HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem VI (B) Third Amendment to Joint Planning Area Agreement Agenda 11-02-99
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" Itj1I VB
WIC OMMISSIONER
Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
pritCITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS
Q 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE DANNY HOWELL
v p SCOTT ANDERSON
r:. v OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON
'yj, AN (407)656-2322 NANCY J.PARKER
E4 Of GOOD�`
CITY MANAGER
ELLIS SHAPIRO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 29, 1999
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Robert Lewis,AICP, Principal Planner 9--''
THROUGH: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning /
SUBJECT: Third Amendment to Ocoee-Orange County
Joint Planning Area Agreement
On October 19, 1999, the City Commission held a public hearing to consider this proposed JPA
Amendment. At the request of the City Manager, the City Commission voted 4-1 to continue the
public hearing in order to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission an opportunity to
reconsider the proposed amendment, if they so desired.
The proposed JPA amendment was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission again on
October 27, 1999. The City Manager and the City Attorney gave a detailed explanation of the
history of the JPA Agreement, describing why the City and County entered into the Agreement
and what it does and does not do regarding planning issues. Mayor Vandergrift discussed his
perspective regarding the JPA Agreement and his belief that it should be more than an
annexation tool. Rather, it should reflect an attitude of cooperation for efficient growth, helping
to avoid urban sprawl. The Mayor emphasized his opinion that these additional planning issues
should be added to the Amendment before it is signed.
After a brief discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to reconsider the
proposed JPA Amendment. The Commission then voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the JPA
Amendment in accordance with the staff recommendation, and to rescind its previous action
which recommended denial of the Amendment.
RBW/rwl/csa
O:\CALEXANDER\ALL DATA\CAPDFILE\Memorandums\MFP 1999\MFP99250.doc
PoW
Protect Ocoee's Water Resources Olt.
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER
Ocoee S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
ri:41CITY OF O C O EE DANNY HOWELL
COMMISSIONERS
r a. 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE
0 SCOTT ANDERSON
OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON
CyrF `r= 4.4S (407)656-2322 NANCY J.PARKER
4 Of GOOD CITY MANAGER
ELLIS SHAPIRO
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 1999
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
FROM: Russ Wagner, AICP,Director of Planning 01°3
SUBJECT: Third Amendment to Ocoee-Orange County
Joint Planning Area Agreement
ISSUE:
Should the Mayor and City Commissioners approve changes to the Joint Planning Area
(JPA) Boundary and JPA Future Land Use Map?
BACKGROUND:
As development continues to occur in the northeast sector of the community, a number of
property owners currently situated outside the existing WA Boundary have expressed the
desire to annex into the City. These properties generally correspond to our utility service
area boundaries or are logical extensions to eliminate enclaves. Conversely, there are a
number of areas within the JPA that have fully developed within the County and utilize
their utilities. Accordingly, some of these areas are proposed to be deleted from the JPA.
Changes to the JPA Land Use Map to reflect these additions and deletions are also
proposed as well as a few minor clean-up land use changes.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed changes are threefold. First, several pocket areas located on the
northeastern boundary of the JPA, within the Clarcona Rural Settlement, are proposed to
be added to the JPA (see attached map). Secondly, several developed subdivisions (such
as Magnolia Springs and Rose Hill) in the southeast portion of the JPA are proposed to be
deleted from the agreement. These latter areas are within the County's water and sewer
territory and are unlikely to annex in the near future. Lastly, the land uses for certain
properties internal to the JPA are being changed to more accurately reflect actual or
proposed uses and zoning (see attached map). An Industrial category is also being
included to reflect existing industrial uses.
powF
Protect Ocoee's Water Resources L'✓
Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
October 13, 1999
Page 2
A community meeting on these proposed changes was held on Monday, July 12, 1999, at
the Evans Ninth Grade Center. Comments from the neighborhood meeting and letters
from residents have been supportive of the proposed changes, with one exception.
