land use changefrom Rural Land to Medium Density Residential on 50+ acres located 1/4 mile west of I-75and south of SW 80th Street in Section 15, Township 16, Range 21. He noted staffrecommended denial, however the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-1).

Mr. Massey noted staff recommended denial for the same reasons as 08-L08. In response to Chairman Payton, the Board agreed to hear both Amendments

concurrently. Mr. Gray advised that the property owner’s also agreed, noting the intent wasto merge the properties and briefly commented on the history of the parcels. He stated theparcels were the missing notch of the Bradford Farms project. Mr. Gray addressed theroadway intersection of SW 80th Street that would be perpendicular to SW 49th Avenue andbelieved would also create a perpendicular intersection with SW 80th Street for the frontageroad of I-75. He advised that SW 49th Avenue would be a 4-lane roadway, noting theCounty had purchased property to the north of the subject parcels for both right of way anda stormwater pond.

Mr. Gray stated the properties were considered out parcels to Bradford Farm, whichwas a mediated case that was approved for transmittal earlier today on consent. He statedthe property owners would donate the right of way for SW 49th Avenue and realignment ofSW 80th Street to the County with no impact fee credits, as part of the arrangement workedout with Bradford Farms. Mr. Gray noted Bradford Farms was obligated to complete theconstruction of SW 49th Avenue to SW 80th Street. He stated the combination of the parcelswould get the road project of SW 49th Avenue completed from SW 95th Street north to SW80th Street. The property owners would also comply with all recommendations included inthe Mediator’s recommendation on Bradford Farms regarding the PUD, internalizingdensity, 20% greenspace requirements and a number of elements of benefit to the County,which included a 3 acre Emergency Medical Services (EMS) site, another school site (atthe election of the School Board), and a 10 acre public park all of which were part of theinfrastructure for a large Master Planned Community.

Mr. Gray addressed the Needs Analysis from Robert Charles Lester, a large nationalcompany, which verified in the long term there was a need. He stated the product wouldsell and be absorbed at a fairly decent pace once the market returned. Mr. Gray stated theproject would be developed separate from Bradford Farms. He addressed the water andsewer infrastructure. Mr. Gray stated the property would be developed as a PUD andrequested Board approval.

Chairman Payton advised that Amendment 08-L08 and 08-L09 were beingdiscussed concurrently.

There was no public comment. In response to Commissioner McClain, Mr. Wright suggested both Amendments be

considered separately.A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner Stone,

to transmit the proposed land use changes regarding 08-L08 from Rural Land to MediumDensity Residential to DCA based on Planning Commission findings and recommendationsthat the amendment would not adversely affect the public interest, was consistent with theComprehensive Plan, and was consistent with Chapter 163, FS and Rule 9J-5, FAC. Themotion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Kesselring votingnay.

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain, seconded by Commissioner Stone,to transmit the proposed land use changes regarding 08-L09 from Rural Land to Medium

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 301

Density Residential to DCA based on Planning Commission findings and recommendationsthat the amendment would not adversely affect the public interest, was consistent with theComprehensive Plan, and was consistent with Chapter 163, FS and Rule 9J-5, FAC. Themotion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1, with Commissioner Kesselring votingnay.

Commissioner McClain out at 2:39 p.m.

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director Masseypresented Amendment No. 08-L10 by A/P, LLC, owner, Steven H. Gray, agent, for a landuse change from Medium Density Residential to Commercial on 9.95+ acres located 1/4mile east of US 441 and 1/4 mile south of NW 56th Street in Section 30, Township 14,Range 22. He noted both staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial (7-0).

Mr. Massey noted staff recommended denial based on there being no demonstratedneed for additional Commercial development. He advised that the particular site had beenthe subject of several requests: in 2004 the request for a land use change from UrbanReserve to Medium Density Residential was denied; in 2006 the land use change requestwas for 4.35 acres to be changed from Industrial to Commercial with approximately 7 acresfrom Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and approximately 48 acres fromMedium Density Residential to High Density Residential, which was approved by the BCC,but not yet found in compliance by DCA; in 2007 the request was to go from Low DensityResidential to Commercial, which was also approved by the BCC.

