The meeting began with a public hearing on Ordinance Number 1750, which sought to amend Article 9 of the Land Development Code concerning concurrency management. Staff explained that this amendment was part of a broader initiative to create a Mobility plan and a Mobility fee system. This new system would replace the existing Road impact fee and the County’s Mobility fee with a unified City-administered Mobility fee. The proposed changes aimed to streamline and clearly define development agreements.

Staff emphasized that the revised language intended to prevent the city from unilaterally modifying development agreements, which had previously been a concern among property owners. The updated exhibit clarified that the maximum number of residential units and non-residential square footage would not be guaranteed until a concurrency finding was made. If there was insufficient capacity, proposed developments could not proceed as initially planned. The City attorney reviewed the revised language, and staff recommended approval of the ordinance with the amendments.

Following staff’s presentation, the chair opened the floor for public comments, but no one opted to speak. A motion was made to recommend approval of Ordinance 1750, including the new language proposed by staff in Exhibit A. The motion passed unanimously without further discussion.

A significant portion of the meeting centered around the guidelines for the qualifications and backgrounds of applicants for the Local Planning Agency (LPA) board. The debate on this topic was sparked by the proposed change in language from “should” to “shall,” which would create a requirement for appointing members with specific professions. Some members argued that criteria could limit the council’s discretion and potentially exclude qualified applicants who lack specific professional backgrounds.

One participant argued against the need for specific professional qualifications, stating, “board members are supposed to sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and evaluate competent substantial evidence.” They pointed out that relying too heavily on professional expertise could pose a greater risk of misapplied judgment than having members without specific professional backgrounds. Others countered that the qualifications of board members are relevant, especially when the board acts in a recommending capacity rather than a quasi-judicial one.

The conversation revealed a divide in opinions on whether having specific qualifications for board members would benefit the LPA’s effectiveness. Some participants suggested removing the requirement for specific professions entirely, while others proposed a more flexible language that encouraged, but did not mandate, professional representation.

The topic of other cities adopting similar guidelines was brought up, specifically Orlando’s move towards requiring professional representation in its local boards. There was caution against directly mirroring Orlando’s model, noting that Oviedo’s context might not necessitate such requirements. The need for a diverse mix of backgrounds on the board was stressed, emphasizing that even citizens without professional credentials provide valuable insights and perspectives.

The final consensus leaned towards recommending the removal of specific professional criteria from the guidelines. However, the board also prepared a secondary recommendation in case the city council insisted on including some form of professional background criteria. This secondary recommendation suggested that if such criteria were to remain, the language should be flexible, stating, “consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions.”

The meeting concluded with a brief discussion on scheduling, noting that the next work session was scheduled for August 28. The participants expressed gratitude for the discussion and the progress made in refining the language regarding the LPA’s composition. They decided to present the proposed changes to the City Council in an upcoming work session, trusting that the Council would make the final decision based on the refined recommendations from the LPA.