Several property owners on Hackney Prairie Road, whose properties were originally
proposed to be included into the JPA, are opposed to the amendment if their properties
are included. One property owner of a large tract of land would like to be included in the
JPA. However, the ultimate annexation of that property owner's tract without the other
properties along Hackney Prairie Road would create an enclave. The Hackney Prairie
area was not included in the JPA amendment as approved by the Orange County
Commission and City of Ocoee staff are not recommending that the Hackney Prairie area
be included into the JPA.
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
On September 28, 1999, the Orange County Commission held a public hearing regarding
the proposed Third Amendment to Ocoee-Orange County Joint Planning Area
Agreement. During the hearing, some of the property owners along Hackney Prairie
Road spoke indicating that they did not want their properties included in the JPA
amendment. They were assured by the County staff that their properties were no longer
included in the proposed JPA amendment.
Mayor Vandergrift also spoke during the hearing, expressing his opinions on the subject
of a "Joint Planning Area". He described several cases where new development is
occurring in County enclaves within the City and along the edges of the City limits which
is being approved by the County to use wells and septic systems and is not coordinated
with the City. He also expressed many concerns with the current Joint Planning Area
agreement, indicating that he felt there should be many other changes in addition to those
presented in the proposed JPA amendment. He suggested that these additional changes
should be made to the JPA amendment before it is considered.
The County Commission discussed the Mayor's concerns and the idea of continuing the
hearing to allow more work on the agreement. However, the Chairman suggested that if
the County Commissioners were happy with the proposed amendment as presented, they
should vote on it at that time. The County Attorney indicated that if, after reviewing the
proposed amendment, the City wanted to make changes, then it would have to come back
to the County Commission for additional review. After a brief discussion on this issue,
the County Commission voted unanimously to approve the proposed JPA amendment as
presented by staff.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
On September 29, 1999, the Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed Third Amendment to Ocoee-Orange County Joint
Planning Area Agreement. During the hearing, Mayor Vandergrift made a lengthy
presentation expressing the same concerns he had presented to the County Commission,
Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
October 13, 1999
Page 3
suggesting that additional changes should be made to the JPA amendment before it is
considered.
In response to the Mayor's discussion, the staff indicated that most of the issues presented
by the Mayor were considered when the negotiations began on this proposed JPA
amendment. However, it was decided that the best approach in dealing with these
complex issues was to address them in stages, beginning with changing the boundaries of
the JPA. The issues related to enclaves and utilities would be addressed in later stages:
During its discussion, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that
more work needs to be done in planning for enclaves and areas close to the City limits.
When the discussion was finished, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0-1 to
recommend denial of this proposed JPA amendment, with an additional recommendation
that the staff continue working on the amendment to include additional changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Mayor and City Commissioners approve the Third
Amendment to the JPA Agreement as presented, providing for amendments to the JPA
Boundary and WA Land Use Map, consistent with the Board of County Commissioners
action.
Attachments: Copy of Public Hearing Advertisement
Copy of the Third Amendment to the JPA Agreement,Executed by Orange County
O:\CALEXANDER\ALL DATA\CAPDFILE\Stat'Reports\CC SR\SR99059.docz
Thursday, October 7, 1999 The West Orange Times
CITY OF OCOEE NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
OCOEE CITY COMMISSION TO
CONSIDER A THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT
PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Ocoee proposes to
amend the following interlocal agreement:the Ocoee-Orange County
Joint Planning Area Agreement, as amended. This agreement sets
forth logical areas that could be annexed into the City and appropri-
ate land used for annexed parcels.The proposed amendments to the
agreement are threefold, first certain properties are proposed to be
added to the JPA and second, other properties are proposed to be
deleted from the JPA (see map below). Lastly, there are proposed
changes to the joint land use map for certain properties already in the
JPA, to reflect existing uses or zoning. These proposed changes do
not necessarily require annexation. The City is not recommending
that the properties located on Hackney Prairie Road be included into
the JPA at this time.