Steve Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorney representing the applicant, was present andstated his client began development of the Evergreen Estates PUD, noting the subjectproperty was located to the north of Evergreen Estates, but was a continuation of thatownership.

Commissioner McClain returned at 2:42 p.m. He commented on discussions with the County Engineer when the original plan waspresented regarding the generation of right of way and eventually building (on a creditarrangement) what would become an extension of NW 49th Street. Mr. Gray described theroute that would reach the crossing point of US Highway 441. He addressed the lack ofhaving a mixed use land use designation. Mr. Gray addressed the 2006 case, which theBoard approved, noting the property was shown as Medium Density Residential, but wasHigh Density Residential, that was found not in compliance by DCA. He stated Mr. Masseycould address the stumbling block currently with DCA that would explain some of what wasdealt with at DCA. Mr. Gray noted DCA was concerned that the proposed developmentwould somehow trigger too many trips on a segment of CR 326 from SweetBay (grocerystore located at the corner of CR 326 and US Highway 441) to Old Jacksonville Highway.He stated the issue of trips would be resolved shortly with DCA and noted almost all of the2006 amendments were also resolved with DCA. Mr. Gray noted the BCC approved HighDensity Residential in 2006 and coupled with the 2007 approval would provide a higherintensity, long-term Commercial use along the frontage of US Highway 441. He stated therewould not be an immediate market until the road was developed and connected throughfor the rear property.

Mr. Gray advised that his client was attempting to plan the way through a mixed useproduct that would go from Medium Density Residential (Evergreen Estates) to HighDensity Residential of 8 units per acre, with Neighborhood Businesses and RegionalBusinesses along the Highway (441), which was the reason for the application. He stated

March 5, 2008

Page 302, Book L

the Planning Commission was uncertain of the effects with DCA found the 2006 case wasnot yet in compliance, which he opined made no difference. Mr. Gray noted the marketwould drive development and advised that it was not a high intensity regional commercialuse, but there were some neighborhood commercial uses that would fit once the road wasconstructed. He stated the neighbor to the north had not objected, noting his client ownedproperty on three sides of the subject site.

In response to Commissioner McClain, Mr. Gray commented on the NW 49th Streetroad connection. He noted the current alignment did not work due to the terrain, howeverthe Transportation Department agreed that the proposal would get 49th Street to OldGainesville Road (CR 200-A). Mr. Gray noted it was a long-term map amendment. Headvised that NW 49th Street was the alignment to go over I-75 and once over the Interstateat NW 44th Avenue (Fountain Estates) was a slag road and then Ashley Farms, which hadset aside right of way. He advised that there was one other property before getting to NW80th Avenue on the NW 49th Street alignment.

There was no public comment.Chairman Payton noted it was not often that individuals planned and were aware

that nothing would occur in the near future. He stated a neighborhood enterprise wasappealing and he would support the land use change.

A motion was made by Commissioner Fitos, seconded by Commissioner McClain,to disagree with both the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission andtransmit the proposed land use change from Medium Density Residential to Commercialto DCA based on findings and recommendations that the amendment would not adverselyaffect the public interest, was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and was consistentwith Chapter 163, FS and Rule 9J-5, FAC.

Commissioner McClain stated he too agreed with the planning portion, as well asthe High Density Residential that would be developed, which would make it consistent withthe surrounding land uses and addressed the long term plan. He noted it would also takecare of trips and keep traffic off the roads.

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1, with CommissionerKesselring voting nay.

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director Masseypresented Text Amendment No. 08-L23 by Marion County Board of CountyCommissioners, applicant, to amend the Transportation Element to change the adoptedroadway level of service (LOS) on identified roadway segments. The amendment involvedroadway segments within the Greenway and the SR 326 Corridor Studies. The staff report(in the agenda packet) included a Policy 1.2, which identified the segments and theproposed level of service standards (LOSS).

Mr. Massey presented a single page chart addressing specific roadway segments,noting staff would like to modify what it was recommending on page 2 of 4 of the agendapacket based on what was anticipated to occur today. He addressed the chart for theproposed roadway segments along with existing and recommended LOSS (in bold print).The remaining columns were provided for comparison of the capacity numbers for thedifferent LOSS.

