Title: Substantial Deviation Workgrouup Draft Documents
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004647/00001
 Material Information
Title: Substantial Deviation Workgrouup Draft Documents
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Substantial Deviation Workgrouup Draft Documents (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 4 ( Water Supply Issues - Linking Water Supply Planning and Land Use Planning ), Item 10
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004647
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text
;12- 2-93 ;12:10PM ;


LOWNDES
DROSDICK
DOSTER
KANTOR &
REED, P.A.
Attorneys at Law


215 North Eola Drive
Post Office Box 2809
Orlando, Florida 32802-2809
Telephone (407) 843-4600
Te' ier 423-4495

SCopy
5


TELECOpMY M T SMITAL
FOR IMMEDIATEDELIERY


DATE: December 2. 1993


TO:


TJAKE VARN


COMPANY:


CARLTON. FIELDS


TELECOPIER NO.: 904 222-0398


FROM:


TELEPHONE NO.: 904 224-1585


RANPI FITZGERALDP


TELECOPIER NO.:


(407) 423-4495


TELEPHONE NO.: (407) 843-4600


TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS ONE:
COMMENTS:


ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO BE MAILED:
TIME OF TRANSMITTAL: : S (TO BE COMPLETED BY
TRANSMITTING OPERATOR)
If you do not receive all of the pages, please call us as soon as possible.

The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and confidential. It is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone collect and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S.
Postal Service. We will reimburse you for postage.

Thank you,
GINA NEAL:


CLIENT NO.: 099998


MATTER NO.: 10912


72878\CAD


4078418178-*


19042220398;# 1


SENT BY:L D D K & R




SENT BY:L D D


--. URMI T _OpICm. (604e. *E )
JAMIU *AILL *A
WILLIAM A. U*WELt
WILLIAM aIno, JR.
MATHNEW S. *WrNNC
DALE A, *UURKT

*CZPHCN p. SUNCA<4
WILLIAM T. DYNONB, ,J.
NICNAO O j. ,.LER.
TWONMAs ,. rRANCIE
JULIA L. RV
ouri FREY, JR,
AARON J OOltOVIT2
lAMS Fr. I3lllIN, JR.
NbCet? o. iI0114N
LOAN A JQMN4ON
oARY M, uUAAITA
"AL H. KAMYa*
JAM6S 6. MATrELMAMN
JO*KMN A. LANE
0- kiMSARK L6E
Jo Mw P. LOWN u
TIMOTHY J. MANORk
LININA MALLISTC
6. QORCOORY MeNEILL
DAVID IC. PrTIRION
MIC 0.A A. POPE
aIHAWN *. MAOtM
MONEY RAIMlN
JOHN A. NZED, JR.


ATTOrNRY AT LAW

*1s NMOWH COLA 0bIVE

OMLANDO, rLOOIDA asO8-a*0o

TiCLEeHOWm (0e1) &" 1-900
TELECOPIEr (2407) 4*4493






December 2, 1993


K & R ;12- 2-93 ;12:10PM ; 4078418178- 19




LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED
*OOESIIONAL ABMCILATION


MICHAEL RVAN
HAROAREYT C:HR9EIIER
sill. e. OWN140U
,JAMES N. P,
JULIAN 1. WHrTrIHU--
JON a. 2"OLSt
TERRY -. YOJIXw
a AfLt G. CARRINGTON
.,$Y M. AVANAuJaM
W. rpRRY aOOTOLO
S PAUL BIETRICH, I
- EVIN P. BNAGhv
o- T SA FINER
1ARVLL %. BARVEY
VERNCTA L. 166LL
IARRY L., 60r
dAMI U. HIoeTvO
IHARD 1 A. KELLER

P a L 16011 191
JAGINTA M, MAT14r
LANIEL F. NIINTOSP
DONAto A. MYERS, JR.
MAUIEL M.. ELBOW
PATRICE K. 11N4A
MAnK D. BeIMECA
PATRICIA N, *INMAN
WINDY L. SPITLER
VID WILIFORD


