Concurrency is a finding that the public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are available, or will be made available, concurrent with the impact of development. The provisions of this Article are designed to provide a systematic process for the review and evaluation of all proposed development for its impact on basic public facilities and services in order to meet the requirements of statutory concurrency requirements.

(Ord. No. 2017-11-575, § 3(Exh. B), 11-14-17; Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), 9-26-2018)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), adopted September 26, 2018, enacted the same amendments as Ord. No. 2017-11-575, but provided an updated effective date of September 26, 2018.

1)

No final development order shall be issued by the City after the adoption of these regulations and no previously approved development may cause a change in use upon a parcel of property unless there is sufficient available capacity of concurrency public facilities to meet the standards for levels of service as adopted by the City Council, vested development as projected by the City Manager, and for the proposed development according to the following time requirements:

a)

As to sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and transportation public facilities, the necessary concurrency public facilities must be:

i)

Available and in place at the time the development is authorized in accordance with the City of Mascotte Comprehensive Plan; or

ii)

The development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that the necessary concurrency public facilities will be in place when the impacts of the development occur; or

iii)

The necessary concurrency public facilities are under construction at the time the development is authorized; or

iv)

The necessary public facilities are guaranteed as part of proportionate fair share agreement with the City, the developer making the application, and other developers and/or property owners, in an enforceable development agreement and/or deed restriction: or

v)

The necessary concurrency public facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement which requires that the necessary facilities will be in place when the impacts of the development occur.

b)

All final development orders shall be conditioned on the requirement that building permits shall not be issued for the subject property until the capacity of the public facility or facilities set forth in this subsection meet the established levels of service standards for said concurrency public facility or facilities.

c)

On-site potable water wells and septic tanks which meet all applicable laws, rules, standards, and regulations shall be deemed to be concurrent for the purposes of this section as to potable water and sanitary sewer concurrency public facility level of service requirements: provided, however, this provision shall not be construed to limit the City's authority to require central potable water and sanitary sewer services as a condition of development approval.

2)

Approved plans of development which are specifically exempted from or specifically determined to be vested from the concurrency requirements of the City of Mascotte Comprehensive Plan by the City pursuant to applicable ordinances shall not be subject to concurrency review unless the exemption or vesting has been eliminated, waived, expired or withdrawn pursuant to law or has otherwise lapsed and thereby having become of no further force nor effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may use the concurrency review process to account for the impacts upon and utilization of concurrency public facilities by vested developments.

3)

The City Manager or his or her designee shall be responsible for maintaining an inventory of existing infrastructure and capacities or deficiencies; determining concurrency of proposed development which does not require approval by the City Council providing preliminary concurrency assessments and recommending conditions of approval to the City Council for those applications for development orders or permits which require City Council approval; and, on an annual basis, reporting the status of all infrastructure covered under this system to the City Council and recommending a schedule of improvements for infrastructure found to have existing deficiencies.

4)

In addition, the City Manager shall, on an annual basis, recommend acceptable level of service for infrastructure covered under this system. The City Council may either adopt an acceptable level of service standard based on the City Manager's recommendation, based on its own determination, or choose to allow the previously adopted acceptable level of service standard to remain in place.

(Ord. No. 2017-11-575, § 3(Exh. B), 11-14-17; Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), 9-26-2018)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), adopted September 26, 2018, enacted the same amendments as Ord. No. 2017-11-575, but provided an updated effective date of September 26, 2018.

1)

The city shall perform a concurrency test for each development application unless exempted by this Article. The City Manager or his or her designee shall be responsible for conducting all concurrency tests as required by this section. Concurrency tests shall be initiated upon receipt of a development application form.

2)

Each development application will be reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis. As each application is reviewed, capacity that is available will be encumbered until the final disposition of the application is determined. If the application is approved, the reservation becomes permanent upon approval of the City Council and/or issuance of a Development Order, as follows:

a)

Single-family residential subdivision, including townhomes - upon approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan by the City Council.

b)

Multi-family residential site plan, commercial site plan, or industrial site plan - upon approval of the Site Plan by the City Council.

c)

Planned Unit Development—upon approval of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development by the City Council.

3)

If the application is denied, the temporary reservation returns to the pool of capacity. If an application cannot be approved because of encumbrances preceding it, the application will be returned to the applicant unless the City determines that it can supersede an earlier application according to the following procedure.

4)

For development that requires one or more public facilities which are provided by entities other than the City, the City shall condition the issuance of any final Development Order for the same parcel on the availability of such public facilities.

5)

If the capacity of available public facilities is equal to or greater than the capacity required to maintain the level of service standard for the impact of development, the concurrency test is passed.

6)

If the capacity of available public facilities is less than the capacity required to maintain the level of service standard for the impact of the development, the concurrency test is not passed and the applicant shall select one (1) of the following options within fifteen (15) working days, or the application shall be considered abandoned:

a)

Amend the application to reduce the need for public facilities to the capacity that is available: or

b)

Arrange to provide for public facilities that are not otherwise available through a Developers Agreement, Proportionate Fair Share, or other method; or

c)

Reapply for a certificate of capacity not less than six months following the denial of an application for a certificate of capacity; or

d)

Appeal the denial of the application for a certificate of capacity, pursuant to the provisions of this Article.