Mr. Massey addressed the staff report (page 2 of 4) regarding Segments Z and AA,which identified CR 475A from CR 475B to CR 484 and CR 484 to CR 475 where staff wasrecommending a LOS of “C” on the two segments. He stated due to anticipated

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 303

development, particularly Amendment 08-L03, which was approved earlier and if taken intoconsideration that road would automatically be over the LOSS. Mr. Massey noted staff wasproposing no change in the existing LOSS for those 2 segments of CR 475A.

Commissioner Kesselring stated he understood the reasoning, but questioned if thatwould not cause the developer to make necessary road improvements. Mr. Massey agreedthat it would. Commissioner Kesselring inquired as to why the County would not want tohave the road improvements made rather than changing the capacity to allow thedevelopment to place more vehicles on the road. Mr. Massey stated he agreed, but notedthe purpose was that it appeared to be an inconsistency in staff’s recommendation.Commissioner Kesselring stated the LOS should remain at “C”. Mr. Massey concurred, butadvised that he wanted to address the Board in regard to consistency of what was beingproposed.

Commissioner McClain noted staff concern was in sending the approval (of 08-L03and 08-L23) to DCA, who would advise there was an inconsistency. Mr. Massey statedDCA would look at the approved amendment whose projected trips would cause the LOSSto be exceeded, therefore there was an inconsistency. Commissioner Kesselringcommented on the low LOS of roads.

Commissioner Fitos questioned whether the earlier approval could be reconsideredin order to place conditions on it to explain what the Board was now doing so that the issueof consistency would go away. Mr. Ganoe advised that DCA would find the Amendment notin compliance as there was nothing in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that wouldaddress capacity of the roadway being exceeded. In response to Commissioner Fitos, Mr.Ganoe advised that DCA would want to see the dollars that would provide theimprovements to meet that LOS. Commissioner Fitos stated it would still fall on thedeveloper. Mr. Ganoe concurred, but noted DCA would want to see it in the CIP.

Commissioner McClain noted the basic issue was that the developer would have tomediate or mitigate the issue with DCA once the ORC Report came back. Mr. Ganoeconcurred, noting the developer would have to provide improvements to the propertypotentially to the roadway, even if it was not a LOS issue, if there were access issues,signalization concerns, etc. He stated the developer would have to provide thoseimprovements whether or not the LOS was exceeded.

Chairman Payton noted the discussion only went to Segments Z and AA. Hequestioned why the County would want to do the text amendment. He stated DCA foundmany amendments not to be in compliance and must negotiate ways to become compliantonce the ORC Report was received. Mr. Massey stated direction was given due to theCorridor Studies to go back and raise the LOSS on the basis that there were noimprovements planned in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or the TransportationPlanning Organization (TPO) long range plans. He stated from staff’s perspective there wasnot a lot of development planned along those facilities. Mr. Massey noted those were theprevailing factors staff considered when it chose the LOSS to recommend. He stated dueto action taken today and what was anticipated to occur tomorrow made it necessary topoint out the LOS to the Board.

Commissioner Stone questioned if the applicants were aware of the TextAmendment changing the LOS for road segments. Mr. Massey stated the request that wasbefore the Board (08-L03) was based on the existing LOSS and the applicants were awarethere would be problems even meeting those standards. Commissioner Stone noted theapplicants were also aware of the proposed LOS changes, particularly since the Board had

March 5, 2008

Page 304, Book L

been discussing the matter for some time. Commissioner McClain noted the reason for the Text Amendment was to trip the

LOS sooner to have facilities improved before the old numbers tripped the LOS. He statedthe amendment would not change the developers mind in regard to moving forward,regardless of whether the developer had to fix the roads. Chairman Payton stated therewas no issue as long as the developer was aware of the Text Amendment, which he wasconfident all knew.

It was noted for the record that Doug Shearer, SE 85th Street, was not present. Upon call for public comment, Steve Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorney, stated he would

not address a specific Amendment, but noted he had been down this road before (inSarasota County). He questioned whether adjusting the LOS was a good taxing or land usemechanism. Mr. Gray stated the preservation parameters should be first decided beforeadjusting the LOS for roads. He noted a road in a preservation area made a big differencein what the County may project could occur and suggested looking at LOS adjustmentsoutside the preservation area. Mr. Gray stated most traffic issues could be resolved,however segment capacity was a problem, noting intersections could almost always befixed.

