P & Z - 09/19/2001 THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2001
(Postponed from September 11, 2001 due to Terrorist Attack)
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Bond called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. In light of the tragedy which
has affected the nation, Chairman Bond shared inspiring thoughts about the strength of
the country, then led in prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. A quorum was
declared present.
PRESENT: Chairman Bond, Vice Chairman Landefeld (departed 8:35 p.m.), Members
Golden, Matthys, McKey, Rhodus and West. Also present were Planning
Director Wagner (arrived 8:27 p.m.), Principal Planner Lewis, Chief
Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Deputy City Clerk Green.
ABSENT: Member Miller (due to illness).
Clerk's Note: Member Christoefl has resigned and Camille Patterson was appointed on
September 18.
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A:
A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, August 14, 2001.
Vice Chairman Landefeld, seconded by Member McKey, moved to accept the Consent
Agenda as presented. Motion carried 7 -0.
NEW BUSINESS
FIRST SPANISH ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH PUBLIC HEARING
SPECIAL EXCEPTION - CASE NUMBER 1 -1SE -2001
Principal Planner Lewis presented the staff report for the Special Exception request for
the First Spanish Assembly of God Church to be located in a C -2 zoning district. The
subject property is 2.35 acres located on the east side of Ocoee Apopka Road just north
of Palm Drive. The Land Development Code (LDC) allows a church as a Special
Exception in a C -2 zoning district. The Applicant proposes to build a new church on this
site in multiple phases. The first phase will include a 3,120 square foot building as well
as paved and unpaved parking. A waiver is being requested from the normal Code
requirements to allow the church steeple to be up to 55 feet tall (a 20' steeple on top of
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
the building). This proposed waiver is supported by Staff as similar waivers have been
granted for other churches. The Preliminary Site Plan for Special Exception includes
many Conditions of Approval, most of which are typical Conditions placed on all Special
Exception requests.
Mr. Lewis said an unusual aspect of this Special Exception request is the need to
consider locational requirements for establishments serving alcoholic beverages, since
there is an establishment already operating within 1,000 feet of the subject property. In a
similar situation in 1997, the City Attorney determined that a proposed new church
would not affect existing establishments. However, the proposed use could be
considered an "established church" and provide a basis for denying any future alcoholic
beverage permits for nearby properties. Based on the previous determination of the City
Attorney, Chapter 38 -5 of the Ocoee Code would not prevent the proposed new church
from locating near an existing alcoholic beverage establishment.
On August 17, 2001, the Development Review Committee (DRC) voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the Special Exception with the condition that the entrance
driveway would be located directly adjacent to the north property line, and that condition
has been satisfied on the plans date stamped received by the City on September 7, 2001.
Mr. Lewis concluded with Staff's recommendation for approval including the proposed
building height waiver.
Responding to a question by Member Golden, Mr. Lewis said the Code provides that no
liquor establishment will be located within 1,000' of an existing established church or
school, and the distance in this case would be 500' to 600'.
Vernon Leeming, International Engineering Consultants, Inc., the civil engineering firm
for the project, was present to answer questions. He said the site plan provides for a
possible future phase as well as parking for the church and for a stormwater management
system that retains all the runoff from the building and the parking.
The Reverend Mr. Ricardo Orsini, 359 Pebble Court, Clermont, pastor of the church,
said their church has been growing steadily in the past three years and they are eager to
establish their church in the area. He said they want to work closely with the City and to
offer their facility for City events.
The public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
2
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
Members McKey and West, who had no problem with the church, expressed concern
that locating a church in this commercial area might be used to prohibit other
development (such as nicer restaurants, most of which sell alcoholic beverages) from
locating at this intersection.
Chief Assistant City Attorney Cookson said a potential developer could ask for a
waiver from the Code requirement.
Member West asked the pastor how his congregation would feel if a nice restaurant
came in and wanted to serve alcoholic drinks. Pastor Orsini said they would not have a
problem. Member West suggested having it on record that the pastor said they would
have no problem with a future restaurant within 1,000 feet.
Member McKey asked Staff to check with other municipalities about similar situations
and Mr. Lewis said it would be difficult to do so.
Member Matthys said it was not uncommon for churches to be located on commercial
land. He said when that occurs, typically, the jurisdictions do look at that in a waiver
when a future establishment wants to come in and serve alcoholic beverages.
Member McKey asked what could be done so future business owners in that area would
not be penalized.
Vice Chairman Landefeld asked if having the church in the area could be a basis for
denying future renewals for the current owner, and Mr. Lewis said that it would not.
Chairman Bond said she supports this as written for two reasons. She said it was
difficult to find locations for churches, and she thought having a church in this location
would help cut down on traffic on Ocoee - Apopka Road.
Member Golden asked Attorney Cookson if there could be a Condition of Approval that
they would waive their rights to this setback.
Attorney Cookson responded that it is a Code requirement to benefit all the citizens of
Ocoee. It could not be done on this plan, it would have to be a waiver on some future use
that comes in there.
Member McKey asked about changes to the plan to save trees, and Mr. Lewis said they
will look at saving as many trees as possible when they do the site plan.
3
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
Attorney Cookson suggested a possible alternative would be to make recommendation
to City Commission to amend the Code to provide that when it is a Special Exception
either the distance is lessened or doesn't apply at all. It would apply City wide and not
just to this particular case.
Member Rhodus said she thought it is a good idea.
As had been recommended by Staff, Member Matthys, seconded by Vice Chairman
Landefeld ^ moved that Planning, and Zoning Commission forward Case No 1 -1SE -2001
First .anish -m.l of Id h,r h , ial Exception r- . estin' for the h rch to be
10 . to s in . -2 z, nin . s i tri t in sin' he I r.. o - . waiv - r fo t - hei' ht . f th -
church steenl� to Citv C ommission with a recommendation of appr They further
recomm - n . - tha in the to e if nic - r r - staurants ore I es- to 1 • ate withi 1 000 feet of
an - stablish - d h r h to . t d within a *min r ial area th • Cit . mmi ion consid - r
granting a waiver from the Code provision which prohibits those restaurants from
locating within 1,000 feet of an established church. Motion carried 7 -0.
Member West disclosed conflicts of interest on the ForestBrooke Rezoning and
Preliminary Subdivision Plan (PSP). His Memoranda of Voting Conflicts are
attached.
FORESTBROOKE REZONING - CASE NO. RZ- 2001 -02 -01 PUBLIC HEARING
Principal Planner Lewis presented the staff report for the request to rezone from A -1 to
R -1A an approximately 70 acre parcel located south of McCormick Road, between
Ocoee Apopka Road (CR 437) and the Western Beltway (SR 419). When the property
was annexed many years ago it was understood that the A -1 zoning given at that time
would be a "holding zone" until such time as services would be available to allow the
property to be developed at suburban densities. This rezoning has been requested to
accommodate a new subdivision of single family homes to be known as ForestBrooke.
Staff has determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with Ocoee's (1)
Comprehensive Plan; (2) Future Land Use Map; (3) Land Development Code; (4) the
Joint Planning Area Agreement with Orange County; and (5) with the surrounding land
uses and zoning classifications. Mr. Lewis concluded with Staff's recommendation of
approval of the proposed rezoning.
Allen Keene, of The Keewin Real Property Company, 1031 W. Morse Boulevard,
Winter Park, the applicant/developer, gave a brief presentation on the zoning. He noted
4
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
that their plan includes one acre lots along the lake as well as many lots 80' or 90' feet in
width.
The public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Member West said he has an interest in the property and will be abstaining from voting.
Member Matthys asked about an adjacent outparcel which is in the county. Mr. Lewis
said the property is a county enclave, has a different owner, and no one has approached
the City about annexation or development of that property. He said the subdivision plan
provides for better access to the property than exists now.