The Ocoee City
I��__ Commission will hold a
mon, public hearing on the pro-
/ ,/ rte`
' posed amendment on
J, _ r �0%s— Tuesday, October 19, 1999
~'_ at 7:15 p.m., or as soon
i� r__ - y� thereafter as practical, at
I I c --_ _'y - _f r the Ocoee City
t ' I�,I _� =.+: ` - " Commission Chambers,
i J� -14.,--.If City Hall, 150 N. Lakeshore
+a-� 1 -3 Drive, Ocoee, Florida. The
1--k'-'''''-;_-,- �r-_�_:: --7;-`'"r7"/7 . Ocoee City Commission
F
,2,__ -Jv may continue the public
11111-V-4-_,'"� hearingto other dates and
F`.L� )LTJ,4•., sr. / A
i....v, ll__ -(jd__ .J-., � times, as they deem nec-
^� ;�ra- i rr, _,__!h essary. Any interested
•
, 1 . ,;f; � ,,T party shall be advised that
ct1_'T- y�,� ,. the dates,times and places
V—L.._ism •_•
„F[ff,,,. .
_ __ � . ,,�,���; of any continuation of this
"l" or continued public hear-
I °ro�sodMod'`cx ions
SOthe
, Ings shall be announced
• during the hearing and that
�, ® MIM,from Oa
�� - AM no further notices regard-
,,
— E:.d,,,oABoundary ing these matters will be
published.
A copy of the proposed amendment may be inspected by the public
at the Ocoee Planning Department, 150 N. Lakeshore Drive, Ocoee,
Florida between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. Monday through
Friday, except legal holidays.
Interested parties may appear at the public hearing and be heard
with respect to the proposed action. Any person wishing to appeal
any decision made with respect to any matter considered at the pub-
lic hearing will need a record of the proceedings, and for this purpose
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to par-
ticipate in the proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office 48
hours in advance of the meeting at(407) 656-2322, extension 146.
JEAN GRAFTON, CITY CLERK
rInteskctr 7 1000
APPROVED
BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEP 2 8 1999 VS/RPL
THIRD AMENDMENT TO JOINT PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF OCOEE
THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO JOINT PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
(hereinafter this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of the day of
1999, by and between ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida (hereinafter the "County") and the CITY OF OCOEE, a Florida municipal
corporation (hereinafter the "City").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the County and the City have entered into a certain Joint Planning Area
Agreement, dated February 11, 1994 as amended by the First Amendment thereto dated
August 4, 1998 and as amended by the Second Amendment thereto dated January 19, 1999
(hereinafter the "Joint Planning Area Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the County and City desire to amend the Joint Planning Area Agreement
to add lands within unincorporated Orange County to the Joint Planning Area within which the
City may annex lands and to establish the future land uses with respect to those lands and
remove lands within unincorporated Orange County which are currently within the Joint
Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, both the County and the City exercise comprehensive planning authority
pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Regulation Act, and enforce land development regulations to regulate the
development of land within the respective areas of jurisdiction of each party; and
006.145074.2
WHEREAS, the County and the, City have the authority to enter into this Amendment
pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act in general and Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes, in particular; and
WHEREAS, the local planning agencies of both the County and City have considered
this Amendment at advertised public hearings and recommended its adoption to the Orange
County Commission and the Ocoee City Commission, respectively; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3171(3), Florida Statutes, and pursuant to the
provisions of Section 8C of the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this Amendment has been
approved at advertised public hearings held by both the Orange County Commission and the
Ocoee City Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants made by each party to the
other and of the mutual advantages to be realized by the parties hereto, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the County and the City hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by reference.
Section 2. Authority. This Amendment is entered into pursuant to (1) Chapters 125,
163 and 166, Florida Statutes, (2) the general authority of Section 163.01, Florida Statutes,
relating to interlocal agreements, and (3) the Charters of the County and City.
Section 3. Definitions. All terms and phrases used in this Amendment shall be as
defined in the Joint Planning Area Agreement unless otherwise indicated.
-2-
006.145074.2
Section 4. Amendment to Joint Planning Area. The existing Exhibit "A" to the
Joint Planning Area Agreement which depicts the Joint Planning Area is hereby repealed and
the Revised Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference is substituted
in lieu thereof. All references in the Joint Planning Area Agreement to Exhibit "A" shall be
deemed to refer to the Revised Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Section 5. Amendment to Joint Planning Area Land Use Map. The existing Exhibit
"B" to the Joint Planning Area Agreement which sets forth the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Map is hereby repealed and the Revised Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by
this reference is substituted in lieu thereof. All references in the Joint Planning Area
Agreement to Exhibit "B" shall be deemed to refer to the Revised Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
Section 6. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Joint Planning Area Agreement
remains unchanged and in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and City have executed this Amendment on
behalf of the County and City, respectively, and have set their seals hereto as of the date set
forth above.
t� ' �.04jj
�� .„�(!, /'County Chairman
�V DATE: 4 i
ATTEST: Martha O. Haynie, County
Comptroller As Clerk o Board of County
Commi .Iners
I
Deputy '1- k
-3-
006.145074.2
•
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the
State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared
t,(rov-N )3 . 6 roroK3 , personally known to me.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this .3
day of pt-.trnb.v.i , 1999.
./111A. rn- -.UMW
igature of Notary
F••"�i%',, Trisha M.Duckworth -1-T- 1SYYL_ (Nt uiLAX)c+-1`
•.: MY COMMISSION/CC669065 EXPIRES
�.: September 16.200, Name of Notary (type, printed or stamped)
!'F i%i� BONDED THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE.INc.
Commission Number(if not legible on seal):
My Commission Expires(if not legible on seal):
WITNESSED: CITY OF OCOEE, a Florida municipal
corporation
Printed Name:
By:
S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor
Printed Name:
Attest:
Jean Grafton, City Clerk
(SEAL)
FOR THE USE AND RELIANCE APPROVED BY THE OCOEE CITY
ONLY BY THE CITY OF COMMISSION AT A MEETING HELD
OCOEE, FLORIDA; APPROVED ON , 1999 UNDER
AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY AGENDA ITEM NO.
this day of , 1999
FOLEY & LARDNER
By:
City Attorney
-4-
006.145074.2
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the
State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared S. SCOTT
VANDERGRIFT and JEAN GRAFTON, personally known to me to be the Mayor_and City
Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF OCOEE, a Florida municipal corporation, and that they
severally acknowledged executing the same in the presence of two subscribing witnesses freely
and voluntarily under authority duly vested in them by said municipality.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this day
of , 1999.
Signature of Notary
Name of Notary (type, printed or stamped)
Commission Number(if not legible on seal):
My Commission Expires(if not legible on seal):
006.145074.2 -5
•
1
1
Exhibit A
Joint Planning Area El I
Agreement Boundary Line IIIIIIII
ifilL___,
� �-ll 111111111OPIIIIIII w
.+
NI
'1 PM Fillili 1111,11
IL ,4---.:........ei
, Allirliffill 7......,_irotk----.....
,,,,,_____.........;lf .1,; c..,„..r........,:::......,..s..;.__
_.........„
�..��. .., _....-
.- fie..:,..:;t-, ,i-.7;1.,..,.. ,,..-r:..-::•__
Aiii411411111N
. 40011 All
Ow
egg III
NI
�To7l ITS V41-•2.-' \ �
�i :^I ti:
:rim r -�:17-;*Yte:.
,.....
4 __ .....,..„,g.„7„...:.:,„::,,.........,......,,._,.,..„y : ......„:.,,„.:....=„...„.,..:„.„_ -' '
1..7 Ste{ 1b.`:' 1-742.j.,....
2- 11141111 II
E 'r•' limilMT1g;17-` >—i\\\`-` _:-imp liiilli am`-_.. - �'�•�- /
M � Fts-:.l•? 1 / _ ==e � fTi z�' _ . s7- r, ,, s: .,,I�:ig. 7-'l _ -at
mil
Abiel��rt_T
s:,it • •! ml
Bo
_M.="
iii ��'Tt�^� a`■ _ .1.07:.:-......A
Iii..-41::a. \ 0‘......„ft.r ---,,,,-...--1.s. mil.
MI
i
ti►••IiiiltilliajltrP7A111111111
. -■11111= �: '-
'■!uuumion,."� _.tats , . ' ' •_�..,.._romo gm
'
.iII ;47-= - I ^':_ .•.-
U.iri... �1 `..''''''' �r9 .T-.-1.m.., _,% • I
�� ►.,. ��
1 ritrinfilmINVAIoilitimi witt_tri...m!
--late,sr- ► !:owe i -,,.-
r
s— 4 ,rIII' 'i ��J
y 41'• "fit%1I
k 7
2 .. S1� %:..91.11.ni
Revised Exhibit B
Adopted September 28, 1999 IIIIIP "
iiiirmil.. ..AIlIUPU
itIviall. :!nom / emir
iiiiiviin *.mini .401 Pl".
1*aisill . , 11111,
46 Ail .-, ..
_\ ,,„,01 �
t. • (iii _.:c.:.,.. ..,
I — ota 22
IIIMIIP! !Ili ,_ rajao f 7_
i „Isl.jilt..:".:';::..-..j7_,..:1,17///7 i ,. . :Or weiaMW ef;>./,...0. , I.p.:. ,1.::::!!.1:
*AA! Iliihi .\
,f.
afa o®om
cu ®� : ( o�' 1*-
0 ®Ir if e ■ yt, . I
, . .
1111
® i . t® � ! T1
a
ups,..—. �1. . ., ,,,
15:121.1111111=1® .,., a�■_.
1' d - ® 1
�luaaiu, -
11
■— `` ;=°ami® f
l4� a�
al All 4i
ilmr :dit.op•m-i-7, iiii:ww. poi
11
I 111111111? 14.
- 41 ted 14:�%.: a1 •+
lii i7iiii. It I -:11R:=11
1 1111:41. -.
`1r' ■ •
WM .
Joint Planning Area Land Use Map
` �41 �a ■ Low Density(<4DU/AC) 0 Industrial
■L . �' El Medium Density(4-8 DU/AC) 111Institutional
�- . ■ High Density(9-16 DU/AC) 1. Conservation/Wetlands
r
■ Commercial . Water Body
S Professional Services 0 Ocoee Municipality
111 Boundaries
L�
'i--„ - Joint Planning Arca Agreement Boundary
Prepared By:Orange County Growth Management and Environmental
Resources Department.lotormation Services Section
August 4,1999
. i
) 0.- -:::-:.x.:c •
ita I I a= :---. .
v�..I i
-J =� i1.
=MOMI 1
��_ } IMS~- '' '--.1
`
L_ -' -
1
...a_=7::-5-1'..,-5,*---.R.,,,....,,5.1l. i Fri L.7.<1
. � rte,;311
:1,
r..4' -- ----ZIF-.47._:. r a.�„
.7!
..,G. riii-45_14K1 ,,4/ 1.7' .... ' -.71-.7 1 • - ' i
0.
1 -I, Int= � i I, d1
I g.
�� ; r / i
— ` E Mill i ; ,N0 J, . �1�`r_1
_11.. ' . ��`,1� ` I;� 11 ' 11.
4
.`J(� i /1111/
i , /..
����
MA � ANTI ll
�-� T--qm IJJJ
gig=Ili..r AiM .--44/11411111a� L. . f I!1
____lydf-
; irriL
-7411
kpriah.,„-- 'a
g:. -dr
I .- it.. Al 1
�:.., .2 le
i.
.
I Proposed Modifications to the
--�- Ocoee!Orange County Joint Planning
1
_ Area Agreement
*IM-- $ " rA Delete from JPA
lib
Add to JPA
el" — Existing JPA Boundary
OCT-29-99 15= 13 FROM FOLEY & LARDNER ID=4076461743 PAGE 216
FOLEY & LARDNER
MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
020377.0485
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Ocoee
FROM: Paul E. Rosenthal, Esq., City Attorney
DATE: October 29, 1999
RE: Proposed Third Amendment to Joint Planning Area Agreement
For your information, attached hereto is an outline of the comments which I
made to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 27 regarding the Joint Planning
Area Agreement. Since the Mayor and all of the City Commissioners were present at the
meeting, this outline is being distributed in order to shorten my presentation at the City
Commission meeting regarding this subject_
The Planing and Zoning Commission Agenda included the "Reconsideration of
the Third Amendment". At the conclusion of the meeting and prior to the vote, Mayor
Vandergrift questioned whether proper procedures were followed since no motion to
reconsider was presented at the meeting. For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion
that the Planning and Zoning Commission followed correct procedures and complied with
Robert's Rules of Order in connection with this matter.
The Planning and Zoning Commission initially considered the Third
Amendment at an advertised public hearing on September 29, 1999. At that time, they
recommended that the City Commission disapprove the proposed Third Amendment. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation came before the City Commission at an
advertised public hearing on October 19, 1999. At that time, the City Manager recommended
that the public hearing be continued so that he could bring this matter back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for reconsideration. The City Commission voted to continue the public
hearing with the understanding that the matter would be brought back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Had the City Commission declined the City Manager's request, then
there would not have been an opportunity for this matter to go back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Commission action at the October 19 meeting would have
precluded any further consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Following the City Commission continuance, the Third Amendment was again
placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda which gave public notice to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the public that this matter would again be
006.158876.1
OCT-29-99 15: 13 FROM:FOLEY & LARDNER ID=4076461743 PACE 3/6
"reconsidered". The JPA Agreement does not require a public hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. A Motion to Reconsider was not presented and would not have been
the appropriate under Robert's Rules of Order since a Motion to Reconsider can only be made
at the meeting during which the vote to be reconsidered was taken. Further, a Motion to
Reconsider can only be made by a member voting on the prevailing side. This is contrasted
with a "Motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted" which can be made at a
subsequent meeting by motion of any member regardless of how that member voted on the
original question. Following the presentations and discussion, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted by a vote in excess of two-thirds (2/3) to bring the Third Amendment back
up fora new vote. In hindsight, it would have been preferable for the initial vote to be a
Motion to Rescind the previous action (again, which would have been in order at the meeting
and which could be made by any member). Following the decision to bring the matter back
up for a vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to rescind its prior
recommendation and to recommend that the City Commission approve the Third Amendment.
A Motion to Rescind was in order because the City Commission had not acted on the previous
recommendation. Consistent with Robert's Rules of Order, this vote was in order and had the
effect of rescinding the prior action and changing the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. As a result, the only Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation
standing and being presented to the City Commission on November 2°a is the unanimous
recommendation for approval.
For your information, attached is a copy of Section 34 of the Robert's Rules of
Order which addresses Motions to Rescind and distinguishes them from Motions to
Reconsider.
PER/jh
Enclosure
cc: Planning and Zoning Commission Members
006.158876.1 -2-
OVERVIEW
JOINT PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT
*PURPOSE OF JPA:
*To settle litigation brought by County challenging annexations by City. Absent the
settlement, it was possible that the annexation ordinances would be voided. These lands
included most of Ocoee Crossings on the agenda tonight.
*If County had not sued, there would NOT be a JPA. Neither County nor City was
pursuing a JPA.
*WA and amendments thereto must be looked at in the context of what led to the initial
document in order to have realistic and understandable expectations.
*GOAL OF CITY:
*The goal of the City was to annex land approved by the City Commission and defeat
the County lawsuit, . Settlement was pursued because this goal would otherwise be
unsuccessful, at least in part. Landowners, not the City,were funding the litigation.
*When the JPA developed as a settlement option, the City unsuccessfully explored true
"joint planning".
*Annexation of enclaves and expansion of the utility territorial areas was not the major
focus.
WHAT THE JPA IS NOT:
*The WA is not a joint planning area agreement. The County was insistent and the WA
provides that it gives the City no control or say over enclaves or WA lands in unincorporated
Orange County.
*The IPA is not a sewer and water territorial agreement and did not modify those
agreements. However, a separate agreement made the water and sewer boundaries the same
and eliminated conflicts.
* The JPA did not give the County any control over the lands which were the subject of
the lawsuit or lands previously annexed into the City.
*The WA essentially didn't obligate the County to do anything except drop the lawsuit
and not fight future annexations within the WA Territory. The WA expressly says that the
JPA I.and Use Map does not apply to the County and does not modify the County comp plan
future land use map.
006/58714/
bI/ZI 3OVd £b6I6b94017'QI d3NQ2IV1 S A31O3'WOd3 8b'£I 66-6Z-ZZ)O
*WHAT THE JPA 6.CHIEVED FOR THE LANDOWNERS:
*It got their land annexed.
*It got a commitment from the County to provided sewer and water to annexed lands
which were not in the City sewer and water territory.
*WHAT THE CI'T'Y'ACHIEVED : THE WA:
*It settled the County's lawsuit and got most of the lands annexed.
*It established a geographic framework for future annexations with a commitment from
the County that the annexations would not be challenged. This framework was based on the
projections as to the areas that could realistically be provided urban services by the City over
the 10 year term.
*It allowed the City to annex and zone lands in advance of a comprehensive plan
amendment –something that few cities can do—so long as the City was consistent with an
agreed upon WA Land Use Map.
*It provided a mechanism for assuring that lands in the City, but outside of the City
sewer and water territorial area, would be served by the County sewer and water.
*It required notice to the City of County comp plan amendments and rezonings within
the WA and a vehicle to make non-binding comments part of the record. It left with the
County the right to ignore the City's comments.
*It authorized the City to improve Maguire Road (a county road) and provided a
framework for the City to improve other County roads with the JPA.
*The WA provided a dispute resolution procedure with respect to certain limited
subjects.
*WHAT DID THE CITY GIVE Ti??
*The City agreed to restrict the area within it would annex for a period of 10 years —
to February 11, 2004 --- unless the County agreed to an amendment to allow more land to be
• annexed.
*The City agreed that the City comp plan designations would be consistent with the
JPA Land Use Map unless the County agreed to a change.
*The City agreed not to annex into the Gotha and Clarcona Rural Settlements.
006.158714.1 -2-
VI/EI
2-bI/EI 30Vd E bL I8b9L@t' Q I e'13NOdV1 8 A31O3'NOZI3 6b o E I 66-6E-10O
*DID THE JPA ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECTIVES?
*It settled the lawsuit.
*Ocoee has subsequently annexed lands without challenge by the County.
*The County has been cooperative when individual landowners have sought changes to
the JPA land use designations or sought to be included in the IPA so that they could annex into
the City.
006.~58714.1 -3-
bI/bZ 30Vd E V4I8b9G0b'Q I 2I3NQ2IV I 'S A3-IOd°WO?13 6b'E I 66-6Z-Z0O
iiimmo
533. , §34. RESCIND OR AMEND (MAIN) 299
k
)t speak on ;I
§34. RESCIND; AMEND SOMETHING
notice is § #;- A
zs PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED
Q stion , ,
exhausted, By means of the motions to Rescind and to Amend cif
order was • Something Previously Adopted—which are two forms of one
)n,even on incidental main motion governed by practically identical f
;ession any rules—the assembly can change an action previously taken
of debate or ordered. Rescind—also known as Repeal or Annul—is
the motion by which a previous action or order can be
cancelled or countermanded. The effect of Rescind is to '
exam le " strike out an entire main motion, resolution, rule, bylaw, ,
p I section, or paragraph that has been adopted at some pre- {
ating to . . , vious time. Amend Something Previously Adopted is the L:
oor for motion that can be used if it is desired to change only'a part 4
thee of the text, or to substitute a different version.
ze chair has
it the same Standard Descriptive Characteristics 4
11
new main
The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Pre-
riously Adopted: 1'
,l
): Mr. l
I. Take precedence of nothing, and can therefore be ! 3
a question moved only when no other motion is pending. Previous ii
notice(p. 118) of intent to offer one of these motions at ,'
.ove ". . . to the next meeting can be given while another question is 4
pending, however—provided that it does not interrupt
J
r before the
a speaker (see Standard Characteristic 7). These mo- .J.
has made a tions yield to subsidiary, privileged, and incidental i
en stated by motions.
i..
address the 2. Can be applied to any main motion which has been
adopted (including questions of privilege and orders of
the day) and to an affirmative result on an appeal (that s'
rise. is, to a vote which has sustained the chair's decision)— I
provided that none of the action involved has been
[and s0 carried out in a way which it is too late to undo, and
provided that the question cannot be reached by calling
•
300 RULES OF ORDER §34. §•
up a motion to Reconsider (36) that has already been
made. (See below for actions that cannot be rescinded
or amended.) All of the subsidiary motions can be
applied to the motions to Rescind and to Amend Some-
thing Previously Adopted.
3. Are out of order when another has the floor; but pre-
vious notice of intent to offer one of these motions at
the next meeting can be given after another member has
been assigned the floor, provided that he has not begun
to speak.
4. Must be seconded.
5. Are debatable; debate can go into the merits of the
question which it is proposed to rescind or amend.
6. Are amendable, by the processes of primary and second-
ary amendment in any of the forms discussed in 12, as
applicable to the particular case. Thus, a motion to
Rescind can be amended, for example, to become a
motion to strike out only a part of what it was proposed
to rescind. But if a motion to Rescind or to Amend
{ Something Previously Adopted is amended so that the
change proposed by the amended motion then exceeds
the scope of a previous notice that was given, the effect
of the previous notice is destroyed and the motion can
no longer be adopted by a majority vote (see Standard
Characteristic 7).When these motions require previous
notice (as in the case of a motion to rescind or amend a
provision of the bylaws or a special rule of order), such
a motion cannot be amended so as to make the pro-
posed change greater than that for which notice has
been given.
7. In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution,
bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-
thirds vote, or (b) a majority vote when notice of intent
a
x ,
RF,SCIND OR AMEND (MAIN) 301 47
3 .
to make the motion, stating the complete substance of 1
the proposed change, has been given at the previous E
meeting or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a a
vote of a majority of the entire membership—which-
ever is most practical to obtain. In a committee, require i `}
a two-thirds vote unless all committee members who
11 ':
voted for the motion to be rescinded or amended are '
present or have received ample notice, in which caset
these motions require a majority vote. A motion to
rescind or amend provisions of a constitution or bylaws
is subject to the requirements for amendment as con- � .
tamed in the constitution or bylaws (see 55, 56). If the ` ;r
bylaws or governing instrument contains no provision
relating to amendment, a motion to rescind or amend
applied to a constitution or to bylaws is subject to the i
same voting requirement as to rescind or amend special
rules of order—that is, it requires previous notice as 3
R ,
described above and a two-thirds vote, or, without
notice, a vote of a majorityof the entire membership. _ '
8. A negative vote on these motions can be reconsidered, ii
tl
but not an affirmative vote. c,
Further Rules and Explanation
RIGHT OF ANY MEMBER TO MAKE THE MOTIONS, it
WITHOUT TIME LIMIT. In contrast to the case of the il
motion to Reconsider, there is no time limit on making `}
these motions after the adoption of the measure to which
they are applied, and they can be moved by any member,
regardless of how he voted on the original question.When
previous notice has been given, it is usual to wait for the i F
member who gave notice of these motions to move them;
but if he does not, any member can do so.
i
f
I
i
302
RULES OF ORDER
§34, -
CONDITIONS DETERMINING TYPE OF VOTE TO BE
SOUGHT. The type of vote (two thirds, or a majority
`; when previous notice has been given, or a majorityof theentire membership) to be sought for adopting one of th se g
J
motions will depend on conditions. Ordinarily it is desira- '
ble to give previous notice if there is a possibility of serious
disagreement. The two-thirds vote without previous no- i
tice may be used for matters requiring emergency action.
In many organizations, a majority of the entire member. `
ship may never be obtainable at a meeting; but this may
become the best method in a convention of delegates,or in
a small board.
1
Li
;
ACTIONS THAT CANNOT BE RESCINDED OR AMENDED.
The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously
Adopted are not in order under the following circumstances:
a) When it has previously been moved to reconsider the
i
vote on the main motion, and the question can be i N
reached by calling up the motion to Reconsider (36).
b) When something has been done, as a result of the vote
w i on the main motion,that it is impossible to undo. (The
unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded
or amended.)
c) When the case is in the nature of a contract, and the t
other party has been informed of the vote. j t
d) When a resignation has been acted upon, or a person r
has been elected to or expelled from membership or r
office, and the person was present or has been officially e
notified of the action. on
The only y wa y to reverse an f
G ` expulsion is to follow whateverp rocedure is prescribed s
by the bylaws for admission or reinstatement. For the
case of an election, see p. 657 regarding removal of a; a
person from office.)
a
i
i