Commissioner Kesselring questioned the acceptable experience one had of drivingon a road, which was the reason for establishing a LOS. He stated the acceptable levelcould be conceivably that one could drive along a road without sitting in traffic forever,regardless of whether it was in a preservation area, which had nothing to do with being aburden on additional development, but rather a consequence. Commissioner Kesselringstated the community must come together and advise what was an acceptable level. Mr.Gray advised that no one (in the auditorium) could drive down a road and tell whether itwas a level C or D roadway.

Commissioner Kesselring stated the largest disconnect was when everyone in thecommunity came out and stated the roads were terrible, traffic was bad and in looking atthe numbers it may be a B or C level and the County’s accepted LOS was a D or E. Henoted concern that a development could quadruple the number of trips and technically stillhad capacity, which was unacceptable to the community LOS. Commissioner Kesselringstated he understood there were consequences. Mr. Gray concurred, noting it was verydifficult to adjust the LOS in the other direction and the same argument would apply to thepreservation area. He commented on DCA’s perception of Farmland Preservation.

It was noted for the record that Shawn Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, was not present.Laura Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, appeared to address the Farmland PreservationAmendment of the Magnolia/Shady area. Chairman Payton advised that the Board was notaddressing that Amendment at this time.

Nan Bonfield, SW 16th Avenue, addressed her concern with the Amendment inregard to increased traffic 2 to 8 times over the last 13 years and questioned why thecapacity would be reduced when it was most likely the trips would continue to increase.She suggested some roads dead end.

Darlene Weesner, SW 80th Street, questioned whether the County was making thefuture bright for scenic roads. Chairman Payton stated that was not accurate.Commissioner Kesselring stated what the Amendment would do was that as developmentoccurred it would trip the over capacity comments on a road, which did not necessarilymean that it would protect it, but if not approved development could continue withouttripping the overcapacity requirement. Ms. Weesner addressed limiting access to CR 475A

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 305

in regard to Amendment 08-L03, which would solve the inconsistency problem.Commissioner Stone stated that was not entirely correct.

Mr. Ganoe advised that if the amendment was 100% restrictive of traffic going outto CR 475A 100% would be going out that way; if 100% to CR 484 then probably 50% to75% would be using 475A to get back to Ocala; which would still be significant regardlessof the entrance. In response to Ms. Weesner, Mr. Ganoe stated DCA would still considera percentage of traffic utilizing CR 475A regardless of the access point.

Chairman Payton noted the debate centered around whether the County wouldaccomplish anything by reducing the LOS of the proposed roadway segments.

John Rudnianyn, NE 1st Avenue, stated it was interesting that the number of tripswas being reduced on scenic roadways. He stated when the LOS was increased it wouldend up tripping an improvement to a scenic roadway much sooner than it would need toapprove. Mr. Rudnianyn stated the County would end up removing many 2-lane roadwaysand making them 3 or 4 lanes much sooner than would be needed. He noted the way it wascurrently, developers had to pay for the improvements. Mr. Rudnianyn addressed concernwith adopting the Text Amendment.

Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, stated both CR 475A and CR 475 should definitelyto be included in the Rural Preservation if the County moved in that direction. Shecommented on traffic on CR 475A, 66th Street and 42nd Avenue (once completed), as wellas 60th Avenue and SR 200, noting additional lanes did not help. Ms. Shearer statedwhatever amendment would protect those roads from being 4-laned should be approved.

Commissioner McClain commented on trips in order to get help from developers. Hecommented on Mr. Gray’s question of whether adjusting the LOS would be used as aplanning tool or a taxing mechanism, noting it would serve as both. Commissioner McClainstated someone could decide they did not want to build a four-lane segment, so it couldpossibly serve as a planning tool.

Commissioner Fitos questioned if there was a sense of urgency since the Board wasin the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Massey stated there was not,noting one of staff’s tasks was to look at all roads within the County and this was comingbefore the Board because of the timing of acceptance of the corridor studies.Commissioner Fitos stated the corridor studies were being incorporated to help determinewhat would be the urban service boundary and part of that deliberation would be based onwhether the corridor studies were accurate as to the correlation of being contiguous to oneanother and filling in the gap where not overlapped. She questioned if it would not be moreprudent to table the matter until further dialogue and visioning relative to theComprehensive Plan itself. Then incorporate some of the discussion in those visioningprocesses because the County would have a better handle on the synergy needed todevelop roads throughout Marion County instead of identifying those two particularsegments. Commissioner Fitos advised that there were some repercussions that wouldimpact scenic roads, but realized the County needed help with improving the roadways ifthose capacity numbers were changed. It seemed more prudent, rather than taking thepiecemeal approach right now, to roll it into the longer range discussions on thecomprehensive plan revisions in general and make this a segment of that conversation.

Commissioner Kesselring stated since all of these came out of two very specificcorridor studies the community visioning process had already been performed, noting staffdid a good job in interpreting what the citizens in both those areas said they wanted tooccur. He stated the LOSS was a planning tool for him. Commissioner McClain concurred.

March 5, 2008

Page 306, Book L

Commissioner Kesselring questioned how many times the Board had considered a projectand evaluated whether it was acceptable or not was based on the LOS of a road,particularly in those areas where the County was trying to preserve the rural atmosphere,which was the reason for the proposal.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by CommissionerStone, to approve the Text Amendment and transmit to DCA, with the recommended list(removal of Z and AA from list on page 2 of 4) as amended by staff, based on PlanningDepartment staff and Planning Commission findings and recommendations that theamendment would not adversely affect the public interest, was consistent with theComprehensive Plan and was consistent with Chapter 163, FS and Rule 9J-5, FAC.

Mr. Massey clarified that staff was not necessarily recommending changing the list,however, staff was prepared to make that recommendation, but wanted to make it clearthat he understood (during the discussion of the list) that the consensus was not to changeanything.

Chairman Payton inquired if staff was in a position to make that recommendationconcurrent in agreement with the motion made by Commissioner Kesselring. Mr. Masseyadvised that was correct. Chairman Payton stated he understood that the County wasraising the LOSS on those particular roadways. Mr. Massey stated that was correct.Chairman Payton questioned if that would in effect reduce the available concurrency onthose roads. Mr. Massey concurred. Chairman Payton stated it simply made it more difficultfor whoever decided to do a development impacting those particular roadways, whichtheoretically made it more onerous to reach that level of concurrency. Mr. Massey agreed,theoretically.

Commissioner Fitos questioned if the recommended LOS in the Text Amendmentwere consistent with what staff was recommending in terms of how the 326 and theGreenway Corridor Studies should develop. Mr. Massey advised that was correct andnoted the studies were consistent. By way of example, he addressed an earlier mapamendment (08-L03), which was on the north side of the Specialized Commerce District,noting that with what they were asking to do it could not meet concurrency on the road withthe existing standard, however if the County changed the standard it simply meant that thedeveloper would have to put in necessary improvements sooner or not at all. It did notprevent anything in terms of development (from concurrency), but required thoseimprovements to be implemented sooner in order for the LOSS staff was recommendingstay on the corridor study land uses as consistent, along with considering those land uses,the County’s TIP and the TPO’s plan. Mr. Massey advised that with all those thingsconsidered the recommended changes were consistent.

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0).Mr. Massey requested clarification of the motion. Commissioner Kesselring stated

the Board would adjust those levels to the existing LOSS.

Comprehensive Plan/Contracts & Agreements - Assistant Planning Director Masseypresented Amendment No. 08-L25 by Marion County Board of County Commissioners,applicant, to amend the Future Land Use Element 13.3 and the Farmland PreservationBoundary Map to include the Rural Lands located within the Shady/Magnolia RuralPreservation Area and was the name given to the Greenway Corridor Study. In essenceit would operate in the same manner as in the existing northwest Rural/FarmlandPreservation Area and would contain the same policies, restrictions, TDR requirements,

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 307

etc., but only establish a new and additional area as identified on the “FarmlandPreservation Boundary Map”.