(Ord. No. 2017-11-575, § 3(Exh. B), 11-14-17; Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), 9-26-2018)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), adopted September 26, 2018, enacted the same amendments as Ord. No. 2017-11-575, but provided an updated effective date of September 26, 2018.

1)

The following development orders and permits are exempt from this article, and may commence development without a certificate of capacity:

a)

Building permit for a single-family residence;

b)

Any addition to a residence;

c)

Interior completion of a shell-only structure for uses with same or less intensity as identified on an approved site plan;

d)

Interior renovations with no change in use:

e)

Accessory structure to a residence:

f)

Storage addition to a nonresidential use;

g)

Replacement structure, except for a nonconforming use, in accordance with the land development code provisions on nonconforming uses;

h)

Temporary construction trailers;

i)

Wells and septic tanks:

j)

Driveway or resurfacing parking lot paving:

k)

Re-roofing of structures;

l)

Demolitions;

Change in tenant space similar to the previous business tenant in the space;

m)

The following items: public utility and service structures, attached or detached guest house to a residence, accessory parking for passenger vehicles when intended for a permitted adjacent commercial use;

n)

Development permits including, specifically, building permits, which do not require an additional final development order prior to their issuance shall not require a concurrency review as a condition of issuance of said permits;

o)

Sign permits.

2)

Development that is determined to be vested.

(Ord. No. 2017-11-575, § 3(Exh. B), 11-14-17; Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), 9-26-2018; Ord. No. 2021-05-614, § 6, 8-3-21, eff. 10-1-21)

1)

An applicant may appeal a denial of a certificate of capacity on two (2) grounds:

a)

A technical error;

b)

The applicant provided alternative data or mitigation plan that was rejected by the City;

2)

The appeal of a denial of a certificate of capacity shall be filed in writing within fifteen (15) days of the date of denial with the City Manager detailing the exact grounds for the appeal. No other information will be considered in the appeal process. A recommendation will be formulated by the City Manager with regard to the appeal and transmitted to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the receipt of request for appeal. A final decision will be made by the City Council within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the City Manager recommendation.

If an applicant is denied a development order on concurrency grounds, the applicant may not resubmit the same application for a period of six months from the date the application was denied. If the applicant makes material or significant reductions to the densities and intensities of use in the application, it may be resubmitted at any time.

(Ord. No. 2017-11-575, § 3(Exh. B), 11-14-17; Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), 9-26-2018)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), adopted September 26, 2018, enacted the same amendments as Ord. No. 2017-11-575, but provided an updated effective date of September 26, 2018.

A)

It is the intent of this chapter to implement the goals, objectives, policies and standards of the City of Mascotte Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and particularly the Public School Facilities Element and to implement the First Amended Interlocal Agreement between Lake County, the Lake County School Board and Municipalities for School Facilities Planning and Siting (hereafter referred to the "Agreement").

B)

Unless otherwise provided herein, this chapter shall apply to all development orders with any residential component and any amendment to an existing development order to the extent that the student generation is increased above what was previously approved, or any other official action of the City of Mascotte having the effect of permitting residential development of land. The following residential uses shall be considered exempt from the requirements of school concurrency (unless the development approval for such use required it to meet School Concurrency):

1.

Single-family lots having received final plat approval prior to the effective date of the City's Public School Concurrency Ordinance or other lots which the City has determined are vested based on statutory or common law vesting.

2.

Multifamily residential development having received final site plan approval prior to the effective date of this chapter or other multifamily residential development which the City has determined is vested based on statutory or common law vesting.

3.

Amendments to residential development approvals issued prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives, which do not increase the number of residential units or change the type of residential units proposed.

4.

Age restricted communities intended for, and solely occupied by, persons over the age of eighteen (18) that are subject to deed restrictions prohibiting the permanent occupancy of residents eighteen (18) years of age or older. Such deed restrictions must be recorded and must be irrevocable for a period of at least fifty (50) years.

5.

Age restricted communities intended for, and solely occupied by, persons sixty-two (62) years of age or older.

6.

Plats or residential site plans which include four (4) or less units. For purposes of this section, a property owner may not divide his or her property into several developments in order to claim exemption as allowed by this section. In making a determination as to whether a property is exempt under this section, the City shall consider, in addition to the ownership at the time of the application, the ownership as of the date of the adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter derives.

C)

To ensure the capacity of schools is sufficient to support student growth at the adopted Level of Service for each year of the five-year planning period and through the long-term planning period, after June 1, 2008, the following Level of Service standard shall be established for all schools of each type within each Concurrency Service Area (CSA), as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan Public Schools Facilities Element, and each individual school:

1.

Elementary: One hundred (100) percent of permanent Florida School Inventory of School Houses ("FISH") capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

2.

Middle: One hundred (100) percent of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to One hundred twenty-five (125) percent of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

3.

High: One hundred (100) percent of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

4.

