Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-14MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Campbell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Following a moment of silent meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Chairman Campbell, Members de la Portilla, Dillard, Dunn, Keethler, Sills, and West. Also present were City Planner Rumer, Assistant City Attorney Drage and Recording Clerk Turner. ABSENT: Member(s): Vice - Chairman McKey (A /E) and Member Marcotte (A/E) CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014. Member Sills, seconded by Member West, moved to accept the amended minutes of the March 11, 2014, Planninq and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried with Member Keethler abstaining from the vote. OLD BUSINESS - none NEW BUSINESS Chairman Campbell began the meeting by explaining that all proceedings shall be governed by the Civility Code. He welcomed and thanked the residents for attending the meeting. Spring Lake Reserve PUD — Preliminary /Final Subdivision Plan Principal Planner Fabre gave a brief presentation with exhibits of the proposed project. The subject property is located on the south side of A.D. Mims Road directly across from the City's Beech Recreation Center. The subject site is approximately 43.21 acres in size of which 17.56 acres are uplands and 25.65 acres are wetlands /surface water. The subject site is currently undeveloped with a variety of trees, wetlands and 100 -year floodplain areas. The Future Land Use designation for the subject site is "High Density Residential" which allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The Spring Lake Reserve Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan (PSP /FSP) is a residential subdivision that proposes a total of 79 single - family detached residential lots with a requested net density of 4.52 units per acre. It should be noted that the PUD was approved for 99 lots; therefore, the net density and overall development impact is less than what was anticipated in the PUD Land Use Plan. The PSP /FSP is proposed to have a neo- traditional neighborhood design concept similar to The Villages of Wesmere. These Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 include on- street parallel parking, park muse, reduced setback requirements and residential lots with rear loading alleys. The subdivision is proposed to be gated with the residential streets and alleyways owned and maintained by the homeowners association. During the PUD public hearings, the Applicant/Developer was agreeable in extending the eastern PVC fence south along the adjacent subdivision recreational area, and a flashing pedestrian crossing sign on A.D. Mims Road both of which are now shown on the plans. The PUD Land Use Plan allowed for an internal roadway along the eastern border. This internal roadway has become significantly shorter. There were also three (3) home lots that encroached on the wetlands; these lots were removed from the plans. Finally, environmental and wildlife concerns were raised during the PUD public hearings. The Applicant/Developer was agreeable to order a re- inspection of the site. On May 6, 2014, an environmental re- inspection of the site was conducted by Bio -Tech and SJRWMD. During this inspection no endangered species were noted. As a result, the Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan as proposed is consistent with the approved PUD. The Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 2, 2014, and voted to recommend approval of the project, subject to the resolution of the remaining staff comments. rlicrIIQainn Member Keethler inquired the nature of the staff comments. Mr. Fabre explained that they are administrative, clean -up items that are technical in nature. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Richard Wohlfarth, approached the podium and asked to address any issues the residents may have once the board has heard their concerns. The chairman conceded. Valerie Daily, 1732 Sparkling Water Circle, inquired from Mr. Wohlfarth if the Spring Lake Reserve subdivision fence will be erected prior to the construction of the development. Mr. Wohlfarth responded that once the land is cleared, the fence will be put up. The public hearing was closed. Member Keethler opined that the developer has addressed many of the issues raised during the PUD public hearing; also notable was the environmental re- inspection of the site. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 Member Keethler, seconded by Member Sills, moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Ocoee City Commission approval of the Preliminary /Final Subdivision Plan for Sprin_-g Lake Reserve PUD (Proiect No. LS- 2014 -001), subject to resolving the remaining staff comments before the City Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Weston Bay Commercial — Rezoning to PUD /Land Use Plan City Planner Rumer gave a brief presentation with exhibits of the proposed project. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ocoee Crown Point Parkway and Ocoee Apopka Road. The Future Land Use designation for the subject site is "Commercial ". The rezoning to PUD is required to introduce the residential density. The Westyn Bay Commercial PUD Land Use Plan will consist of 20.85 acres, with a mixed use development consisting of 9.88 acres of residential and 6.59 acres of commercial. The residential portion of the project is proposed at a maximum of 44 dwelling units. The subdivision will be gated with private streets. The commercial portion will consist of 6.59 acres of C -2 (Community Commercial) uses. Access to the commercial out parcels will be via left -hand turn on Ocoee Crown Point Parkway and right -in /outs on Ocoee Apopka Road. The applicant is proposing two waivers with the requested PUD Land Use Plan. The first waiver is from the requirement in the Comprehensive Plan that allows lands with a commercial land use to provide medium and high residential density in a mixed use development. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a minimum of 4 dwelling units an acre. The second waiver is from Table 5 -1 Permitted Use Regulations to allow drive in restaurants within two hundred (200) feet from a residential property. The reason for the waiver is because of the mixed use requirement of the PUD; the residential lots will be less than 200 feet from the commercial out parcels. Member Keethler expressed his concern with the entrance to the commercial property across from the townhomes. He continued by saying that school traffic is very heavy, and providing an entrance to the commercial property in that location may prove to be problematic. Mr. Rumer stated the road was designed and engineered to service a full commercial property. The actual amount of trips with the new proposed site will be diminished due to the residential portion of the development. Member Dillard inquired if a traffic study was conducted for this project. Mr. Rumer stated not with the PUD; however, a traffic analysis was conducted prior to the development of Westyn Bay. That traffic analysis took into consideration that the subject parcel was zoned straight commercial. A new traffic analysis will be conducted upon the new subdivision plan and site plan. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 Discussion The public hearing was opened. Tom Sullivan, with GrayRobinson, P.A., attended on behalf of the property owner, Ocoee Land Trust. He explained that the property received a variety of interest, and they feel as though mixed -use development is the best fit for the area. Member Keethler inquired regarding the entrance to the commercial portion of the property. Mr. Sullivan explained that an operational analysis will be conducted; however, as Mr. Rumer explained in the prior discussion, the road was designed and engineered for the property to be zoned straight commercial. Discussion ensued regarding the conflicts the commercial entrance may cause. Mr. Rumer explained that Ocoee Crown Point Parkway will be extended to, and will connect back to Ocoee Apopka Road. This will help alleviate some of the traffic trips. Further discussion ensued regarding the ingress /egress to the commercial property and the conflicts this may cause. Mr. Keethler inquired regarding the types of commercial development. Mr. Sullivan stated he does not want to speculate, but there has been interest from different retailers. Mr. Keethler asked about the types of homes that will be developed and their price point. Mr. Sullivan explained there has been interest from developers, but at this time, there is nothing set in stone. Mr. Rumer explained that when this project is in the residential preliminary subdivision plan phase, the City will require home elevations for the housing product. The public hearing was closed. Member Keethler stated that he intends to vote for approval of this project; however, for the record, he has a concern with the commercial entrance off of Ocoee Crown Point Parkway and hopes that staff and the developer will address this issue. Member Sills stated the property was intended to be zoned straight commercial, and if kept as straight commercial, the traffic would be a lot heavier than the proposed mixed - use. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 Member Dunn, seconded by Member West, moved that the Plannin_g and Zonin_g Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, recommend to the Ocoee CitV Commission approval of the rezonin_g from C -2 (Community Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) on 20.85 acres of land and approve the associated Weston Bay Commercial PUD Land Use Plan (Project No. RZ- 14- 03 -03). Motion carried unanimously. lalesia Cristiana Sendero de Luz Plan — Special Exception City Planner Rumer gave a brief presentation with exhibits of the proposed project. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception to allow the use of three (3) modular buildings to be used as accessory buildings for church use. The subject property is located on the east side of Ocoee Apopka Road, 350 feet north of the intersection of Silver Star Road and Ocoee Apopka Road. The Iglesia Cristiana Sendero De Luz Church consists of a sanctuary and three detached classrooms on 2.25 acres. The Future Land Use classification for this entire property is "Commercial" and the current zoning classification is "C -2" Community Commercial. The subject property received an approved site plan (First Spanish Assembly of God) in 2002. The master plan included three phases. Phase one included a sanctuary, associated parking, and stormwater improvements. Phase two includes a future sanctuary addition and classroom space. Phase three provided for additional parking. The application for Special Exception is to amend the existing church master plan. The church obtained three portables for additional classroom space. Per the special exception plan, the applicant is requesting to phase the development. The applicant is asking that the modular buildings be used on site for 10 years, however, staff recommends for a period of seven years with an option for a three year extension. He explained staff recommendation by the general lifetime of a portable. Chairman Campbell inquired the proposed use of the portables. Mr. Rumer stated they will be used for Wednesday and Sunday classes. Member Sills inquired how long the portables have been on site. Mr. Rumer stated the applicant initiated the process one year ago, and the portables have been on site for approximately 1.5 years. Member Sills commented that he inspected the portables and they did not appear to be new. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 nicruccinn The public hearing was opened. Kenneth Leeming, 4767 New Broad Street, Orlando, attended the meeting on behalf of the church. He explained that the application process has taken some time as the church was trying to secure financing. Member Sills inquired the age of the portables. Mr. Leeming explained that he is not sure of the age of the portables. He continued by saying the portables were acquired by Orange County Public Schools (OCPS), and finds that they are structurally sound and have been well kept. Member Sills inquired the life expectancy of the portables. Mr. Leeming guessed they could serve an additional ten to fifteen years. Mr. Rumer explained that the existing units are inspected by the Fire Inspector for fire items on an annual basis; therefore, he feels comfortable with recommending seven years with an option for a three year extension. Chairman Campbell inquired if after the ten years, an extension is requested by the applicant, would the project come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Rumer answered in the affirmative. The public hearing was closed. Member de la Portilla, seconded by Member Keethler, moved that the Plannin_g and Zoning Commission recommend to the Ocoee CitV Commission approval of the Special Exception for 1_glesia Cristiana Sendero De Luz, for a period of seven years with an option for a three Vear extension and subject to resolvin_g the outstandin_q staff comments. Motion carried unanimously. 19 Joint Planning Area Agreement Amendment City Planner Rumer gave a brief presentation with exhibits of the proposed project. The Joint Planning Area agreement (JPA) was established with Orange County on February 11, 1994. The agreement provides for annexation boundaries, Land Use designations, and notification requirements. Orange County currently has a JPA with the City of Ocoee and City of Winter Garden. The JPA amendment requested by the applicant includes changes to the JPA Future Land Use designations of lands. The existing approved Land Use Map in the agreement has the two subject parcels identified as Low Density Residential (LDR). The request is to change the parcels to High Density Residential (HDR). ro Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 The subject parcel is located on the north side of Orlando Avenue and east of South Lakewood Avenue. A portion of the original property is where the new Ocoee Elementary School is being constructed. The subject property is currently used as a blueberry farm with the original residence still located on site. There is not a proposed development proposal before the City at this time. If the JPA Land Use Map is amended as requested, the property is not given any zoning or land use entitlements. The proposed JPA amendment requested by the applicant consists of changing the JPA Future Land Use designation on 16 +/- acres from Low Density Residential (Four DU /Acre) to High Density Residential (8 -16 DU /Acre). In order to propose any development other than what is permitted under the LDR land use, the following steps must take place: a. The property must first be annexed into the City. Annexation is done by a process that requires two public hearings and an additional hearing for the reading of the ordinance, b. An application for a Large Scale Land Use Amendment and rezoning must be made. The process for a Large Scale Land Use Amendment and rezoning requires two public hearings before transmitting the case to the State of Florida Planning Agency, Florida Department of Transportation, Orange County, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Winter Garden, Windermere, and Apopka for review and comment, c. After the review period of 90 -120 days, the land use can be adopted or denied in a third and final public hearing. Mr. Rumer explained that Orlando Avenue is a collector road that is programmed to run at a level of service of 14,000 trips per day. In July 2010, a traffic analysis was conducted and 4,500 daily trips were recorded. Orange County conducted a study last year [2013] that concluded approximately 7,000 daily trips. He continued to explain the property is adjacent to institutional and high density properties; the good, developable land was taken /sold. The remaining property has a 30- foot drop from the corner, down to the lake. The City of Ocoee's high density zoning allows for 16 dwelling units per acre; Orange County's high density zoning allows for 50 dwelling units per acre. Discussion The public hearing was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 The following residents voiced their concerns regarding the Spring Lake Reserve project: • Elizabeth Osborne, 108 Miller Court • Janet Osborne, 701 Stinnett Drive • Steve Marbais, 716 East Lakeshore Drive • Dave Denmark, 610 Gallego Avenue • Michael Smarrito, 602 East Lakeshore Drive • Bruni Massa, 611 East Lakeshore Drive • Karen Berggrein, 507 East Lakeshore Drive • Rhys Dervan, 710 Vandergrift Drive • Julie Salvo, 445 West Amelia Street, Orlando, attended on behalf of Orange County Public Schools. She provided the Board with a letter regarding the litigation between OCPS and Tom West, Inc. (Attachment A). • Doug Nachtsheim, 610 East Lakeshore Drive • Sally Miller, 709 East Lakeshore Drive • Dave Perez, 400 Orlando Avenue, 9 -C • Margaret Rushing, 402 Orlando Avenue, 4 -C • John Barton, 400 Orlando Avenue • Linda Marsh, 402 Orlando Avenue • Lavern Nielson, 603 East Lakeshore Drive Some of the shared concerns and comments from the residents included: • Adding a high density development will overcrowd schools. • Traffic will increase on Orlando Avenue. • Heavy traffic will have a negative impact on an already fragile road [Orlando Avenue]. • Drainage into the lakes will further pollute the lakes. • The safety and security of the residents in the Sleepy Harbor Condominiums will be in question as many are senior citizens. • The safety and security of the school children will be in question. • Crime will increase. • There will be storm drainage issues. • The quality of the fish in the lakes is already poor and will continue to be exhausted. • The lakes will become overcrowded. • Apartments attract transient groups. • Development should be more in -line with the surrounding area - single - family residences. • There will be an increase in noise level. 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 Mr. Rumer addressed the concerns and comments: • There is a drainage improvement project in the works for Orlando Avenue, and there will be a dedicated right lane for the elementary school. • Currently, a capacity enhancement agreement was approved for 550 students for a local development; this shows the school has plenty of capacity. However, if approved, the project will have to go through a capacity enhancement agreement. • Regarding traffic on Orlando Avenue — In July 2010, a traffic analysis was conducted and 4,500 daily trips were recorded, Orange County conducted a study last year [2013] that concluded approximately 7,000 daily trips. The road was designed for approximately 14,000 trips. However, the development will require a traffic study to be conducted, and if the report shows over 14,000 trips, the project will require mitigation. Member de la Portilla inquired if the landowner has the option to stay in Orange County, Mr. Rumer answered affirmatively, and explained that any further development will require the property owner to annex into the City in order to obtain water and sewer. If the applicant applied with Orange County for a land use amendment, the City would object as it would not meet the City's JPA. Further discussion ensued regarding the process. Member de la Portilla inquired if the property stayed in Orange County, and requested a zoning for medium density, what action would the City take. Mr. Rumer explained that the City looks at the impact to the concurrency issues, and ensures they will be addressed under the Orange County proposal. However, they will still need to be annexed into the City for water and sewer. Scott West, 888 Ocoee Apopka Road, approached the podium and explained that he runs the blueberry field. He continued by saying they do not intend to develop the property, and wish to keep it as a blueberry field as long as they can. However, they want to be well prepared in the event that OCPS wants to take more of their property. Chairman Campbell entered into the public record that the Board received sixteen letters /e -mails opposing the 19 JPA Amendment; the letters /e -mails will become a part of the permanent record and available for review at the City Clerk's Office. Member West stated that this item poses a conflict of interest; therefore, he will abstain from voting (completed Form 88). He stated that there is a misconception regarding plans of building an apartment complex; the intent is to keep the property as a blueberry farm. The conflict arose because OCPS acquired some of the property via condemnation. He continued by saying that the City stated that for the long term, the best use for the property is high density. Also, an appraisal of the property showed that a zoning designation of high density residential is the best use of the land. Based on this, he asked that OCPS compensate them for the land with a high density residential zoning; however, OCPS did 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 not do so. He explained that the money would be used to enhance the farm. At this time, the only alternative is to request a JPA amendment. Member Dunn inquired if the