Commissioner Fitos questioned whether it encompassed the entire GreenwayCorridor Study and not segments as the total area was not rural. Mr. Ganoe stated whatwas being added was the Shady Greenway Preservation Area, which was the currentlydesignated rural lands located within that boundary. The boundaries of the entire GreenwayStudy area included I-75 to the west; Highway 301 and SR 35 (Baseline Road) to the east;County line to the south; and the City of Ocala to the north. The colored portions of the mapwithin that boundary currently either had an urban, urban reserve or some otherdesignation while those portions in white were currently rural lands and was the area thatwould be added to the Farmland Preservation Area of the Shady/Greenway Preservationarea. He commented on mixed use pieces in the event of a land use change request,noting the recommended Master Plan would override, even though the property maycurrently be rural lands some of those outlying areas within those nodes would not reallybe considered as being rural, but rather looking at the designation of the Master Plan.

Commissioner Kesselring questioned the effect on small lot, platted subdivisions,similar to Belleview Heights. Mr. Ganoe advised that there would be no impact, noting theproposal gave individuals the ability within the rural lands boundaries the ability to apply forthe TDR program, which in essence would pre-qualify those properties to participate.Commissioner Kesselring stated the idea was that there would be TDR’s to sell as all thoserural areas would be sending areas. Mr. Ganoe agreed and addressed earlier commentsby Mr. Gray regarding inconsistencies of the Farmland Preservation Area within thereceiving area.

It was noted for the record that Doug Shearer, SE 85th Street, was not present.Upon call for public comment, Steve Gray, NE 1st Avenue, attorney, pointed out

something that would occur that the Board needed to think about in terms of adopting theproposal, which was the TDR system, particularly with the 07 Amendment that was foundin compliance which would see some TDR’s transferred into the urban reserve area alongthe north boundary of the Greenway Corridor Study area. He noted the classic parcel wouldbe the Adrian piece that the Board considered earlier. What would happen was that areawould experience a Low Density Residential development because it was in an area wherepeople would ultimately figure out the water and sewer issue and could be done in Estatelots (1 unit per acre). The problem would then become that much of the area would begood for hamlets for long term preservation of sort of a green area. Mr. Gray advised thatdensity enhancement arrangements were not permitted in the preservation area. He statedthis area was a little different than in the NW quadrant, noting there were areas wherehamlets would provide a good step down and suggested the Board may want to considerwhether in fact this might have some slightly different rules than the northwest preservationarea. He agreed that it achieved what the County was looking to do, but was not an areathat was big horse farms.

It was noted for the record that Shawn Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, was not present.Laura Doherty, SW 16th Avenue, noted she may not be totally clear on the

amendment, but it was her opinion that it could be summed up as “over regulation” andquestioned the need to put more regulations on the area. She stated it encompassed sucha large area with restrictions that were not really needed, noting it was already within theSprings Protection Zone (SPZ), which provided some protection from development andsprawl.

March 5, 2008

Page 308, Book L

Raven Walters, SW 16th Avenue, noted the boundaries were too vast and was anissue of practicality as this was not a pristine area. She questioned how the area couldcontinue to be rural in between I-75 and CR 475A, which were two major highways. Ms.Walters stated upon further research there were only two TDR transfers completed withinthe last two years. Ms. Walters commented on the Florida Horse Park which needed theamenities to attract world class competitors, spectators and tourist.

Nan Bonfield, SW 16th Avenue, noted her opposition to the proposed ruralpreservation. She stated she read about Ocala in the Wall Street Journal and heard aboutit on CNN. Ms. Bonfield commented on the quality of life. She advised that her neighbor,Marvin Willhoite, SW 128th Lane, requested that she let the Board know that he too stronglyopposed the Text Amendment.

John Rudnianyn, NE 1st Avenue, commented on the Greenway Corridor StudyMaps, particularly Map 5. He noted there was a lot of residential development within thatcorridor and was not a “Greenway” area. Mr. Rudnianyn advised of his contributions to thegreenway real estate in the northwest area and noted his concern with the proposal. Hestated the average size of a residential property in the study area equated to about 3.5 to4 acres, noting there were very few large tracts, however there were a number of hamlets.Mr. Rudnianyn stated the County was not preserving a greenway or farm area similar tothe northwestern portion of the County, noting anyone could come before the Board andask permission to perform a TDR on any property in Marion County, upon which the Boardcould approve or reject the request. He commented on the lack of notification, notingindividuals did not pay attention to newspaper notices. Mr. Rudnianyn stated he did notknow exactly what staff was trying to accomplish.