Member McKey asked about creation of an enclave and Mr. Keene said it was not an
enclave before the Western Beltway was constructed.
Member McKey asked if there had been an attempt to seek R -1AAA zoning. Mr.
Lewis said Staff did not think it appropriate to require R -1AAA zoning because the
property was surrounded by R-1A zoning, and noted they are proposing some lots within
the subdivision which are meeting or exceeding those standards. Member McKey said
he thought the larger lots would help save more trees.
As had been recommended by Staff, Vice Chairman Landefeld, seconded by Member
Gold • n mov - d h. Plannin ' an. Z. nin ' . mmi i. In f. rwar . • r. inan - No. 2101 -27
th- ForestBr..k- R-zonin' A..li ati.n a - N mb-r RZ- 2111 -12 -01 t. rezon- 1
acres from A -1 to R -1A with a recommendation of approval. Motion carried 6 -0, with
Member West abstaining.
Chairman Bond commented for the record that she is "absolutely tickled to death that
someone has finally come in with one acre parcels and 80 and 90 footers, and she wished
it would happen with a lot of our development."
FORESTBROOKE SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT No. LS- 2001 -001
Principal Planner Lewis presented the Staff Report for the proposed Preliminary
Subdivision Plan for the 169 acre ForestBrooke Subdivision site. The property is located
on both sides of Ocoee Apopka Road (CR 437) with frontage along Lake Apopka and
backing up to McCormick Road and the Beltway. The project will have a total of 362
5
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
single family residential lots to be constructed in multiple phases. A portion of the site
has been recommended for rezoning to accommodate the subdivision as proposed.
Chairman Bond gave the gavel to Vice Chairman Landefeld as she left the dais at 8:22
p.m. and retrieved it when she returned at 8:28 p.m.
Planning Director Wagner arrived at 8:27 p.m.
Mr. Lewis then addressed issues as noted below.
Wetlands
There are two areas of wetlands on the subject property, one in the eastern portion of the
property, which will be preserved in its entirety, and another in the southwestern portion,
most of which will be preserved. A small part of the wetlands in the western portion will
be impacted by the proposed development. These wetlands are associated with what is
apparently a man -made canal system. This small wetland impact will be mitigated by
dedicating to the City most of the wetland area west of the canal for preservation.
Development Review Committee
The Plan was reviewed by the DRC on September 4, 2001. After discussion of a few
outstanding issues, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
PSP, subject to certain revisions to the plans (as described in Staff memos from
Engineering and Planning which are attached to the Staff Report), that would be made
after the City Commission public hearing. The DRC recommendation included making
all the changes to the plans described in those two memos with one clarification.
Comment #2 in the Planning Department memo indicates that the PSP should include
construction of a secondary road along the southern edge of the site, east of CR 437
(within Tract Y). The DRC agreed with the Developer's request to provide a note
indicating that that road improvement would be constructed with the final phase of the
subdivision.
Due to the emphasis on other issues, the DRC did not discuss three proposed waivers
and, therefore, did not make a formal recommendation regarding them.
Waivers from Code Requirements
The PSP includes three proposed waivers:
1. The first is related to the removal of trees from the individual lots before a building
permit is issued for the home to be built on that lot.
2. The second waiver is related to the requirement for a tree survey.
6
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
3. The third waiver is related to the requirement for sidewalks along public roads. This
waiver is being requested to allow the Developer to provide one 8' sidewalk along the
west side of Ocoee Apopka Road, rather than two 5' sidewalks with one on each side.
The Planning Department is recommending that the first two waivers be deleted from the
plan set, and if necessary, address one of them again when more information is available
with the Final Subdivision Plan. The Planning Department supports the third proposed
waiver and recommends approval of that waiver request.