For purposes of C)1., C)2. and C)3. above, non-conversion charter schools shall be counted as FISH capacity if an agreement has been entered between the charter school and the School Board which requires the school facility to be constructed in accordance with Florida Department of Education standards for public schools; which provides that the school facility will be provided to the School Board for its use if the charter school fails to operate satisfactorily; and, which provides that if there are financing arrangements for the school, the School Board will be able to operate the school without having to be responsible for such financing costs or that the School Board is willing and able to accept responsibility for such costs.

5.

For purposes of C)1., C)2. and C)3. above, a developer financed public school shall be counted as FISH capacity if an agreement has been entered between the developer and the School Board which requires the school facility to be constructed in accordance with Florida Department of Education standards for public schools; which requires that the Developer transfer the school facility to the School Board upon its completion; and, which provides that if there are financing arrangements for the school, the School Board will be able to operate the school without having to be responsible for such financing costs or that the School Board is willing and able to accept responsibility for such costs.

D)

The following procedures will be utilized to obtain a School Concurrency Determination from the Lake County School Board and to allow for mitigation if a development proposal is determined not to be in compliance:

1.

A completed application provided by and delivered to the Lake County School Board must be submitted by an applicant proposing residential development prior to the issuance of the City's development order. Pursuant to the First Amended Interlocal Agreement, upon request, the applicant may complete an application early in the City's development review process as set forth in Article IV of the Land Development Code. The application at a minimum shall include the following information:

a.

Proposed Development Name.

b.

Application Type.

c.

Intake Date.

d.

Signature of Agent.

e.

Number of Residential Units broken down by unit type.

f.

Property Deed.

g.

Consent Form.

h.

Phasing Plan (If Applicable).

i.

Site Plan.

j.

Survey.

k.

Justification Statement.

l.

Location Map.

2.

Within three (3) days of submitting the application to the School Board, the applicant must present a copy of the application to the City. The City shall provide a Determination of Authenticity to the School Board within three (3) days of receiving the application.

3.

Within thirty (30) days of the initial application, the School Board shall review the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.5.2 of the First Amended Interlocal Agreement and base the concurrency determination on standards outlined in Section 5.5.3 of the First Amended Interlocal Agreement. Once the School Board has reviewed the application, it shall report in writing to the City:

a.

Whether adequate school capacity exists for each level of school, based on the standards set forth in the Agreement; or

b.

If adequate capacity does not exist, whether appropriate mitigation can be accepted, and, if so, acceptable options for mitigation, consistent with the First Amended Interlocal Agreement.

4.

No development order shall be approved unless the School Board has issued a finding that the proposed development is in compliance.

5.

If the School Board determines that adequate capacity will not be in place consistent with the provisions of the First Amended Interlocal Agreement, the City will not issue a Letter of School Concurrency Determination and will not accept or process the development application. If the proposed development is not in compliance, the Letter of School Concurrency Determination shall detail why the development is not in compliance and shall offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into a ninety-day negotiation period, if applicable, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.6 of the First Amended Interlocal Agreement.

6.

If the School Board determines that adequate capacity does not exist but that mitigation is an acceptable alternative, the development application will remain active pending the conclusion of the mitigation negotiation period described in the Agreement.

7.

The City will issue a Letter of School Concurrency Determination only upon:

a.

The School Board's written determination that adequate school capacity will be in place in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; or

b.

The execution of a legally binding mitigation agreement between the applicant, the City, and the School Board, as provided by in the Agreement.

8.

The applicant shall ensure that the City of Mascotte is provided with the proposed mitigation option prior to entering into a mitigation agreement with the School Board.

9.

The City Council shall approve all proportionate share and mitigation agreements.

10.

If mitigation is not agreed to, the Letter of Determination of Concurrency from the City shall detail why mitigation proposals were rejected and detail why the development is not in compliance. In this case, no development order shall be issued by the City.

11.

If the School Board and the applicant agree to mitigation, an agreement between the School Board, the City, and the applicant shall be executed, and the City shall issue a Letter of Determination of Concurrency based on the agreed mitigation measures.

12.

A Letter of Determination of School Concurrency finding the development in compliance shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance unless extended by the School Board. Once the development order is issued, the concurrency determination shall run with the development order.

13.

If the Letter of Determination of Concurrency requires conditions or mitigation to be placed on the development, the development order issued by the City of Mascotte shall incorporate conditions as set forth by the School Board.

14.

If the Letter of Determination of Concurrency requires the development to be phased to school construction or other mitigation, the conditions of approval of the development order shall reflect the phasing requirements by withholding subsequent development orders for building permits.

15.

In no case shall a development order be issued unless provisions are made through conditions of approval or by agreement between the School Board, the City, and the applicant to provide Performance Security when required.

(Ord. No. 2017-11-575, § 3(Exh. B), 11-14-17; Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), 9-26-2018)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2018-09-588, § 3(Exh. B), adopted September 26, 2018, enacted the same amendments as Ord. No. 2017-11-575, but provided an updated effective date of September 26, 2018.

Attachments 8-1—8-4^[5]