litigation between Tom West, Inc. and OCPS is regarding the property that was already purchased by OCPS. Member West replied that the litigation is over the land that OCPS already acquired via condemnation. The public hearing was closed. Member Keethler inquired if the JPA Land Use Map is amended, does the applicant need to continue with the development process, (e.g. annexation, large scale land use amendment and rezoning, etc.). Mr. Rumer explained that the next steps in the process do not need to follow the JPA amendment; the process can end with the JPA amendment. Mr. Rumer provided a lengthy explanation regarding all steps involved in order to propose any development. He also explained the differences between the City's and Orange County's residential density classifications. Member Keethler requested an example of a JPA amendment where a high density property is adjacent to a school. Mr. Rumer explained that Westbrooke Elementary School is adjacent to the Villages of Wesmere Townhomes and the future Skorman apartment project. Member de la Portilla inquired the amount paid to the applicant by OCPS for the condemned land. Assistant City Attorney stated she cannot address the question as she is not involved in the litigation, and inquiring from Ms. Salvo [OCPS representative] would require the Board to reopen the public hearing. Member de la Portilla asked if the City collects taxes on the property, and if the property benefits from agricultural tax exemptions. Mr. Rumer stated the City does not collect taxes on the property. Member de la Portilla inquired if annexed, would the City collect taxes. Mr. Rumer explained that the City would collect non ad valorem taxes. Mr. West stated the property does qualify for agricultural exemptions. Further discussion ensued regarding the litigation between Tom West, Inc. and OCPS. Member de la Portilla inquired how much acreage was condemned. Mr. West responded, "6.3 acres ". Member Dillard commented that the residents want to be assured that the land will be kept as a blueberry farm. Mr. West responded that is the intent, but wants to continue with the JPA amendment process. Chairman Campbell opined that the process is a very lengthy one. He informed the public that the Planning and Zoning Commission only recommends to the City Commission. in Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 10, 2014 Member de la Portilla stated that he is not in support of the 19 JPA Amendment. His children attend OCPS, and as a City resident and tax payer, he has to look out for the best interest of the residents and OCPS. Mr. West responded the City stated that for the long term, the best use for the property is high density. Also, an appraisal of the property showed that a zoning designation of high density residential is the best use of the land. Member Sills, seconded by Member Dillard, moved that the Planninq and Zonin_q Commission, acting as the Local Planninq Agency, recommend to the Ocoee Cit Commission approval of the 19th Amendment to Ocoee - Orange County Joint Planninq Area Agreement, JPA -14 -001. Motion failed, 3 -3, with Members de la Portilla, Dunn and Keethler opposin_g. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Rumer informed the board that there are only a couple annexations coming up, and does not feel this will warrant holding a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in July. Project Status Report Mr. Rumer stated that potentially, there will be three different developments in Target Area 2, between Bluford and Blackwood Avenue (around Lake Bennett). ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. ATTEST: iana Turner, Recording Clerk APPROVED: Bradley Campbell, Campbell, Chairman FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST N E —FIR T NAME— IDDLE NAME ly .S A 1 NAME OL B ARD, COU CIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITId►OR COMMITTEE J ' Zoe, N MAI N DDRES V0 THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMM ION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: �" ITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCALAGENCY CITY /� C UNTY NAME#WPOLIT ICAL SUBDIVISION: (/ Z DATE ON WHICH YOTE O CURRED /' MY POSITION IS: ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 A , This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34- 7.010(1)(0, F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. O AtTEMgP TO �INUENC FLI* THt"dl IF YOU E 0 ION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION-AT AKE �SSION-AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure. before participating. a • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with t1hq parson responsible for recording the miputes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the mintite §. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. ��j u/ A /� DIS OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST / Il DI' /IF� • /TAN 1�� hereby disclose that on ^��(�� 20: (a) A easure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or , by inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the sure is as follows: If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. (P I Iy Date Filed i /' �. --95r� Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 86 - EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34- 7.010(1)(0, F.A.C.