Darlene Weesner, SW 80th Street, commended the Board for trying anotherFarmland Preservation Area, which did not require expensive services and would save theCounty money. She commented on financial issues created by misjudgments by some ofthe State and National Politicians as well as the real estate industry. Ms. Weesner statedthe Text Amendment would pay off in the long run as the County would know where to putits capital expenditure money and could predict what was going to happen. She advisedthat people were aware of the issue and had been following the 1 house per 10 acreprocedure. Ms. Weesner described the surrounding area and noted there were those whoshould be given the opportunity to determine whether to remain agriculture as well as thepossibility of historic preservation. She stated the County should be establishing optionsto protect itself, noting the concern with the availability of fresh water in the future as therewere already cautionary areas. Ms. Weesner addressed the soil conditions in the area andnoted it would be to the residents advantage to increase the Farmland Preservation Area.

Ms. Weesner commented on the language of the Text Amendment in regard to thedescription of the Farmland Preservation Area, noting sections needed to be added. Sheadvised of a project she had been working on in relation to conservation easements. Ms.Weesner suggested designating an equine overlay zone that would be an equestriandistrict to include the greenway and horse park to the County line. She advised that theShady Historic and Scenic Trails Association, Shady Greenway Alliance and other groupswere in the process of proposing a portion of Marion County on both sides of the FloridaGreenway for designation as a Special Historic and Scenic Equine Overlay District. Ms.Weesner requested that the Text Amendment be amended to include properties to theOcala Utilities service line. She presented a single page entitled, “Shady Historic andScenic Trails Association” which addressed much of the comments made.

March 5, 2008

Book L, Page 309

Michelle Shearer, SE 85th Street, member of the Shady Greenway ConservationAlliance, stated she was representing many homeowners and small farm owners within thegreenway corridor. She noted the area was not like the Farmland Preservation Area andshould be called the Rural Preservation Area. Ms. Shearer commented on the FloridaHorse Park and stated there was no need for commercial development along I-75. Shestated the greenway needed to be preserved and encouraged the Board to preserve thearea.

Raven Walters, SW 16th Avenue, again appeared to read a letter into the record onbehalf of Marian Halpin, SW 16th Avenue, noting her objections to the Text Amendment andrequesting that her property remain as currently classified (A-1, General Agriculture). Shepresented the letter from Ms. Halpin for the record. Ms. Walters commented on the lack ofnotification.

Steve Klein, SW 27th Avenue, noted his concern in that it appeared to be animposition to take property rights. Commissioner Kesselring advised that nothing beingproposed changed the existing land use in any way and did not take anything away.

Jessica Wood, local realtor, stated she handled quite a few properties in the areaand while the Rural Preservation Area was a nice idea it would have immediate and longrange impact. She stated a property owner would not be entitled to obtain densityenhancements, such as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and hamlets. Ms. Woodcommented on DCA standards in regard to review of land use amendments within apreservation area.

Commissioner Kesselring inquired if the same prohibition against hamlets appliedin the rural areas. Mr. Ganoe advised that it would as currently written. CommissionerKesselring noted there may be areas within the preservation area that would certainly beappropriate for hamlets as it was slightly different than the current Farmland PreservationArea. He stated he had some concerns with how broad the area was as there may beportions along the peripheral area, around Belleview or other locations that the County maywant to treat differently. Commissioner Kesselring stated while he supported the generalconcept, the matter should be postponed in order to better refine the plan before adoption.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kesselring, seconded by Commissioner Fitos,to table the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Element 13.3 and the FarmlandPreservation Boundary Map identified to include the Rural Lands located within theShady/Magnolia Rural Preservation Area until further discussions were held. The motionwas unanimously approved by the Board (5-0).

Chairman Payton inquired if a date and time certain needed to be established. Mr.Wright advised that was correct unless the Board elected to re-advertise. Chairman Paytonstated the spirit of the motion was that the Text Amendment should be re-advertised asthere was much discussion that would need to take place. It was the general consensusof the Board to concur.

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk received a facsimile letter fromPatty Orr urging the Board to support the Magnolia Rural Preservation Area.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting thereuponadjourned at 4:29 p.m.

March 5, 2008

Page 310, Book L

_________________________________Charlie Stone, Chairman

Attest:

_______________________________David R. Ellspermann, Clerk

Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, May 6, 2008.