Mr. Lewis concluded with Staff's recommendation that Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend approval of the ForestBrooke Subdivision, Preliminary
Subdivision Plan as date stamped received by the City on September 6, 2001, subject to
City Commission approval of the associated rezoning application, and subject to the
conditions listed in the attached Staff memos as recommended by the Development
Review Committee. The Planning Department recommends approval of the third
proposed waiver and that the first two proposed waivers be deleted from the Plan.
RECESS: 8:35 P.M. - 8:45 P.M. (Vice Chairman Landefeld left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.)
Allen Keene gave a brief presentation for the developer. He said they are in agreement
with Staff's recommendation, and it is their intent and interest to protect trees. He said
they will be unable to preserve some of the trees in the eastern portion because of grade,
but in the other areas they can and will preserve all the trees possible. They may come
back with some type of waiver or a limited waiver depending on the actual site
conditions when the Final Subdivision Plan is submitted.
David Evans, with Pecht -Evans Engineering, Inc., 501 East Jackson Street, Orlando, the
project engineer, presented additional information on the extensive park amenities and
entrance ways proposed with the subdivision.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bobby E. Cauley, 1009 Garden Heights Drive, Winter Garden, said he is the owner
of the enclave in the county. He expressed two concerns about the road: (1) That he will
continue to have 24 hour a day, seven day access to his property while the road is under
construction, and (2) When the road is finished, signs would be placed at the end of the
pavement indicating private property. He also expressed concern about the potential for
stormwater backing up into the low area on the site and on his property.
Allen Keene said they will pledge to Mr. Cauley and the City that he will have access to
his property during construction except for a two hour period for which they would give
7
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
notice. He said they would be happy to include in their Final Plan signs at the end of the
pavement indicating private property "do not enter" to protect him from traffic to the
east. He addressed Mr. Cauley's concern about drainage, assuring him that they will
make sure during their final engineering that the drainage does not cause back up on his
property.
Mr. Cauley said his concerns had been addressed to his satisfaction at this time.
The public hearing was closed.
Member McKey said he thought they could do a better job conserving trees and
topography if they use larger lots. He said he was concerned that cul de sacs will lead to
parking problems unless they are providing additional parking. He suggested building
the 8' sidewalk to standards for a trail so that section might be used as part of a trail in
the future.
Mr. Keene said cul de sac lots are popular. He said accommodating the topography in
the design caused many of the lots to be larger and cul de sacs to be the more efficient
way to be able to preserve trees and to cut down on grading. He said where feasible they
will have the builder use stem wall construction rather than slab on grade in order to
preserve trees. He said most of the cul de sac lots are very deep so there should be extra
room on the lot for parking, but they will not have a parking lot anywhere.
Member Matthys commented that it looks like a good project, and asked if turn lanes or
accel /decel lanes at the project entrance had been discussed. Mr. Keene said the Plan
does have full turn lanes and that decel lanes are accommodated. He also said they are
donating seven or eight acres of right of way to the City.
Member Golden thanked the developer and consultants for working so closely with
Staff. He said it looks like a good project, and he particularly likes the parks. He asked
if a tree survey would be done prior to the final mass grading plan, as he really could not
support a mass grading plan without looking at where the trees are. Mr. Evans
responded they have already instigated a tree survey of 18" trees and greater. He said
with the removal of the waiver, they are still under the Code to have to do 8" tree
surveys. They may come back and ask for a partial waiver based on specific site
conditions.
In response to an inquiry by Member Rhodus, Mr. Keene said they have an existing
Interlocal Agreement with Orange County for water and sewer service.
8
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
Member West commented that he thought this property and the Avanti Property are both
good projects. He said they will bring the water and sewer down to the Coke Property
which will help the City and the School Board.
Chairman Bond said she really appreciates the larger lots.
As had been recommended by Staff, Member Matthys, seconded by Chairman Bond,
moved that Planning and Zoning Commission forward Project No. LS- 2001 -001, the
ForestBrooke Subdivision Preliminary Subdivision Plan, as date stamped received by the
City on September 6, 2001, to the City Commission with a recommendation of approval,
subject to City Commission approval of the associated rezoning application, and subject
to all the conditions outlined by Staff in the two memos. Motion carried 5 -0, with
Member West abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
COMMENTS
NON - AGENDA ITEM - CHANGE OF MEETING TIME
Member West seconded by Member McKey, moved to change the start time of
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Motion carried
6 -0.
Chairman Bond commented that a lot of the other boards have matching shirts with the
City emblem. Planning Director Wagner said they did not have funds for them in the
Planning Department budget, and it would probably be a discretionary item for the City
Commission. He pointed out that the City was considering a new logo, so they probably
would not get them until the new logo is adopted. He said he could check with the City
Manager about it, and report back at the next meeting. Chairman Bond said they would
like to reserve the option of being able to choose the color.
Planning Director Wagner commented:
9
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
September 19, 2001
• The actual construction on the Super WalMart should begin in two to three weeks,
with a goal of opening by September 2002.
• Planning Staff is working feverishly to complete the update to the Comprehensive
Plan. They plan to distribute it to the board members a few weeks ahead of their
meeting.
• The Coca Cola Property may be ready for Planning and Zoning Commission review
before the end of the year or shortly thereafter.
Member Matthys extended belated happy birthday wishes to Principal Planner Lewis
whose birthday had been September 11.
Chairman Bond announced that Member Kimberly Christoefl had resigned and
expressed appreciation for the input she had given. She said Camille Patterson had been
appointed by City Commission in their meeting on September 18. Member Matthys
said Ms. Patterson is a planner with the City of Orlando and has a very good broad
prospective.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Attest: APPROVED:
kait ; di ) a I t___--
.T�
Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk Pat Bond, Chairman
10
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST ME-FIR' T NAME- IDOL A , - / ` /t) N OF BOARD, C1 IL, COMI�II� Nd - - . / ' T ? id
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, OR COMM! EE ON
f� / JJ WH CH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY 1, !J '` / !/ UNTY CITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
V -L c �d , _ /1� E ' NAME QF ly14 CAL Su D VIS � � ��
DATE ON WHICH VOT OC U ED / ¢/ l MY P / ON I 0/ ///
C7/ Y0 / ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
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 equally 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 the reverse side 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
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate 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 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 min-
utes 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 otherwise may participate 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 other side)
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.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. 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.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I ,__ cyw , Ag; !7h'e l , hereby disclose that on q 15 20
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
/
,X 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 , b
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of , which
is the parent 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 measure is as follows:
l� e 7 - e - 7/01 ,v\ - ��r `j f 151- ckc 0-6-4 /r, Rz - ,9C%o» -
, (Lt., RA-id .12-
4 A-clpe '0
Date Filed 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 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME -FIR T NAME- IDDLE NAME NA OU
OF BOARD, CNCI COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
. j,Je` + , I DI1f 1111.1 Po coee P yA- ,VA, N! . / �Iim
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTESb■N
F , 0 , 15er >` /0 :)-CN3 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY C 0 ( NT H , j e NAM O P LITI SU DIV N:
�
(vim r ' � / l/i 0 -r UC 0
DATE ON WHIG VOT O CURRED MY POSITIO IS:
9 / Y 7 / ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
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 equally 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 the reverse side 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
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate 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 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 min-
utes 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 otherwise may participate 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 other side)
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.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. 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.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
/-/f ' /
1, _ "'�ft/� __/-// /�� --- L�� ,h ereby disclose that on - - - -- 9// -- - - - - - ,2001_:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_X 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 ___ ____ —_ - -_ -- _— ____ —, by
whom I am retained; or
___ inured to the special gain or loss of _ - -_— _ - - -_ — ___- - -_ —_— which
is the parent 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 measure is as follows:
fil -- 4Ae
., /1/4e
/Vv, 1- S &o o / -DD
"4.44/ ed
? 2/CI l /6_ )
Date Filed 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 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2