MEMORANDUM


TO:

FROM:


RE:


Alex oMagee 'l/

Randi Fitzgerald -


Substantial Deviation Workgroup Draft Documents


Alex:

I have several comprehensive plan amendment hearings scheduled
on December 7th and, regrettably, will be unable to attend the
meeting with Linda Shelley. I have, however, reviewed in detail
the draft substantial deviation documents forwarded to me and have
noted several comments, clarifications and corrections for your
consideration:


SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO SECTION 380.06(19) DRAFT


1. Some of the subperagraphs have headings; others do not. For
consistency, I would suggest including additional headings as
follows:


Page 1, line 10:

Page 1, line 18:

Page 6, line 14:

Page 8, line 15:


2. Page 3, lines 12-14:


(a) Categories of Amendments. -

(b) Category I Amendments. -

(e) Categorv II Amendments. -

(g) Category III Amendments. -

Conceptually I do not have a problem


042220398:# 2




SENT BY:L D D K & R ;12- 2-93 ;12:11PM ; 4078418178- 19042220398;# 3






December 2, 1993
Page 2



with treating the addition of any new acreage as a Category II
change; however, I believe there should be consistency across
all categories of land uses, including mining. Thus, even as
to mining projects, if new land not previously reviewed in the
DRI process is proposed for inclusion in the DRI, a Category
II change should be triggered. Conversely, if the new area to
be mined was originally included as part of the DRI and the
time frame for mining the land is merely being expedited,
Category I status would appear to be appropriate. If mining
DRIs have the ability to add any new acreage as a Category I
change, other types of DRIs should have this same ability. In
any event, for the addition of acreage to be treated as a
Category I change, the applicant should submit an
environmental assessment documenting the absence of impacts to
environmentally sensitive lands and documentation indicating
that the new land does not contain archaeological or
historical sites.

3. Page 3, lines 16-17: My notes do not reflect any discussion
or consensus regarding the elimination of an approved land -Ff
use. I agree, however, that elimination of an approved land
use from a multi-use development should be reviewed as a
Category II change so that impacts can be evaluated.

4. Page 3, lines 17-18: The last phrase in this subsection
should be deleted--it is confusing and unnecessary. It does ~
not appear that any decreases are authorized in
380.06(19)b.6.c., except in conjunction with a simultaneous
increase. I believe the language in 380.06(19)b.6.c.,
standing alone, clearly indicates that only the stated
criteria are applicable.

5. Page 3, lines 21-23: Revise as follows:

changes to the setback that are-not
relted-- t- do not affect
environmental mitigation areas,
archeological resources or
historical resources;
6. Page 3, line 26; Page 4, lines 1-2: The language regarding
simultaneous increases and decreases is unclear. The word
"equivalent" only adds to the confusion. Are we trying to
imply that the "equivalent" floor area somehow could include
residential units, hotel rooms, recreational vehicles or
hospital beds? I feel strongly that this restriction should




YtNI BY;L U U K & X ;12- 2-83 ;1211PM ; 4078418178- 19042220388;# 4






December 2, 1993
Page 3



not be included as a limitation on Category I changes. The
overriding limitations in 380.06(19)(b)1 and 6 (particularly ,/,
the limitation on increases in p.m. peak hour trips and the
inability to eliminate a land use or propose significant
changes to the internal road alignments) will ensure that any
simultaneous increase and decrease proposed as a Category I
change will not adversely affect regional resources.
7. Page 4, line 18; Page 6, line 6; Page 7, line 10: In each of (/
these places, the phrase "meets the criteria" in the August j#
17th draft was changed to read "meet the changes" in the
current draft. I much prefer the prior draft's phraseology,
given the context in which it appears.

8. Page 5, lines 11-13: This sentence is clear. No additional
language is needed.

9. Page 6, lines 18-20: Rewrite as follows:

Proposed changes which exceed the
change criteria established for 9
Category I amendments and are less
than the cheges criteria
established for Category III
amendments, or is a change .
10. Page 10, lines 19-20: This section regarding the addition of
land to a project should be reconciled with the treatment
afforded additions of land under Category I. In the current
draft, mining DRI's could add up to 300 acres as a Category I'
change while other types of DRI's would be required to undergo
additional DRI review for the addition of significantly fewer
acres, i.e., a 4,000 acre multi-use DRI could only add 79
acres (less than a 20 percent increase) as a Cateaory II
change--the addition of 80 acres or more would automatically
trigger additional DRI review. I believe an applicant should
have the ability to propose the addition of virtually any
amount of land as a Category II change so long as
environmentally sensitive areas will not be adversely impacted
and the development proposed for the expanded DRI does not
exceed other Category III criteria.
11. Page 11, lines 3-6: Delete the entire last sentence in this
section. It is redundant with the language immediately '
following on lines 8-9.




;12- 2-93 ;12:12PM ; 4078418178-*


December 2, 1993
Page 4



12. Correct the following typographical errors

Page 8, line 2: Delete the space between "hearing" and
the period.

Page 12, line 2t Replace "timeframes" with "time
frames."


CATEGORY II AMNEDMENT PROCESS CHART

All references to Category III in the text of this chart
should be changed to Category II.


UNTITLED CHART SUMMARIZING LIND US,. CATEGORY I
AND CATEGORY ZIII AMENDMENT
- On Page 2 of this chart, Item 3.E. under "Provisions
Applicable to All Category I Amendments" refers to
simultaneous increases and decreases in floor areas of less
than 100,000 square feet. The draft of 380.06(19) (Page 4,
line 1) says 200,000 square feet.

2. Also on Page 2 of the chart, the heading "Provisions
Applicable to All Category II Amendments" should read
"Category III Amendments."


COMMENTS ON NENO FRON KATHY CASTOR

I agree with the points included in Kathy's memo.

COMMNNT8 ON DRAFT MEMORANDUM FROM ALEX MAZE TO LINDA SHELLEY

1. I believe the text under heading 2 on Page 2 needs to be
revised for clarification. The process proposed for Category
I changes requires a hearing before the local government and
yet the implication from the text of the memo is that no
hearing will be required for Category I changes. See the
first sentence in the second full paragraph under heading 2.
Although the current law requires a local government hearing
to determine whether the proposed change constitutes a
substantial deviation, the hearing before the local government
actually accomplishes two purposes--it typically determines


19042220398;# 5


SENT BY:L D D K & R




SENT B


~II nnn~nn


Y:L D D K & R ;12- 2-93 ;12:12PM ; 407841817U- 0uUZU t






December 2, 1993
Page 5




the proposed change to be non-substantial and approves the
changes. Our proposed revisions will not eliminate the need
for a hearing to approve the Category I changes. Thus, I do
not think the memo to Linda should emphasize the elimination
of the local hearing on the substantial deviation question as
a significant difference in our proposal from the current law.

2. Heading 4 on Page 3 appears to be in the wrong section of the
memo. It appears in the section dealing with proposed changes
to 380.06(19) made by the workgroup. The first sentence in
the second paragraph under heading 4 on Page 3 indicates that
we have included a "specific statement" which clarifies that
any owner can ask for a change that affects their property but
they have to mitigate the resultant impacts. Where is this
specific statement located? I have not been able to find it.
The language in our draft refers to the "developer." I do not
recall our actually drafting language for this purpose and
including it anywhere; although I know we discussed the
concept. In addition, I do not think we included any language
that clarifies Developer B's ability to proceed unimpeded by
the acts or omissions of Developer A.

3. I would like to see you conclude your memo to Linda with a
strong suggestion that another workgroup be appointed to
provide further input on the issues we did not have time to
fully address. I would appreciate the opportunity to again
participate if such a group is assembled.


Should you have any questions about the suggestions included
herein, please give me a call. Please send me a copy of the final
version of the proposed statutory changes. I wish I could be with
you next Tuesday for the meeting with Linda. Please give her my
best.




cc: Jake Varn, Esq.


*r""


---~~-~-'


s8;# 6




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs