##VIDEO ID:2FT-rH3tD20## I midle that would be time was I've been on cases with them and on cases where I'm on the opposite side yeah well he's he's got pretty pretty big gang on the other side I don't know what item it is blame me right yes to call the meeting the order please You' stand for a moment of silence and Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all Madam clerk can we have the roll call please Mr here here John Moody here Mr Matthew Ms here Mr here Mr Chris Williams here chair Charles here and I apologize for calling you madam Mr CL yeah so uh can we have the uh proof of publication please times on August 21st 2024 October 27 2024 November 2724 certify mailings all right thank you have any Minister approve no okay all right so I'd like to wel welcome everybody today looks like we're going to have a busy meeting um we're the Planning Commission and we're appointed by the board of County Commissioners and we meet twice monthly we serve as a local planning agency and we hold public hearings and transmit to the board of County Commissioners our recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments Land Development code amendments res zonings and conditional use requests Planning Commission is the Planning Commission is the final decision-making body for special exceptions certain appeals variance requests and certain alternative standard requests however final decisions may be appeal to the board of County Commissioners anyone is in opposition to any Land Development code Amendment resoning conditional use or any item where the Planning Commission transmits a recommendation to the board of County Commissioners it would be important for you to U uh attend the appropriate County Commission meeting we have this available if you don't have them for those of you who are not familiar or haven't been here before um we have three segments of the meeting that we deal with um as we go through the agenda items we have continuances we have consent items and we have regular items the continuances are items where we have not received any objection and the staff has not objected and we typically would Grant a continuance um unless there are some unusual circumstances on the consent items those are items we'll go through one at a time um anything that's on consent once we uh raise that uh item uh for discussion if you like to have it heard raise your hand we'll have it removed in consent and we'll put it onto the regular items regular items are those items that'll be fully vetted and everybody will have a chance to speak both the applicant and anyone that has questions about it um applicants and we're going to try to uh uh maintain uh a strict uh application of this is that applicants will have five minutes to make their uh presentation and objectors will have three minutes to State their concerns and then following those concerns the applicant will have an opp to come up and answer any questions that were raised uh during the meeting and uh take it from there um if there's any anybody that has asked for extra time in writing at least 24 hours prior to this meeting uh such time may be granted and I believe there is one isn't there that's correct Mr chair there was one request for 20 minutes okay and I think I think we granted that right that's correct right okay so before we go any further would be pleased if you have your phones with you please put them in a silent position so they won't disturb anybody that's speaking so everybody can be heard and it's important for you to um uh address the board if you have questions and as a whole just address the board um we'll be happy to to try to help you anyway we can to answer your questions before we start the regular meeting I'd like to open the meeting for public comment on any items that are not on the on today's agenda is there someone here to speak on anything that's not on today's agenda okay if you like to come forward please what I'd like you to do is uh when you come to the microphone state your name and address please and we're going to have everybody sworn in an aend they might want to speak okay so just be just okay I don't know if I'm here moment but my name is Kathy Lambert l m b e r t I live in D City proper 37109 Howard what else did you need well we're going to sore everybody in so anybody that plans to give testimony today if you'll please stand and raise your right hand be sworn you swear airm testimony you're about to give is truth of helpy go okay yes very good uh chairman gray uh I feel like I've been here but I watch on video and then I think that I was there but I wasn't there I just saw it on video so the thing I want to mention since you said is if it's not on the agenda I haven't seen the agenda but I saw in video a discussion about a plan for North 14th Street in which Miss Haz and Miss Moretti were here at that particular meeting I don't know if it's on the agenda now but um I sat there at home watching these guys not miss Hazelwood and Miss Moretti but other people lying through their teeth about the quality of the road of North 14th Street I just want to let you know that if you ask the bus drivers who work for this County the reason we use the oldest bus in the County's Fleet is because it has bus 31 has to go up North 14th Street it shakes the Dickens out of the bus it shakes they don't want to ruin the new buses because North 14th is such a terrible street thank you okay Chris do you have any comment about that you anything about that I think that might be the County municip County bus not not not your bus yes oh I got you okay okay on Nancy hawood 34110 a nice place good afternoon to everyone um I'd like the Planning Commission to know I appreciate your diligence and thoughtfulness when looking at new projects coming before you you all are very thoughtful on these and we know and it's great thanks also the planning department has its job cut out for us trying to keep up with the overwhelming number of applications and projects and I don't know how they're keeping up with all certainly they are doing a good job under these restraints it would be nice if the commission County Commission would give the Departments and the county funds for more staff limit the amount or limit the amount of applications they take in or impose a moratorium so they can play cat shop there is another issue I'd like to bring to the County's attentions over and over we have heard from citizens that move to Pasco County after studying land use and Zoning in the county and then it's changed from low densities to high densities they think they have moved to the perfect place for their lifestyle that they want and just to have the rug pulled out from under them is this fair to the citizens of our County to me it seems like false advertising Tall Timbers and connected city is just the latest example of this I should suggest that since the 2050 plan is coming up is being written we include some language that keeps the changes from impacting your citizens so negatively land use and Zoning should be more difficult to change in this County we also have enough approvals on our County for over the next 10 years at least it's probably more thank you for your attention appreciate thank you very much thank you very much nice to see you again Hi Lis already 16331 Iola Woods Trail excuse my voice at walking pneumonia did you get that all right yeah okay I'm here because um again we were here at the last commission meeting and we presented the idea that maybe we should have notification to Residents about what's on the agenda in a timely fashion you have a lot of people here to speak to one of your agenda items today that's just by luck of the draw because it didn't show up on the agenda yesterday until late in the afternoon it's hard to sign up for WebEx in 24-hour notice ask for extra time when you don't have the item on the agenda I'd like to request that you try to do this in a more timely fashion that allows for your community to be engaged because of that I also noticed in the files that that the community notes from the Evans 80 community meeting which we produced as a community were never in the file even though I know that you received it I you unheld it to all of you so I brought copies for each of you and I'd like to draw your attention to the summary especially could I have you receive um you really need to do that as part of the I'm sorry if you want us to receive and file documents related Evans 80 it needs to be part of the public hearing for Evans 80 so I'm prohibited from speaking during Evans 8 because I spoke the first time when we had a continuous well it still still applies to your submission can you get somebody else to to ask that if you received in fil who can speak I will have them do that then thank you thank you thank you very much hello I want to speak on the flooding with all this building that's happening and we have been we had a beautiful piece of property can we get your name and address oh I'm sorry darina Lis 12518 Fort King Road okay we we have to have that for the record because they're keeping a record of everything that goes on here so okay anyway we had a beautiful piece of property and because of all the B building with this last hurricane came through and we've been here since 19 our property totally flooded we have not been able to get on our private road we have asked for all kinds of help from the county nobody will call us back you know we we finally have reached somebody the news stations have picked it up and we're at our wits end we don't know what to do anymore we've tried reaching out to FEMA and I just think something needs to be done about the drainage before y'all do any more building okay where where are you living huh what area are you in Pasco County D City no no I mean specifically what part you have name of a road or something oh Fort King Port King Road mhm right up the street from the hospital uh is there somebody here from the county that can speak to that or answer your questions David uh yes Mr chairman the board of County Commissioners will be holding a drainage Workshop I believe on February 13 we have information from the storm impacts and the board is deliberately going through them now to try to promate regulations to effectuate better storm water management and avoidance of floodings the future okay and that is what's date of that David uh 213 sir February 13 and that would be here or on the other side I'm going to check right I'll confirm the it was my mistake it's uh Fe Tuesday February 18th I do not have a location for that meeting yet but presumably it'll be on the west side but we'll have a confir shortly ma'am I'll you outside and give you my card and then connected I appreciate any help we can get thank you thank you for coming yeah okay what's next if that was our last speaker for general public comment I'll move to the public hearing section my name is Li deine Planning Development economic growth Department the first item on your agenda is pc1 pde 25- 7845 it's a special exception um in the name of DBI properties us LLC LTE Wells Road this is coming with a request to continue the item to the February 20th Planning Commission meeting in Newport Richie at 1:30 okay and all right let's do do the next one too at the same y so the next item on your agenda is PC2 pde 25- 7848 it's a special exceptional request in the name of 52 property LLC um tropical board and RV storage sr52 this is also coming over request to continue the item to the February 20th planning commission meeting in Newport Richie at 1:30 okay Are any are the applicants present is anyone here to speak on these items all right if not do I hear a motion motion to approve the contingences of pc1 and PC2 to February 20th in Newport Rich second have a motion and second any further discussion yeah does the pc1 need to come back here if it's a district one item so it doesn't have to be on the side I can tell you that um the Wells Road one did have opposition we have reached out to that person who's um his name was Steven Stanley we spoke to him today he is okay with it being on the other side of the county and he will he will be provided a link to attend virtually okay okay anything else ma Noe that's it no okay so we have a motion in a second any further discussion all in favor say I I opposed like sign okay motion carries Mr chair the adenda the addenda item apc3 pde 255-7733 um but I believe the applicant may be objecting all right is the applican president okay yes Mr chairman Joel to I'm the land use uh development consultant for the property owner and applicant we vigorously oppose any continuance as you know this matter was originally scheduled way back September 5th of last year with a staff agenda memo recommending approval uh and the hearing actually was opened and started it was then continued for the opportunity to have a community meeting which we went and did that was delayed twice for two hurricanes uh and we ultimately got scheduled to come back to you on January 9th uh on January 2nd I received an email out of the blue from Mr Vermillion telling me that he had been told that staff was to change its recommendation of approval um and and therefore we mutually agreed to continue the January 9 scheduled Planning Commission hearing while we could address those questions uh you actually made a motion and you continued this at the public hearing on January 9th to today's date certain um this application has been pending now for almost two years literally 22 months um and you now have before you finally which we all received late yesterday afternoon after me being told on January 2nd that they were changing the recommendation late yesterday afternoon we all received their memorandum now recommending denial so you have their position today to proceed um we also in the interim completely negotiated and finalized 54 conditions consuming 15 pages of conditions that would apply in the event you see fit to recommend approval of our project those have been vetted by peed and the county attorney's office Mr Goldstein has seen those and signed off on them in the event we get approval so our position is you have everything in front of you to either approve it with conditions that have been agreed upon or anything else you see fit to add or to deny the project but we respectfully request either a recommendation of approval or a recommendation of denial so that we can get this Saga over with one way or the other so we would like to be heard please all right thank you is there anyone here to object you let's be clear are you talking about I just want to know if there are people here that want to speak to this Mr chair we do have a pretty long list of individuals who would like to speak on the item okay um so you recommend you are asking for a continuance fewer but the county is actually recommending uh denial is that right so the request is to continue the item to March 6 um in D City at 1:30 p.m. there are two alternative motions in your agenda packet the first alternative motion would be recommend denial of the rezoning um requests to the board of County Commissioners and then the alternative motion number two would be in the event Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed resoning the applicants conditions of approval which were reviewed by staff are attached to your agenda packet okay um staff does have a presentation um if so desired all right yes Mr angle thank you Mr chair just a note for the record uh we received U uh new material from the applicant uh last Saturday and also Monday and and uh we were requesting continu to have more time to digest that information and also have a meaningful exchange with our County Attorney's Office that's the that's the reason for okay thank you thank you all right so you want to go ahead with your presentation so just just so we're clear for the audience are you wanting to go and have the public hearing today on it because I'm not sure if you're asking for public testimony on the request for continuance or if you actually want to go and have the hearing well what the the applicant clearly wants to be heard it's the it's County staff that is requesting the continuance I believe Mr Engel position is either continuance or denial is that accurate yes sir okay I'm just saying I think you need to be clear with the audience as to whether we're having the full hearing today MH or you're asking them to comment only on request for the continu so should we perhaps have a motion as to whether to continue the item or not first and then from there yeah I mean to be clear you could have a full hearing and then decide at the end to continue it that's your option too but I just I wanted to be clear when you're asking somebody to come speak to this whether it's the applicant or now the applicant already spoken to the request for continuing they haven't done their full presentation on the actual application yet when the public speaks I just want to be clear with them as to what we're speaking to the application or the continuous so that's why I ask for the clarification yeah well but if if somebody wants to make a motion on that issue about whether you're going to have the hearing today I guess you that's up to the Planning Commission yeah I'd like to hear the the uh you know what the Planning Commission feels that we need to move how we need to move forward on this one you know I'm sensitive to the fact that um the applicant has been working on this for two years you know I think it's a long time but at the same time I think uh you know there must be uh good reasons for for the county to ask for either continuance or denial so without hearing all the facts it's going to be hard to make a decision so I'd like to like to have the flavor of the board here if you want to make a motion well part of it's being respectful of the time of all the people that showed up here to make a pres you com on this um this has been continued a number of times and these folks have kind of been kicked down the road as well so um i' I'd move that we uh hear the hear the case today and then we can make a decision at the end of that I will second that I think the applicant has clearly stay their position they want to be heard today and want to get a resolution one way or the other so uh and also being respectful of all the folks that have showed up to provide testimony I'll gladly second that okay we so we have a motion in a second any further discussion not all in favor signify by saying I I I opposed like sign okay so we'll uh we'll hear it today but I would I just ask you we're going to have to do this there a lot of people here do this in orderly fashion I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't no clapping and cheering and all that kind of stuff Mr chair booing and uh uh you know just try to be respectful of each other and have a fair hearing Mr chair yes I'd ask that maybe one last time if they intend to speak they haven't been sworn please be sworn because this happens where we end up with a lot of people that end coming up and then the clerk has to individually swear them excuse me sir just wait a minute okay be right with you um yeah yeah okay so just understand that if you didn't if you have not been sworn and you give testimony it won't hold any water so if you do want to give testimony you haven't been sworn we need to know about it okay M Mr chairman a point a question of procedure would would you be kind enough to ask the clerk to also swear any staff members who are going to testify uh it's patently unfair for us to testify under oath and them not particularly in this contested setting I think under under the quazi judicial rules we're entitled of that so I would ask them to be sworn they did not stand and swear originally okay yes sir OPP reest I think they i' like theery speaker to get back up come on you cannot speak from the audience like that if you want to speak come up to the microphone and give us your name and address have you been sworn yes I can tell you right now I'm not going to let this get out of hand so if you can't be be civil then well I'm my name is Roger Snider my address is 34553 Blandon Road all I'm asking is you use your rules to everybody if this mystery speaker can get up and rattle off without giving a name an address or who he's representing that's wrong sir did give his name and address no he did not he did ear he did you need to calm down sir okay facts right so to the specific requests in an abundance of caution when we do swear everybody in staff if you can go ahead and swear in as well that' be go ahead and do that if you're going to be testifying so I guess that would be include you will and maybe Mr Engle Mr P so let's do that right now and anybody else in the audience who's not sworn in please do it now thanks you swear firm the testimony you're about to give the TR you got thank you everyone good afternoon members of the Planning Commission William for Millian Planning Development and economic growth for you today is the evid county line admd item pte 27738 here is a general location of the project site at the north of the intersection of planton and Lake Iola Road the this request is a rezoning from AC agricultural to MPD master plan unit development District to allow for the maximum development of 300 multif family units 100,000 ft of support commercial 1.5 million of square ft of light industrial and approximately 80 acres it should be noted that the conditions of approval that you have today have been edited by the applicant to distinguish that the 300 multif family units are platted town homes and platted condomiums approximately 3 miles from the I75 interchange here's an aerial of the subject site the current zoning reflecting AC agricultural the future land use reflecting EC employment center here is an overall context map showing the red subject site I75 the large category Wetland and County Line Road to the north here is the applicant's proposed master plan showing the industrial non-residential sites with the multif family site that can also be used for industrial there's one variation with this application from LDC 91611 Street design and dedication requirements applicant provides seeks to not provide an interconnection to the east or to the north and for the comprehensive plan consistency report I'm going to turn this one over to ni Dario PTO thank you Mr chairman T Pito plan development economic growth Department uh to continue with the presentation here today uh the proposed resoning is inconsistent with the following compr comp a plan policies objectives and policies um here we State a number of them the future land use appendix A6 future land use map EC employment center that section of the comprehensive plan defines the uh future land use category itself what it all entails including special provisions and PR uh guidelines and principles associated with that flu uh flu being future land use uh policy flu 1.10.1 compatibility review policy flu 1.0.5 relationship of land use to zoning classifications and another series of policies in the uh public facilities um uh element of the comprehensive plan which are these are the water policies objective wat 2.4 employment centers policy wat 2.4.1 provision of portable water services for industrial employment center land uses policy wat 242 C Central water and employment center areas policy flu 2113 provisions of portable water policy watt water and sanitary policy watt 214 provisions of portable water rural area policy w224 public acquisition or private utilities policy flu 217 standards for review of the resoning requests rural neighborhoods policy flu 2110 Corridor overlay district for Rural Scenic roadways in the Northeast Pas County rural area Al flu 211 rural residential roads um and so what I'd like to do today is simply uh identify uh the main Arc of the inconsistency associated with the Pres the lack of or lack of presence of utilities namely Water and Sewer in the area and how the project does not comply with the Northeast rural uh policies of the comprehensive plan uh so I'll I'll briefly touch on some of these for the for for this uh presentation today poliy flew 110 .1 which is the compatibility review py flu 1.10.1 discusses compatibility and and the appropriate timing of resoning actions among others in this case flu 1.10.1 e notes appropriate timing based on an analysis of availability of adequate public facilities SL services including One Transportation facilities two water sewer facilities and three other necessary infrastructure and services the lack of Transportation facilities at this location Water and Sewer facilities and other necessary infrastructure to service both residential and non-residential developments at this location um is uh an issue for the comprehensive plan the proposed project is inconsistent with policy flu 1.10.1 and that the timing of the project is inappropriate given the lack of facilities especially Water and Sewer policy flu 1.0.5 is the relationship of the of land use to zoning classifications and in this policy it notes that a property owner is not entitled to all zoning classifications or the most potentially dense or intense zoning classification within a land use designation numerous planning timing compatibility public facility and other generally acceptable planning issues affect the appropriateness of assigning a particular zoning classification or approve a particular land use with regard to a particular parcel of property that's what the policy states um there are no public water or sewer utilities to service the density or intensity of the proposed development additionally there are no Parks public spaces or public services such as uh Public Services police within proximity there's no the nearest go Pasco Transit facility for example is at the Pasco Hernando State College which is about six or so Miles Away uh finally with regard to uh policy flu 1.0.5 the lake lake Iola road is a rural residential Road and we'll talk a little bit about that shortly which does not and cannot have the adequate and typical pedestrian infrastructure and amenities in its rural cross-section to support the the density or intensity of the proposed development moreover Lake Iola Road cannot have this infrastructure as it must maintain its rural appearance cross-section as a Scenic roadway and we'll talk a little bit about that shortly um as far as policy watt 2.4.1 provision of portable water services for industrial and employment center land uses and policy watt 2.4.2 Central water and employment center areas we notice in those IES that there is a mandate to for an evaluation of whether quote portable water services are available or whether additional portable water improvements are necessary in order to support the desired location of industrial land uses and and employment center land uses and places a high priority on Central water improvements in this case public utilities are not within reasonable distance of the proposed development as there is no water and sewer service in this area to support the proposed residential and non-residential development uh at this time uh as as I understand the nearest connection point is approximately 10 miles away from the subject site um policy flu 217 uh this brings us to the Northeast rural uh policies the these are policy this policy speaks to standards for review of the resoning requests for R in rural neighborhoods so policy flu 217 contemplates rezonings occurring within the Northeast Pas County rural area which is rural area number one uh meeting specific review criteria to protect surrounding rural neighborhoods I'm not going to go through each and every one of them but if you were to look at at the policy it's clear that the policy is not only applicable to residential development it also contemplates how commercial and other non-residential uses interrelate with the residential uh scope U which is the Northeast rule pursuant to and the agricultural scope of course uh pursuant to policy flu 217 the policy outlines a series of criteria that have not been addressed by the proposed development as it relates to the development of multif family residential uh as well as design compatibility with the character of the rural area additionally non-residential entitlements uh are not exempt from addressing the criteria of this policy these also have not been satisfied with the proposed project at this time policy flu 2110 Corridor overlay district for Rural Scenic roadways in the Northeast Pas County rural area so policy flu 2110 requires that any po any proposed development on a designated rural Scenic roadway uh comply with the Land Development code standards for Land Development along rural Scenic roads Lake Iola road which is where uh access would be for this particular subject site is a rural Scenic Road per section 6044 B1 of the Land Development code it's also identified and the company plan the proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan since it does not adhere to the scenic roadway standards of the Land Development code for through policy flu 2110 Corridor overlay district for Rural Scenic roadways roadways classified as either rural Scenic Road or rural residential Road shall be critical to sustaining and maintaining the Ral character of this area and so lakeola road is classified as a rural residential Road as set forth in line development code section 404 604 excuse me point4 B1 and shall be designed to the rule typical cross-section as depicted in figure 64 D3 of the Land Development code which is consistent with uh flu 2111 and flu 2112 which I'll get into now so policy flu 2111 is rural residential roads uh this policy states Pasco County shall recognize the importance of rural residential roads within Northeast Pasco County rural area for the purposes of protecting rural character and shall ensure that these roadways sustain and maintain this character in accordance with this policy as set forth even in the Land Development code section 64.4 figure 64.2 Lake Iola Road is identified as both a rural residential Road and Scenic roadway it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan to situate more than rural density and intensity whether uh residential or non-residential along rural residential roads or Scenic roadways of the North East pasel County rural area as it would detract from the intent of preserving the rural character of the area and does not uphold the intent of policy through 21 2111 as an extra layer of incompatibility um we should know that uh when considering non-residential development along roads designated as rural residential roads the rural residential Road presumes a res residential character along the roadway um and that completes the analysis in terms of the the policies and comprehensive plan associated with utilities water and sewer specifically and the Northeast rural uh criteria uh the Land Development code sections will be reviewed by will be presented by Mr rilon uh these are the follow through Land Development code Provisions to the policies that have just been mentioned from the comp's plan all right Terry is any questions yeah I got a lot yeah I got a lot go one I'm going to ask can we slow down you just went through I don't know like a dozen policies and objectives from the comprehensive plan and you said that the development doesn't comply with these policies and objectives then you didn't for most of them you didn't explain why and being that I don't have our 2,000 plus page comprehensive plan memorized I don't have the text of those policies I'd like to see the text of those policies and an explanation of why but let me ask a question about sewer and water since we're making it actually let me back up it sounded like like from your list of policies that you say this doesn't comply with that there are a lot of them that you're citing because this development lies within the Northeast rural area is that correct U many of the Pol particularly the policies on compatibility have to do with the timing of the project I understand but it's because they're in the Northeast rural area in that uh Northeast rural area being mainly agricultural has not not seen utilities extended through them I understand that what I'm saying is there are certain policies that you're applying to this development because of its location being within the Northeast rural area yes if it wasn't in the Northeast rural area then those policies would not apply uh for instance Scenic roadways yeah Scenic roadways is particular to the norus rural overlay area Okay however policy flu 217 is cross referenced and applicable within rural areas two which is the rural transition area rural area three which is rural character area and rural area four which is the rural neighborhood protection area they they go back in reference 27 and for instance in the EC employment center description in the flu appendix there's a requirement for them to transition the land use from more intense to less intense as it gets closer to the Northeast rural area specifically this EC located at the although the comp plan calls this wrong every time it's calls it the I75 us41 EC I think they mean cr41 cr41 right so they weren't in the Northeast rural area those things wouldn't apply right if they were just in some EC somewhere else uh if to the extent that there's no EC in the other rural areas correct and they haven't asked to be removed from a rural area is that correct that's correct okay reason that I asked that folks is there's a group of Rabel rousers on Facebook that that wants you to think that this applicant has asked to be removed from the Northeast rural area he has not and there are certain provisions of the Land Development code and the comprehensive plan that they will have to adhere to if this is approved and I don't know whether it will be or not that they wouldn't otherwise have to if they weren't located in the nor Northeast rural area so when the Facebook people tell you that this application is a de facto withdrawal from the Northeast rural area they should probably go back and review the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code and know what they're talking about before they post misinformation on their Facebook group now let me ask you about this Mr pedos what policy you didn't mention in your list was what about policy sew 3.1.6 and I'll ask you this first before I ask you is EC a higher land use and Res three um you which policy did you mention sew 3.1.6 EC is a higher future language category so I have this policy in front of me it says Pasco County shall require the installation of a central wastewater treatment plant in accordance with the County Sewer use ordinance where connection to an existing Central Sanitary system is not available and the development is located in an area designated by the future land use map as res 3 or higher which is why I asked you the question and a the development consists of more than 25 residential units which I guess this development does and B the net residential density is more than three units per net acre and I guess 300 divided by 80 is more than three per net acre is that correct yes okay so are you tell so does this policy not apply it does it does apply so he he shall require it shall Pasco County shall require the installation of a central wastewater treatment plant then there's policy Sue 3.2.6 does that apply to this development 3.2 yeah 6 6 it says consistent with the provision of services and Facilities within the Northeast Pasco rural area that's what we're talking talking about here Pasco County shall a continue to R rely primarily upon individual septic tank systems as the method of disposal of Wastewater within the rural area B require that new development within the rural area shall not be designed nor constructed with Central sewer systems public and private Central systems shall be not May shall if paid for by the landowner developer permitted in the future if number five it is within the I75 us41 interchange mix employment center res 9 designated properties is this is this employment center the I75 us41 interchange EC properties uh it is the so this policy would say that they shall build a sewage treatment plant or that they may if they pay for it in by themselves and the policy before it says they actually shall do it the policy I reference in the slides on that subject is policy 213 yeah but can you put that up there 213 no policy yeah policy flu 2113 is the same policy that that is in policy sew 326 so so you but you're saying that's inconsistent this this appears to be wholly consistent they're located in this employment center and this this provision appears to allow them to construct a central sewer system so long as they pay for it and it would seem that the policy prior 3.1.6 actually requires them to do it shall require the installation of a central wastewater treatment plan and they met all the criteria that are under that so I'm trying to figure out how these policies are inconsistent with the development the and could you put up objective W 2.4 employment centers could we see that and policy watt 2.4.2 Central water and employment center areas can you put that up W 2.4 I'm sorry policy watt 2.4.1 so I'll note that the comprehensive plan contemplates in numerous locations Central systems for utility service right it specifically names this one that's correct he does name it um however the comprehensive plan uh leaves the implementation aspect of it to the Land Development code and in the Land Development code in section 522 muds it contemplates uh publicly funded infrastructure in this particular can you show me yeah we'll have to vad up the code first um additionally I would I would argue that these policies have to be balanced against policy wat 224 which is talking about uh public acquisition of private utilities so there's a contemplation comprehensive plan that private utilities are Consolidated and turned into public utilities that ultimately are who who who wait a minute who said anybody was developing a private utility a non-publicly funded I should say well there's a difference between having a package wastewater treatment plant in creating a utility I I would be able to a utility is I provide service to other people other than myself if he provides service to himself he hasn't created a utility and I would tell you I would not be up here supporting the creation of any private utilities that wouldn't be a central system that would be a private system an individualized system yeah but we're confusing this this doesn't say a central system it says a central wastewater treatment plant doesn't say a private utility system or Central system I can appreciate and I quickly before I got here this morning and I'm I'm going to say this to systems I'm a little perturbed too to get this agenda at 3:00 in the afternoon the day before the hearing the most contentious case that this Planning Commission has probably heard in a year okay I get it and I get a list of comprehensive plan policies I'm supposed to read those and be prepared to make a judgment make a decision and I'm asking you put these up on the screen because I read some of these and I don't get me wrong I understand the staff's recommendation for denial but what I see with this Litany of policies is that you guys went and grabbed a bunch of policies out of the air without actually reading them or understanding them grasping at straws I understand some of which are not even applicable to this project I'm going to tell you I've been working with the applicant's attorney for many many many years he's a sharp cookie and he's going to take that list and he's going to bring it to a judge and you ain't going to stand a chance if you want to come in and make a recommendation for denial and I'm still wanting to hear the whole rest of this case wait then you need to make sure you pick the policies that actually apply to the issues of the development a lot of these say that the county is going to prioritize bringing utilities to this particular employment center he could go down there to a judge and say hey the county is not following its comp plan they didn't prioritize getting utilities to my property what say you to that the timing compatibility review is the key when was the employment center created in 2005 but I will say that 20 AR 20 years ago understood but I will say that your suggesting that the Planning Commission hasn't had enough time to which the Planning Development economic growth Department our Prime AR uh recommended motion was a continuance well okay so let me ask this question this is one's been really nagging at me we came in here September 5th and there was a staff recommendation of approval I look at this case today and I'm sorry because since I got it so late yesterday I didn't get a chance to actually go look at at the the mpud plan that was included in my September 5th agenda but if I recall in the previous version of the mpud plan all of the warehousing and Industrial was on the east side I'm sorry was on the west side and the apartments on the east side it looks like they've been flip-flopped is that I see they're shaking so this is the same so what's changed you come in here on September 5th and there's a recommendation of approval and we come in here today with the same exact development and now there's a recommendation of denial so ex and I'm not saying and I I'll caution my colleagues and the County Attorney just because I ask a question that doesn't mean I'm predisposed to a certain position on this case we know you don't I it doesn't mean I'm a flip-flopper either I just want to get all the facts what what happened wh why why the change of heart here Mr Moody may I address that please I yield thank you so the the letter the memorandum that was presented to the Planning Commission in their packet in September was a uh it was an approval recommendation with conditions things have changed since that September meeting and the applicant ask for continues number one the board of County Commission contain two other separate projects that had this similar situation where they wanted to get zoning subject to water and sewer and the board rejected that Overture twice number two we are very much U at towards the end of the 11th chapter of the 12 chapter book with our comp plan and we learned that the road infrastructure up in this area is currently inadequate from the planning standpoint because of all the tra anded so um I had I had spoken I had a conversation with Mr two um well over a month ago trying I wanted to explain that we prefer because of the implications of this project that we dealt with this in the con plan because we're going to be adopting a con plan this year and Mr two wasn't going to discuss that off the phone so that's what's changed information and frankly I'll take responsibility that that memo that came out September was under my PE and I and I I am glad that we've retracted it and doing the right thing our op profession okay I appreciate the explanation any further I don't have any I don't think staff finished their presentation well actually I well we haven't even gotten to see the mpud well we did see the mpud plan all right I have a question about in the employment center is that use so if you Mr PTO or if you have a question about the comp plan Mr pitos is the one if it's the land ofel code Mr villion hasn't done his presentation yet all right what is the staff interpretation of and I'm looking at from the flu appendix the description of the employment center and I'm looking at the locational criteria 2E maintain compatibility by providing a transition of land use types densities intensities and Heights to buffer existing neighborhoods and uses from nonresidential areas what does the staff interpret that to mean I could see where different eyes and different brains could interpret that to mean different things I mean I think it's a fairly straightforward provision it's talking about uh ensuring that the land uses that may find may find themselves adjacent to one another are compatible um that the density intensity are are not exceeding um are not overly exceeding the rural to rural character or uh I would say the highest density that the the rural area allows Is Res one so res one to properties that are so AG or AGR or along the boundaries well and I and I think that's what's going on there's some agricultural properties around the boundaries same thing with intensities so could you give me an example of something that you think would be a land use type that would be suitable to be located in an employment center yet be adjacent to the historic agricultural uses of the Northeast rural area what I'm trying to understand is what would be except acceptable I understand staff is saying this is not acceptable so I'm trying to get an idea as what would be acceptable if presented to staff it's hard to say without a specific um idea but I think the issue is that the Northeast rural area with has within it an EC employment center future land use category right so where we're at with this is that um if you're going to have an employment center land use uh present that it ought to be properly uh situated setback uh screened um not along residential rural residential roadways um right you're not going to an employment center landu such as um that listed in section 522.com wouldn't be Inc necessarily incompatible with the EC flu so that could locate still within the EC flu it has uh the Northeast rural area would have development um what's the word you would have to mitigate the appearance and location of that development even in the EC fluo according to the standards in 217 okay and would it be your opinion that what's been presented by the applicant could be mitigated to comply with that compatibility requirement could it be possible I I suppose yeah are there are there things that you think that they could do to make that development more compatible with the adjacent surrounding Northeast rural properties there may be ways to address also flu 217 and still meet and be consistent with the locational criteria of the EC flu but it's a balancing act that we haven't seen in this project okay I don't have any more questions okay anyone else I I had the same question as John is what's changeed since September but that's already asked and answered so thank you Terry Mr veran we Planning Development economic growth some of this may be repetitive some of it is not some is codified examples of what we went over in the comp plan others are not the first section from LDC 4022 master plan unit development specify standards of review the staff must go through in reviewing an MPD application and what the County Administrator design can use for their determination of their recommendation so what specifically is what specific part of 40 2.2 F have they not complied with perfect so LDC 4022 F the section of the code out these components like I previously mentioned there's three in total two that are of worth uh note today the first is the impact of the proposed development upon public improvements surrounding land uses in the neighborhood and sub region and significant environmental features in the surrounding neighborhood and sub region that ties back to the Northeast rural overlay whenever we're talking about proposed development and the surrounding uses within the neighborhood and number two is the add hold on so when we came in on September 5th this was not an issue Mr Engle cited that the boards turned down other zonings over utilities he didn't talk about not being compatible with with the rural area so what changed I'm speaking to the the components of the staff review so but what I'm saying is when it came in on September 5th this you were recommending approval and we weren't citing that they were inconsistent with this policy so what's changed that it's now inconsistent like I said Mr angle explained that you know the boards the boards turned down some zonings over the the lack of availability of utilities but that doesn't talk about compatibilities and Inc compatibilities with surrounding Northeast rural areas Mr Moody I I did speak to that I didn't just speak about Transportation I also indicated that we've gotten a lot of new data in regarding traffic and uh surrounding area impacts in this area and uh what's changed is we have more information now and that's why we had asked the applicant to work to work with us through the comp plan process to address all these issues so we can have orderly wepl development in this critical are uh we've been also through the fall and into December a number of large property owners are following the Evans project and they indicated that they want to also do high intensity development in this area so we are concerned that we're planning by project and not comprehensively professional Planning by area so that's what's changed and that's why we're here yeah but what if what if we had heard the case in its entirety in September you were recommending approval well we never we never we never recomend we we yeah we did um and the new information was available and the applicant requested it continue okay go ahead will and again sir I I'm fully responsible for that original agenda so it's not the staff I'm the one who came out my go ahead perfect so the the second of which touches on the utilities issues that that we just talked about the the second criteria for staff review in terms of recommendation of approval or denial is the adequacy of existing public services and facilties serving the proposed development including Transportation Systems utilities fire and police protection but doesn't the comp plan I read the policy that said that they could if they pay for it build their own Central wastewater treatment but it says the adequacy of existing Public Services it's not existing currently well why would they need Public Services if they're allowed to build their owns well the I'm I'm telling you the standards of review say existing that's part of the recommendation of denials because of the existing I go ahead when whenever I spoke about those existing Public Services which include the fire department and the police department in the agenda packet that that was a little bit late so I'll go ahead and read in to the record what the Sheriff's Office uh provided in comments for Planning Development economic growth the Pasco Sheriff's Office says that at 2.5 residents per household this is projected to add up to 750 new citizens and based on this recommendation of two deputies per 1,000 citizens serve this approval would a need an additional 1.5 deputies above and beyond what is currently needed to catch up with their ratio as noted so that's the same statement he gives us on all of these still a statement to the public services and their existing for the LDC I I understand but that's never been a reason for a recommendation of denial before and we had a meeting with the sheriff and and and suggested that he submit an impact fee study and that we would consider imposing an impact fee on new development to offset the additional burden of new development on his Department go ahead sure the the other section LDC 604 the Northeast Pasco Ral protection I believe that we have covered that in depth essentially what staff is saying with this section is the applicant as currently proposed isn't complying with 6044 to include the extra buffering and trees and the rural typical section that otherwise would be adopted as currently proposed like Mr nict Torio Pito said that crosssection is 135 ft of two lanes with no sidewalks on either side as of now with the conditions proposed in the master plan there's not enough rightaway dedication being done by the applicant to even accomplish the have you asked him for it you didn't answer the question have you asked him for the Mr Vermillion is saying that there if the RightWay is insufficient to provide the the necessary facilities within the RightWay and that the applicant isn't giving the right of way for those necessary facilities and I asked have you asked the applicant if he'd give the RightWay it's pretty much tradition in this building that almost every applicant gives right of way to accommodate improv Transportation facilities Mr Mr Moody to answer your question there is a assuming you were to approve this and I'm not saying you would there's a condition 16 that requires the applicant to give 57 ft right away from the center line for Lake Iola road so is 57 ft from the center line adequate for those facilities so correct me if I'm wrong um so yes the condition that Mr Goldstein noted um is a so that a request is clearly made to identify the necessary RightWay um but the RightWay that's in there I'm being as I understand it is an alternative uh width requirement and the condition I'm I'm sorry I'm not understanding that you're here saying you're here saying that you're not going to have the right away and that the applicant's not giving a right away but if we approve it there's a condition of approval that says he's going to give the RightWay well that's not that's not the it's 135 ft of RightWay necessary I don't believe that that's the total RightWay and by how staff interpreted this much like the buffering requirements that by asking for this 57 ft as well as the buffers proposed on the master plan that that was in effect asking for a variation from the the code but we asked the applicants to call out all these variations from the code at the beginning this wasn't called out so we had no choice but the call it an inconsistency with the code and it took since September I mean most applicants are pretty Savvy they know if there's a problem like that that they need to provide a buffer or they need to provide some right away to get approved for an entitlement as large as this act ask is usually that's chump change I I had a hard time believing that but go ahead sure and of course the last last section is 91611 which we spoke to on the variation with this um not providing the connections to the north and east staff found that it was inconsistent with the code on 91611 Street design and dedication requirements comes to you with again would you back that slide up sure and one more time the issue of Lake Iola Road and LDC 604 none of these things would apply if this EC were not located in the Northeast rural area yes specifically Lake IA is called out as a senate Corridor I understand okay we are here for further questions I do have one question for um I don't know if whether it's Mr pichest or Mr Engel but um so on the Water and Sewer I think you mentioned that the nearest point of connection was 10 miles away is that accurate yes sir that's the approximate distance to Public Utilities so would it let's put aside the road discussion just for a second but in terms of just water and sewer is your position that this employment center would be supportable from a utility perspective if those connections were made 10 miles away if if that actually existed if those connections that are 10 miles away existed to this employment center they were public connections not the private utility system which you've made it clear that you would not support for other reasons but if it was a public utility connection to the points of connections are 10 away would that be sufficient Water and Sewer to support the employment center Mr Goldstein we do not know that answer haven't had the utilities assess the capacity of the system if they were to be exed mil well I'm the reason I'm asking the question is because somebody put employment center on this property so I'm trying to figure out what and and your denial recommendation is fairly clear because it's a lack of Water and Sewer Transportation I'm just trying to figure out at what point in the future would would there be adequate infrastructure to support an employment center in this location would is it when there's a connection 10 miles away that's what I'm asking we do have we do not have an answer to that question Pasco County uity is not provided a Capacity Analysis the hypothetical the extended Water and Sewer in that area public utilities adequate treatment capacity and Order capacity to service location keep in mind this is work the EC was put in place in 2005 2006 and uh you know A lot's changed in the county since that time and we are focusing all of our utility attention on our urban urban service areas we're getting a lot of apartment development a lot of Industrial Development and this is not area has not been prioritized yeah I'm I'm only asking a question because it appears the Crux recommendation is that this reson is premature because there's inadequate infrastructure to support it that's correct what I'm asking is what level of infrastructure would be needed to eventually support an employment center and what I'm hearing is maybe it's connecting to this this locations that are 10 miles away at some point in the future well sir that's why it was defaulting to the comp we are engage with our partners at CCO County utilities and uh if we were going to promote development in this area the property is currently zoned AC it's not zon for higher intensity uses but if this area were to be a priority of CCO County to develop in urbanized fashion uh we have to consider the fact that the interchange there is rural design not Suburban Urban Design and roads are inadequate for this Ty of use in CLE with other property owners are going to be coming in for for higher intensity projects so all that information should be done through the comp should be the project okay so you're saying there would need to be some sort of areawide discussion about bringing adequate utilities to this area as part of your comp plan update yes sir but the comp plan already says that it says Pascal County will prioritize bringing utilities to this specific EC well one could argue that the two Provisions are conf because it also says if paid for by the developer no no no no that's that's different the the policies that Terry didn't put up on the screen and didn't read if you go into policy sews and WS there are actual individual one sentence long policies and I'm sorry sorry cuz I don't have the giant comp plan right here in front of me that state Pasco County will prioritize getting utilities to these areas if you give me a moment I'll pull those or while the applicants I'll get those policies for you the comp plan actually says they will make this a priority to get utilities to this EC I'm failing to see how that was a priority if this was done in 2005 and we're here in the year 2025 Mr I'm not disag with what it that policy May or not at I don't see I'm only pointing out the 3.2 Point there's other policies that say that that will be the case if paid for by the landown or developer soan I think I'm not sure that that the policy you're saying mandates that the county pay for water sew 3.9.2 Central sewer employment center areas the county shall place a high priority on providing Central sewer improvements to EC employment center future land uses I also know that if we go into the water section there's this identical policy for water my only point is that higher priority doesn't necessarily mean the county has to pay for it and 3.2.6 says that for this particular employment center it says if paid for by the landowner developer so what I'm saying you you got to reconcile the two policies I don't think that just because it says high priority doesn't mean the county is supposed to invest a bunch of money to provide water and sewer to this employment center particularly when there's a policy right on point that says that the developer is supposed to pay for but the policy you noted says that he can do a private Central system if he pays for it himself and he's within this particular EC right and staff has made it clear that they don't support a private system for other reasons but I I was just trying to ask the question what level of infrastructure Water and Sewer infrastructure would be required to support an employment center at this interchange because it's got a future luse of employment center so I'm trying to figure out what and staff is position is there inadequate infrastructures to support it today so I'm trying to figure out what would be required in the future to support such I understand the question so it sounds like it would be some some connection to the existing system that's 10 miles away is that generally accurate we do have individual from utilities I don't know what he wants to say but he wants to speak to that Advance him online sure thank you um hear yes okay so sir uh Mr Goldstein Central First Central means C connected to the central water system and sewer system it's not an isolated system somewhere number two is in order for us forco County Utilities to extend a line for 7 to 10 miles with no customers on it it's not going to be feasible to because you need the customer on that system and and the Pasco County Utilities uh customers is the one they are the one who is going to pay for that ultimately when the system is turned to Pasco County it's the rate payers it's not a general uh fund or anything so we have to be aware of that so we have to have the customer base on that system uh that's that's very critical to any system that we extend um I've never been aware of that employment center at that location but I'm aware of other employment centers like the one on uh Sun Coast and um 52 uh other employment centers but I'm not aware of the that employment center so it's a I'm sorry about not being informed about that one but I can see difficulties with this I'm willing to answer any questions other questions you may have question I'm not sure his answer was much different than what Mr Pito said but but he's saying basically what I'm going to hear him say is that there would be some connection to the county system that would be needed is that when it's economic when it's when they've got the customer base to support it I think what I heard from it was that the central waste PL by definition is connected to the central system this policy requires them to provide that if they're going to develop so really it wouldn't be on Pas count utilities to provide it ahead of time they're going to they're requiring them to provide it when they develop the employment center it says if paid for by if paid for by the development right so that's and once they're available then they are required to connect to them right okay so so I guess let's put the utilities I'm going to ask as us a similar question as it relates to roads so you made it clear that the existing Road network is insufficient to support this rezoning I mean what would be needed I mean like if they had a direct connection to Blanton and with four lane would that I mean or have you not evaluated what would be needed from a road perspective to support this level development I mean you made it very clear that the connection to like Iola your concerns with that and its existing configuration I'm asking what would give us an example of a road Network that maybe that might be sufficient to support an employment center would it be I I would I would defel that to David's answer which is we have to look at that from a pass 2050 comprehensive plan standpoint the reason is because Blanton Road itself is a Scenic Road as well according to the same policies so I I would def fall to that position that has to be looked at comprehensively right that I guess that's sort of the root of my question is I'm just trying to figure out we did put employment center on this property is there some Road Network that somebody I'm not saying that the county would have to do it but is there some Road Network that could be built they would still be consistent with the Northeast rural policies that would support an employment center we would have to study it I I can't say yes or no to that question right now um we would have to study it and see what the results of that kind of study would be in order to identify potential alternative connection that could further enable plan center here well so Blanton Road isn't if I recall when I went back because I was rushed last night to read this CU I got the agenda at 3:30 in the afternoon but Blandon Road wasn't one of those roadways covered by 604 correct it was Lake Iola road that was covered as a Scenic rural roadway Road St Road l they're both on there there's a number of roads that are identified as Scenic roadways planton is one one of them and was it at this location it's it does not about the subject property but it Lake Iola basically goes south to Blandon and Blandon basically is your connection to the I understand that when I'm saying is his Blandon adjacent to this property is that a one of these roadways that the code seeks to provide some rural protection for yes in this section in this segment the entire length of Blanton is a Scenic the entire length Okay yeah while we're on roads are we aware of any plan for DOT to improve the intersection at I75 there interchange with yeah I75 I75 I'm not aware of there are no plans by Department transation to upgrade this inter is not on their plan following up on that question actually David while you're on that you made the comment earlier that the intersection is insufficient for this area is that I guess for the industrial use or you can is it the geometry of it is it the the I think it's a matter of storage capacity on the as well as the geometry for the type of traffic that will utilize Suburban Urban we we IND tractor trailers could be using that area we haven't discussed with that thought uh so we are engaged now talking to a transportation engineering department and County engineer about these type of Road improvements in our comp plan process okay because we did approve Ian on the other side of the interchange there and I guess we didn't hear that sort of concern during that uh that approval process so that's that's the first time hearing that so I'm just curious with that it may have been you know I I don't recall that I may not have been a planning director at the time but it is a concern right now today okay any other questions for Mr petto are we still talking Land Development code well I think he finished his presentation on the Land Development code I think the chair just asking to does anybody have any additional questions before we let the applicant speak yeah I think I I'll bring this up now for get staff's input how do 5225 and6 apply this being an employment center is there a difference between an regular mput and E mpud yes there is the the reason that these aren't referenced on the slide specifically is is we were advised to use the comprehensive plan at time of submitt of this application which Mr 2 said was 22 months ago relying on the 2023 comp plan the Omnibus from 2024 hadn't happened which didn't require this imput to be an employment center imput officially so those provisions of the LDC were were struck from this slide here but the to answer your question there is a difference in the in the development standards from a regular MPD which include uses like support commercial so this application was before we had an EC mpud designation it it was before it was required by the flu in the omnius that was approved in 2024 since this application was submitted in 2023 in 2023 you could submit either an EC MP or an MP okay in 2024 the board changed that so that you could only submit an EC mpud okay and what's the substant difference the ecmp has very specific standards in the land of elment code for EC mpds that don't necessarily apply to a what I'll call a regular MPV all right so it it's it's it's arguably more restrictive on some of the permitted uses has additional stand design standards in it right that's what I I gathered so that takes me to 522.com process is one method for determining the required mix for an individual application project to site so if that's one method that would suggest to me there's other methods was a plan was an employment center planning process undertaken for this employment C are you asking was there an areawide plan developed for this employment center yes staff can you answer that question I don't believe so but but no no sir okay okay anything else okay Mr T thank you again Mr chairman again for the record Joel 2 and I am a land use consultant uh for the applicant um I need to go yes to our PowerPoint I'm going to go through our PowerPoint but I will interject at points of that and directly address some of the staff present ation and answers to your questions as I go we have a full team with us uh Ron pianta is the former planning director for Hernando County now in private Consulting with Coastal he's here as our planner Mike Razer is our transportation consultant Mike did the transportation analysis in this case which was approved by the County transportation staff prior to September PC hearing uh Mike also was involved in that industrial approval on the east side when in fact uh that was approved without any issues with the interstate interchange so Mike's here to to address that and we have unfortunately uh the legal council since I am now retired as an attorney and acting only as a Lage consultant we have Mr Scott McLaren from Hillard Henderson because of the prior settlement agreement and and the rights that the property owner has under that agreement the important Point what you're well aware of is we have a pre-existing EC employment center land use designation that has been on this property for 20 years our specific request is entirely consistent with the not only permitted uses but the actually mandated required uses in an EC property as they existed on the date of our application and that point was just made by sta the first time they acknowledged to me in all this debate was today that they just acknowledged that the comp plan which applies to our application is in fact the comp plan which was which was in force when we applied now all of us that do this for a living know that true I mean that's been the case for the 40 years or 45 years but it's important here because they've tried to do some things that were not part of the comp plan and it's more significant in this case because I'm going to flip to this prior to 2005 this specific property had mixed use comp plan designation now that's EC on steroids that was the most intense future landage designation that Pasco County had and you could basically do anything you wanted at extreme intense in density anywhere you want it and in any proportions you want it to this landowner generational landowner family in Pasco County who's owned this land for 50 or 60 years from the beginning of comp plan time in Pasco County they had mixed juice in 2005 when the county decided to Forest the Northeast Pasco rural protection plan upon them and all the other land owners the county actually down planned them from mixed use to this EC category they forced this landowner to accept this more restrictive less intense more controlling EC designation Evans joined with 14 other land owners in Northeast Pasco 15 of them and filed a complain challenge 15 individual interveners in Northeast Pasco including Miss Hazelwood and Richard Riley and others entered that as interveners the landowners the 15 interveners the county the then Florida Department of Community Affairs entered into a legal stipulation and settlement agreement that put the EC on there and it's specifically adopted by Redline edits which I provided you in the yell heighted lend out attached to that settlement agreement is the specific resolution of the very issues that staff is now trying to relitigate 20 years later they're trying to relitigate the settlement and stipulation they made with all the interveners with the landowner and the Department of Community Affairs Mr Goldstein was a staff attorney here at the time he didn't handle that but he was here and he's aware of it and that's why I gave you the other highlights they say exactly what planning Commissioners have said you can basically forget all these vague references to just this throw a shotgun against the wall let's list some comp plan C uh policies and hope you believe them saying under oath that we're inconsistent with them when clearly we are not that was the most disingenuous intellectually dishonest smoke screen that I've ever seen and they dumped that on us yesterday afternoon it's it's outrageous I have I haven't been this outrage about the behavior of peed in 45 years working here so what they're really telling you is we forced this landowner to take this we specifically told them that you not only can have but you must have this mix of industrial multif family and support commercial we apply for exactly that mix in conformance they tell us you not only can have a private utility system you must have one and pay for it if we haven't yet brought you public utilities and we in our condition acknowledge exactly Those comp plan policies you don't have to go read other policies when you have four policies attached to a court order Sound by signed by the county attorney's office and approved by the Board of Commissioners and signed by the chairman that said says you shall do this and you can do this we apply to do this that's the reason why after 16 months of review it went through Transportation it went through utilities it went through the sheriff it went through Parks we got all the favorable agency and Department reviews we got their requested conditions we agreed to every condition and staff writes under Mr Engle signature a resounding recommendation for approval that Express he says on the face we find this consistent with all compound plan policies and all LBC regulations attributable to this property so they already agreed and found it consistent because they knew that's what it required now over someone's cocktail party over Christmas somebody decided for some political whm that they didn't like this and that's why staff is here they're not here exercising independent professionalism or independent planning judgment they're here because they've been told to come up with some reason to not approve it and that is patently incorrect and not the way you're supposed to do things in this count and we haven't done it that way for 45 years to my experience and it's very disappointed that it's that way now so we went one step F farther it is clear that we actually have the right under the settlement to do multif Family Apartments but acknowledging the push back now from both you and the County commission level that we have too much of that we even agreed after they told me January 2nd that they were going to oppose us we even voluntarily agreed Evans agreed that they would absolutely stipulate that they wouldn't do that that they would do fee simple platted units for sale units so we we even made that voluntary concession and I will give them credit for this at Mr goldstein's urging they agreed to go ahead and negotiate revised conditions that had all the protections for those town home units all the current design criteria and on these other points yes they asked her right away for Lake IA Road guess what in about 3 seconds I said yes of course how much do you want they're the ones that supplied the rightaway footage that we put in the conditions we gave them exactly what they work for and and if they may have made a mistake there and they need more RightWay to handle whatever required buffering and cross-section imp plantings are required to comply with those provisions of course Evans will provide that as Mr Moody pointed out we all do that on every application we understand that we didn't resist it so basically it's nonsense they argued initially which I think they've somewhat retracted from because I didn't hear that today they were arguing that we didn't have the right to multif family but if we're applying the 2005 comp plan that was in existence if you look at that schedule that I gave you that was attached to that settlement it specifically says that we're entitled to it we also agreed in these conditions that even though we were not an ecmd and even though we don't have to be an ecmd they asked me would I nevertheless go ahead and agree to the limited commercial uses that they have been imposing on CCM PDS and guess what I said again in about 3 seconds yes we'll do that and we've Incorporated those there's not a single condition that either Mr Goldstein or ped have asked us to include that we haven't included not a single one look at what's around us when you talk about whether it makes sense it's a mve point whether this EC makes sense because it was stipulated in the comp plan and approved in a court settlement but here's the reason there is C2 right on the south side of Blanton so this Scenic section of Blandon Road already has and by the way those two large C2 Parcels their underlying land use is mixed use they still have their mixed use so they're complaining about our EC which they forced us to take when they've got mixed juice across the street on black as you said they've already approved industrial on the east side also in the employment center so why all of a sudden do we get singled out and mistreated like this it's crazy and I've laid awake asleep at night despite being retired the last 30 days simply trying to figure out why they're doing what they're doing because it baffles me let's go to the consistency arguments by specific conclusion think about this they're arguing that the EC designation that they the county the EC designation all of that purple that they put in the comp plan themselves in 2005 that we objected to and litigated over that we then agreed to settle and take and that the county and DCC signed off on they're now basically arguing to you that the county and DCA decision and if you read that final judgment DCA finds it consistent with the entirety of the comp plan as it existed on that dat every policy that Mr petto has cited to you was in that c plan so the day that the count signed a settlement saying this is consistent and DCA said yeah we reviewed it and we agree it's consistently it's the law all of those compan policies were there so the conclusion of the county and the Florida Department of Community Affairs is that that purple EC area is in fact consistent with every single policy that was in the conference plan at the time we've applied under that same plan so how now can the argu incons they're violating the settlement stipulation they're violating the order of the State of Florida to now conclude it's not consistent I mean that's about as disingenuous and you can get as you can get as to those Northeast rural policies to Mr Moody's point the EC area is in the rural protection area we hav't asked to take it out because there's no need for us to do that it was embedded and approved again the and the DCA understood when they approved it that it was part of that area and that its existence in that location was entirely compatible with the fact that it had surrounding rural protection area in our mpud conditions when you get to the details about the crosssection or the buffers or the trees the very first paragraph of every mpud approval including hour conditions you all know what it says this mpud is subject to the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code and the following conditions so whatever comprehensive plan or Land Development code provision is applicable to Lake Isa Road Blandon Road our adjacent properties our preliminary development plan and our construction plans are going to have to meet that whatever those buffer requirements whatever those landscape requirements whatever those crosssections our conditions say we have to comply with them we're not arguing that we just want the entitlements so we can go to that step which brings me to utilities they specifically say what you pointed out they said we under that Court stipulation and under the 2005 comp plan as long as the property owners within that EC area are willing to privately fund and construct their own Cent cized system they have the absolute right to do so it says shall it doesn't say may it doesn't say maybe it doesn't say you have to ask Mr Engle or someone at utilities Mr Engel can't just unilaterally say well I don't like that I don't agree with it his opinion today respectfully is immaterial on that point the comp plan says we can do it the stipulated settlement agreement says we can do it now if and when we do that and the county ultimately gets Public Utilities out there then under the other policy we would be obligated at that point to connect to public utilities and disav ourselves of that private system that's the way it operates and you know they have been a little slow in 20 years about their prioritization of getting that line out there it's it's very clear you're exactly correct as to what that and that applies to every EC area and it did not exempt this one so they have violated that provision but we are willing possibly in concert with the other EC developers to do that you can't you engineers and you Realtors and you planners you know this you can't go start raising funds for a private utility system when you don't even have Zoning intance for your land you got to know you've got something you can develop to figure out what utilities do you need what's it going to cost and to get the capital funding or the loan to fund that infrastructure nobody's going to go give us that based on a zoning so this is step one in that process we acknowledge it has to be done that way Evans thankfully has a Swift Mud permitted water well sizable one that can already be used to supply the water of that private water system and you simply provide land for the centralized sewer treatment the utility gentleman is incorrect In His public World centralized means County but in the context of this it very clearly meant that either we had to provide the funding for the county to extend the public lines option one or we had to provide the funding to construct our own private centralized system and that's very clear I provided this to you as you know in advance so I'm not going to waste your time on it but there's just no you know this is this is get to the MPD plan this is exactly the plan that was recommended for approval in September uh except that we added the commercial option and if you look at the conditions that were in the staff uh memo if you see fit to recommend approval we have the conditions that deal with location how many acres can be commercial how many can be residential uh the fact that the perimeter of any industrial has to be clean Light Industry on the perimeter you can't have you know and there's your compatibility and your transitioning the heavier uses have to be internalized all the perimeter Parcels have to be an approved County use we've addressed that 15 pages of that that deal with all of those issues that staff signed off on what do those actual percentages work out to Joel yeah so um 20 acres maximum multif family would be 25% of the 80 acres so we're just above the minimum 20 but way below the 40 max on residential and the 10 acres uh out of the 80 is 125% which is just over the 10% threshold on the commercial but well below the maximum so in both cases we're not being picked I mean we're just barely above and we even have said because you don't know what the future brings we we we actually could do some or all of that commercial on the multif family parcel by doing first floor retail with fee simple units above it and have a nice mixed ju structure on on front so we've stayed totally within those confines uh the vast bulk of the side is industrial and in fact that's what Evans would prefer to do Evans would be ecstatic if they had industrial users to come do this because it makes the utilities equation much more simple very low demand from basically warehouse distribution or light industrial uses as composed to as opposed to the the residential I mean financially there's going to be a huge incentive to try to go with the industrial distribution route because your utility solution much more simple as you Engineers well know you mentioned a 10% minimum is actually a 5% minimum on the I'm sorry okay yeah on the commercial but you're 12 and a half and you know what if that's an issue for you we're flexible on that we've been flexible on everything we just want to comply with the provision as it existed and frankly we want to get what was agreed when they crammed the EC down on us in the first place we at least want that and they're trying to deny that yes if that percentage uh is an issue we're happy we're happy to reduce that acreage uh if that's an issue I was just curious and it is just support commercial remember they they did we did agree to the EC mpud limitations on the scope of commercial not Regional uses they're purely neighborhood serving uses but we're we're fle we will do whatever it takes to get your support and move this forward and hopefully a majority or more of the BCC will honor the agreement that their chairman signed in 2006 and was submitted to the court um we have I think what I'm going to do in the interest of time is we have our civil engineer as I said he can discuss the private utility options but I think those of you on this panel are probably just as qualified as anyone some of you probably designed those but but if you have questions he's here Transportation gu is here we'll we'll dig into anything you want to but I just don't think the details necessary because it is a smoke screen and we need to go with what they're recommended in September thank you okay thank you Mr T Mr chman Mr chairman yeah I have a question oh I'm sorry I'm sorry Mr chairman Liam just reminded me I forgot yeah we need if we could a motion to receive and file um it was the printed uh copies of the PowerPoint slides to the clerk which you've seen it was the September 5th 2024 peed memo in support with conditions it was the 2006 settlement agreement with the county and DCA and it was the highlighted comp plan policies that actually are exhibits to the settlement agreement but I gave you a separate copy of them highlighted if you'd be kind enough so we're sure they're in the record I have a motion to receive motion to receive and F second motion and second forther discussion all in favor like sign okay Mr chair I had a question for Mr two I'm sorry Mr we have a question Mr two have a question I have a question for you so the the issue of Scenic roads came up do you know off the top of your head what you know whoever comes in there what what those standards are for is it landscap mostly Landscaping screening Etc I don't have I don't remember they the reason don't remember is the county never followed up and actually adopted detailed LDC regulations implementing these vague comp plan policies so the short answer is we're going to have to sit down our site planner and engineer and discuss that with the county staff and agree on what they mutually feel are appropriate buffers and Landscaping and crosssections uh just like you would working out in the other site plan and obviously we're going to put sidewalks where they tell us to put sidewalks and we're going to put trees where they tell us to put trees but they are not they are not defined they're like everything else in the Northeast plan none of that got detailed out it was just these broad brush cop plan policy in fact the in my view the most detailed thing about that Northeast plan were these specific policies attached to that settlement agreement to specifically Define what you could do in this employment center those are the most specific things anywhere in that plan everything else is kind of aspirational and you know wish list but we want to be a good neighbor a good neighbor means you do what you were approved for your property I mean everybody that owns property is entitled to do what the comp plan says and especially what a stipulated court judgment says they can do okay any other questions yeah I do uh John just want to see if I can jog his memory the EC was created Circa 2005 yeah that was a uh it was concurrent with all this uh it was Mr Gallagher's uh idea it was uh prompted by the concern of Hometown democracy that there was a Statewide constitutional referendum that would render all uh plan and Zoning changes to public referendum and uh Mr Gallagher through the planning either DRC and the Planning Commission and the board they designated between 8 and 12 employment centers at Key plac through the county to guarantee that the county could protect what it thought would be its most valuable future Urban intense areas to generate employment and commerce and obviously at the time think about this you only had on interchanges you only had original 54 52 and this one you didn't have 56 and you certainly didn't have overpass so people today say well that's crazy that Mr Gallagher stuck that up there I actually think it was brilliant because he understood the inherent long-term value of a federal Interstate interchange in his County and this that's why this was strategically important and the reason they had those comp plan policies that dealt with the private utility system is for the very reason Mr England and Tilles have pointed out the utilities director at the time don't think it was your dad was probably bramlet um and Mr Gallagher understood that they had until he's nowhere close to this they understood that problem and what it was going to cost and John in his usual way was smart enough to say that ain't going to be on my dime I want this employment center here but I want you to do it for me but that's why they made this exception they certainly didn't want people running around building private Utilities in the county you guys all know that that the reason they made the exception is they specifically authorized the private system on this property because this site was that important to them that it become an employment center and they wanted to be able to do it ahead of the point at which the county might get public utilities over there so what we're proposing to do is exactly what was contemplated if you can figure out a way to fund it you build your private Central system and once we get the the main the the public system to you you've got to disconnect and hook to us just like they require everywhere but that that's the background on the employment centers and do you recall when was the the Northeast rural area created concurrent in the same plan Amendment so at the same time at the same time in the exactly the same time that this EC on this site was created and there was the lawsuit in the settlement that was also the formation of the nor It All Happened together that's why it's so disingenuous to say oh gosh we don't want this in Northeast Pasco that's crazy it was put in Northeast Pasco concurrent with them getting the rural protection area and as I said Miss Hazelwood and Mr Riley were interveners and look at the signature pages on the settlement agreement now other people here may not know that they certainly knew that it was always contemplated this isn't Evans being a bad neighbor or bad property owner and heck they could have done mixed juuse they could have had they could had four times this development under mixed use before this was forced on all right any other questions no you just answered thank you okay we're going to take a 10-minute recess maybe eight or N I think so yes was PL foral is there is there fewer things I mean it doesn't seem like there's fewer things coming but I'm surprised legate for aod of time legate operation they didn't have those trees we're trying to stop we did that Amendment people tearing down non a trees cleaning it was done for but okay understand of that amendment was they have that would be my thought yeah saying for period they or they operated for short period of time look at exact I mean I guess that property I guess they probably did operate I I don't knowly clear I think look atar MTI multiuse back 2005 the the county wanted to impose completely remove County did not like an excuse of the category at all partly for the reason said you can do whatever the hell you want didn't necessarily was what did the was challenged DC and so they felt like hey wait a minute you just changed my entitlements so that's how all of this settlement there was also some focus on that part of the came out of it wasn't just about empy yes yeah I mean besides the sub Jo point out there was other stuff that got changed resal the L wasn't just about dis so like for example there was this language about topographic alteration that language got modified me there was some stuff mostly it was that some of the language that was put in there so aspirational that all develop that's why fact my opin that Prim this employment center was part of it but I don't think most of the fight was about policies presal I wasn't directly involved my me the fight never really was more othere policies so basically that was a concession on of Russ property I can't tell you who gave what for what reason I I'm not sure there would have been a is it is it the current version of the code or the if you're a me hold on I'm ready I don't know about ask I'm going to ask you to ask the County Attorney because one of the things that came out was they said they applied an earlier version of the code because of when they made the application I just want to make sure that that's not tangled up in that I would ask the County Attorney all that being said everybody in the neighborhood I understand and I'll just say this those in my mind what technicalities if you say they had to have two Community meetings it's remedied by simply having another community meeting compliance it's better to stick the issues bring it up techn CU all he'll do is just pay the fee hold the meeting and then say I'm in compliance and we'll be right back hey John start oh Matt leave us now okay okay let's reconvene so I think uh Joel I think in the essence of time you were you were saying uh let's hear from the uh public yes sir and then your your uh professionals can respond and answer questions yes sir thank you okay okay so who we got on the list um excuse me Mr chair I just want to put on record though that we don't have anybody signed up virtually to speak for this item Sor okay good thank you all right we can have your name and address hi I'm Linda pottberg I own the parcel that have the addresses 1 18700 and 18724 Lake Iola Road and I cramp ined my leg from that bench um Can staff put up a map of this second what did you say I asked if staff could put up a map so we could see where each of the speakers is yeah okay okay do is there a pointer there it's available okay and you're keeping time over there okay so my son and I own the property that is three Parcels north of that property on the same side of the road M uh family has owned property in Pasco County since the 20s and we were stewards of the land and Rick and Otto were very specific about uh representing our family as being uh conservationists and also th U donating land so we always you know forfeited millions of dollars which I'm not recommending the Evans do but in making sure that conservation of nature and integrity of the land was maintained uh and through many you know decades forfeited millions of dollars in deals to do that and the last deal was with Swift Mud for the uh seranova tract at north of the starky ranch so that's just the background of We're the last pot bgs to own property in Pasco County my son and I and this is the the place where I will live till I die and my concerns are the roadway is a two-lane 55 mph Road and they can give up all the right away they want but if they start widening that road what's going to impact our land and our road Frontage uh that's one concern the other concern is if they're getting their money their water from uh Wells which the Evans have had you know for a long time for their Citrus growes how's that going to impact our wells and I don't know about you all but I don't want to be living near a sewage water treatment plant uh and the possibility of that leaking which we know that they do and going into our aquafer and our wells so those are two concerns um that I have um and the fact that I've lived there we've owned that property since 1986 and uh we never knew any of this was going on so I don't know how transparent the process was about this you know becoming a settlement and EC and all the different variations of that we thought we were in rural reserve and we thought we were still in rural Reserve so it's um I'm glad that it's gone through a process of continuance so that the community could be more aware of what was going to be projected and and proposed uh so I'm here to say I'm very concerned concerned about the transportation I'm very concerned about the nature in the area including Bobcats fox squirrels an occasional Panther uh black bear you know we we have a a whole plethora of nature there and not to mention the gopher tortoises uh so all of those things are important to the people who live on in the surrounding areas I know most of them uh been there for a long time so and there's horse farms there's horse farms that are right up against that property that are going to be impacted and it's not like major horse farms it's just people who own horses who thought they lived in rural Reserve as well um so those are important factors to us and as far as you know widening the road it's at at the the I75 exchange there isn't enough room on that bridge to widen that road so we're talking about major you know needs of supporting that kind of density in that area and it is a beautiful place with beautiful Scenic roads all the way till you get to the solar Farms down by the college so I would like to be able to live out the rest of my life in rural reserve and having my road Frontage safe and my Wells safe and the nature around me safe okay who's next so the next I have on my list is Clark I know you you all appreciate the comments and everything let's I appreciate it if you wouldn't glap because so we can make sure everybody has plenty of time to talk okay thank you so the next person I have on the list is Clark Converse good afternoon gentlemen my name is Clark Converse I live at 3264 9 Jim Denny Road thank you um it's uh in St Joe it's date City ad but it's same joke um Mike a lot of people in here are very angry about what's happening and understandably so people were born and raised out there they've raised their families out there they live in that area for a specific reason and this uh kind of flies in the face of that and I'm I'm assuming which may make a fool out of me because it usually does that most of you are well versed in flu2 um that's the comprehensive plan that that refers to the Future land use plan for the rural Integrity of Basco County um the the opening statement in flu2 says to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle and protect rural communities uh ensure the rural lifestyle is preserved for existing residents and remains available to Future residents the problems we have not only the water issues that we concerned about which obviously is is in effect because we all have wells but in flu2 it's specifically addresses preservation of water for future land for future owners property owners in 2113 and 2.17 it says shall not be constructed with Central water or sewer that's in the that's in the county ordinances that you cannot develop out there with Central water and sewer and yet the wat flies in the face of that and says yeah if you develop it you you're required to put in central Water and Sewer okay so the county has conveniently construed ways to override any promises that they made to the land owners out there which is absolutely uh insane in my opinion it also says that you have to maintain 50% open space on any place where there's more than 20 resident essential units that that plan does not show 50% of open space um it it the whole point of f to is to protect the rural character of the area and protect the future generations of our families who live in that area for a specific reason we were promised by the county that we would be able to live in that type of environment and we look forward to living in it we've raised our families I've I'm raising my grandkids in that area and to have that taken away from us but potentially by allowing the somebody to get a foothold in whether it's legal or not is not my call however it really is in my opinion irresponsible for the County Commissioners to do that and is very disrespectful to the people whose lives have been um and sconed in that area I appreciate your time thank you very much the next on the list is Ryan Flynn I have some uh packets that like Tove to receive and file second Motion in second all in favor again my name is Ryan Flynn I live at 18526 Lick iolo Road so we are the uh the property directly north um my wife and I along with my in-laws own the combined 18 Acres directly north of the Evans property we invested in this to live and raise our two young daughters based on the protections put in place by the Northeast Pasco rural protection overlay District our dream is to raise our daughters in a safe Rural and natural environment this resoning request violates every nearly nearly every requirement of the Pasco County Land Development code section 604 to protect the character of the rural landscape preserve Scenic views and Vistas and ensure that on-site development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area one and a half million squet of Warehouse along with 300 apartments are not compatible with the stated goal of the future land use section 2.1 to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle and protect rural communities and agricultural areas allowing massive warehouses threatens the topography that is in Vistas that are unique to the Northeast Pasco protection area the resoning to anything other than a or AG reses thereby removing it from the protected overlay would create a zoning island of incompatible development countered to the whole intent of the overlay the scenic view and topography from our property and this the whole stretch of Lake IA Road are spectacular and worth preserving something the rural overlay is supposed to be protecting for both current generation current and future generations and final this is simply not at all compatible with the adjacent land uses there is no industrial multif family on the adjacent parcels we live on a family equestrian Farm Zone Agriculture and our Homestead along with others around us will be permanently and negatively affected by any Industrial Development of this parcel let's refocus on The Good the area has an incredible opportunity to become an oasis of rural land in what is quickly becoming an overdeveloped state for old and new generations families are choosing to leave behind the confines traffic and pollution of cities and instead invest in land farms and the chance to live and love the rural Lifestyle the unique beauty of the Sanara will continue to draw in new residents who are more than willing to invest and maintaining this area as the original authors of the Northeast Pascal roal protection overlay had intended in your packet I have included a couple of photos photos 1 two and three show our property line with the 80 acres that are behind it photo four shows a piece of the lifestyle that our family gets to enjoy I don't want to lose it our 18 acres is long and narrow we share a quarter of a mile of fence line our house sits less than 100 ft from this property line and looks at this property thank you thank you very much the next IND individual I have on the list is Nancy Hazelwood NY Hazelwood 34110 a nice place um for some reason Mr two and I disagree on a couple of things wherever you went just speak directly to us please n Sor thank you so I I had something written out but I've added a few things on it first off let me say the Northeast rur was not forced on land owners it was in trade for Pasadena Hills that didn't get mentioned um they got very high densities in Pasadena Hills and they've made quite a bit of money from that and now they want Northeast R too imagine that employment center history I think that Northeast R was created just before that there is a recession going on and the employment center was created for the recession Mr Goldstein we might have talked about this a little bit I was kind of an objection because it had a high densities but the way it was created was oneir multif family and 2/3 good solid jobs they were supposed to be medical or business you know they weren't supposed to be warehouses so he's kind of Switched things around and he keeps going back to the original well let's give us some good solid jobs there if he's really going back to the original uh this looks like kind of like a land grab to me with the way it's being put together 75 I75 was made the way it was because it was never expected to have the traffic that this is creating it it was supposed to be like traffic it's the Northeast Roy area plan so um let me go back to my original this Evans project doesn't fit in the Northeast rural plan needs to be denied it will have a devastating impact on our rural character and I agree completely with the staff's recommendation for denial employing uh again this project in the Northeast rural area plan has some special can have some special conditions if you do approve it a transition area needs to be created around the project the building should be in the center of the project with a 400t buffer of heavy landscaping around it to protect the residence and the character of the Agricultural area a weight limit for traffic on our rural roads to keep semi-rs and are other heavy Vehicles off our roads they don't belong there Northeast rural proed area was never supposed to have any kind of heavy traffic there rural roads I hope the planning department and the planning board can think of more ways to keep this rural if you do want to approve it it needs something heavy uh you were asking what an EC in a rural area should look like it should look like a business place in a park design standards one more sentence design standards for multi-units need to have features to conform character to rural protected area porches balconies with Farmhouse Lodge or Greek Revival look thanks for listening guys Mak can I ask her a question Nancy Nancy have a question don't get me wrong I'm trying to understand you're a signatory to this sment agreement what was your mindset when you signed this I was a new there we were just starting up the Northeast Ro area plan and um we needed to make sure it's it stayed Rural and they were an objection to it what we came up with I thought was more of a conservation subdivision that's what I kept hearing about was conservation subdivisions and um I don't necessarily agree with those at all so my recollection of it was a long time ago I know you were moving fast in the interest of trying to get through in three minutes but can you reread your suggested conditions okay transition area needs to be created around the project that's in the northeas Roo area plan the building should be in the center of the project with a 400t buffer of heavy landscaping around the project project to protect the residents and the character of our agricultural area a weight limit for traffic on roads could keep semi trucks and other heavy Vehicles off air roads they don't belong there northeas roal protective area was not meant to have heavy traffic I am hoping the planning department and the planning committee can come up with some other things that if you decide to put this in which I hope you don't I think you should deny it it's transition area with a 400t buffer and a weight limit yes for traffic coming through keep some eyes off our rural roads they're that way for a reason lanton Road and all those roads are supposed to stay to Lanes We aren't ever supposed to have the tra our growth and development in a different way got we got it Nancy thank you yeah no we know you need we know you can Mr chair the next person on the list is Paige Dennis hi I'm Paige Dennis I currently live in L Lakes but we own the property at 1841 Lake a road directly across from this developly across the street actually across the street okay well we we had there's three Parcels um one's 20 two are 10 it was 40 we went through a very long process to get that divided so that we could build and our two children could build there as well so um just I have some things to say but a lot of them have been covered but I'll stick to the script um at the meeting in September it was asked which came first the EC or the Northeast roal protection area and obviously that's still up for debate um what it seems like there was no guidelines specific guidelines put in place at the time and here we sit 20 year late 20 years later trying to Hash it out um I'm not sure that they're all compatible um I do like nany's um suggestions if we're going to have to have it um however it just seems like now 20 years later things might be a little different um the Land Development Code 42.1 E review considerations state that the PC and the VCC shall consider all the following in reviewing a provos zoning Amendment and 19 items are mentioned I just want to bring attention to number two which states whether the approval of the request would result in the creation of an isolated District unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts and number five whether the proposed change will adversely affect living I conditions in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods while the other items may also apply the warehouses and condos is a land uses unrelated to the adjacent nearby districts which is agricultural the the development would also adversely affect the neighbors immediate and surrounding areas um traffic has been mentioned we you know have a difficult time we have to be very careful when we're trying to turn left onto our property because that particular part of the road is the first section where people can pass after they've made the curve and so when we're turning left if you are not watching someone's going to pass and broadside you on the on the way so the traffic is a issue um basically I'll skip all this because of my time but um I feel like it was very forward thinking in 2005 and six when the overlay of the rural protection area was created knowing that one day development would come to Pasco County and this area would be in Jeopardy of losing what makes this area of Pasco County Special Pasco County is booming in growth and H and growth is happening all over the place we need to be diligent to protect the rural area and Scenic roadways as they were rightfully deemed deserving of protection the bottom line for our family is this we are getting ready to build directly across the street from this parcel when we purchased planned and worked so hard to get our property divided so we could build we did not expect to become neighbors with a warehouse we did not dream of moving to the country so we could look out to see condos warehouses and semi trucks The Proposal just does not fit in the Northeast rural protection area and I beg that you as a Planning Commission see the the fact and on behalf of everyone here and all the neighbors who were unable to attend please deny this request thank you thank you very much just a question when did you originally purchase your property 2020 Mr chair the next person on the list is Austin miles good afternoon I'm Paige Dennis's son-in-law um so my my my name is Austin miles and our address is 30585 MC junan Road um I Envision a life a lot like Mr Ryan described um the beginning I also have two daughters and one of the reasons like Miss Dennis said we envisioned going out there and living in a rural community and um you know that's the kind of lifestyle that we were looking for and uh and so obviously the development of this parcel in question impacts me and my family greatly um well in for the foreseeable future because we plan to live there for the rest of our lives um and when we chose this rural or this area because it's Rural and this the most beautiful Road probably in Pasco County um and it's going to be ruined when you have semi trucks driving down and probably an estimated 600 different cars driving down it um and so that is one of my biggest concerns about this particular development um in addition to what the impacts it's going to have on I75 um because the ram horn you go on when you're exiting to uh take this road to go to where I'm going to be living it get can get backed up especially in rush hour times um and so I feel like that it's a potential Hazard um and it could uh ultimately result in a deadly situation um so I really appreciate the ability that we have to voice our opinions and yall's time to hear us out and we just hope that our plea does not fall on deff ears thank you okay thank you very much for coming Mr chair the next on the list is Robert Rell and I'm just going to apologize now in case I get a name wrong here we're not going to hold your shirt against you come on all right any uh so I I mean I don't have any super technical arguments I'm not going to probably bring up anything that's you know new information you've hashed it out pretty well uh this afternoon um we're yeah we're at 3060 well we have the Land There we currently live in Wesley Chapel so it's the it's right across the street uh uh on Lake Iola but it's 30603 MC junin Road at the corner MC junin and Lake Iola um I'm I'm pag other son-in-law um but when I when I came to uh came to the area over a decade ago uh I fell in love with the The Hil Oasis that's kind of composes this Northeastern uh Pasco rural Protection District area in Florida it's extremely flat and then all of a sudden you get these Hills coming out of nowhere it's uh it's beautiful um and you know my my family's properties right across from the subject and uh while while I'm against this resoning request due to the uh the approved zoning and land uses in the surrounding properties even if we did assume that uh the approval of this project was compatible with the surrounding properties which I believe is not the case as stated by others here uh there's currently no infrastructure to support it you uh no uh public sewer or water and and I know we've hashed those items out uh in in detail um but it's on a two-lane road that you know if you're building 1.5 million square ft of warehouse and Industrial it's going to have a a heavy impact you got semi- trucks coming coming in and off and um it like that Interstate exit is not currently constructed to support it I as far as I could tell I looked around on fdot as much as I could there's no planning or approvals in process to update that exit um and I know for a fact even once that is needed and an idea to improve an exit is conceived it could take years to get approval further years to get it funded and even more years to get it corrected and complete the project um I think I think one of the main issues right now is is with timing when it comes to this resoning requests um but you uh finally I just want to end with um what has made America a great nation is that it has been led by men and women with the willingness to plant trees whose shade they would never sit beneath is important to plan for development of this nature it is my concern that we have not done the appropriate planning for a project of this magnitude in an area which is ill suited to support it I urge the committee to deny this request thank you thank you very much for coming the next name I have on the list is Jessica rord Ru for my name is Jessica Rutherford I live at 18449 Lake goola Road um thank you for hearing me um I guess the the first thing I wanted to ask about is I was reading the future land use appendix and there's quite a bit of stuff related to developments down on sr52 so they had their entitlements plan vision and they're laying out you know what it should look like there should be awnings and roof lines and farmers markets like they get all the things down there and up at planton and Lake Iola um it seems like initially it was sort of left to what the developer thought was appropriate and their initial plan for the apartments I mean it really looked more like a warehouse for human beings and now they've modified that a bit to make it slightly better um but why the disparity I'm asking like the Planning and Zoning commission why does sr52 have a very coherent areawide plan but you're going into the decision-making process for a parcel at blanson and there is no coherent plan well we didn't make the plan who who made the coherent plan for sr52 so the comprehensive plan no no the appendix in the new appendix that came out in December okay the flu appendix is part of the original comprehensive plan there were some slight modifications made dealing I think especially here with employment centers but the overall flu appendix and the overall land plan is not made by anybody up here okay that was made by our planning department and then adopted by the board of County Commissioners at the at the time the original comp plan was created in 1989 and I don't think anybody sitting here was a planning commissioner in 1989 or had anything to do with it you're probably quite a bit Comm M she she I don't know specifically what she's referring to but she may be reading sub area policies that apply to the project at the North West quadrant of 52 and I75 that's the only thing I can think of that there's a a specific um part where it's talking about different specific Parcels within that Development Area and there's some some clearly very new information about specific Parcels that are being developed in their size and the entitlement you're talking about the Gateway Hub that here okay that's a project that was brought forth within the last six months or year the zoning was yes the zoning correct comp right but the land use the the assignment of the future land use designation of employment center and the prior land use that was on this property the subject property of mixed use that's an original comp plan designation that's from 1989 and according to the testimony given here today the employment center land use was placed on the property and somewhere around 2005 or 2006 there's nobody here that had anything to do with creating this employment center no I understand that I'm just saying that they have clearly updated I believe the answer of your question is that I believe the project you're referring to is what's called a PD plan development is the the whole description in the appendix for the entitlement for the Gateway Hub right that's a plan development right which the criteria for a plan development have to be embedded in the complain because there are no generic criteria it's it's it's a it's the equivalent of an of a Mudd for the complain in other words it's a negotiated land use category that is negotiated between staff and the applicant so that was all basically created together with the developer in Partnership is what you're saying yeah the developer and staff worked on a land use category that was tailored to that particular project okay moving aside from that I think my reading of the comprehensive plan that there's really two main issues the the water and sewer is a logistical issue it's not a decision issue the two decision issues are the road um and the buffering so talking about the road um the policy flu 21.11 rural residential roads does specifically list um Lake Iola Road as one of them and then Blanton road is a uh Scenic Rural Road is not a rural residential Road um but what it does say in section 2.1.12 is that the rural roadway system um specific collector arterial and Rural residential roads shall not be expected to require nor are they planed to receive capacity improvements over the 20-year planning period unless otherwise consistent with chapter 7 Transportation Element table 7-4a Pasco County Corridor preservation table unless other wise requested or required by state law or County ordinances and policies including the county concurrency ordinance the county shall discourage additional roadway expansions of these two facilities Beyond two lanes prior to the determination of any concurrency requirements that would require lean expansion of the roadway Network the county shall evaluate whether there are and may impose alternative solutions for meeting the identified capacity need so has there been I mean uh first of all I guess does du Blanton Road and Lake goola Road fall into this category of collector arterial and rural rural residential roads and secondly has there been any state law County ordinance or policy or County concurrency ordinance that would approve the expansions to four lanes from two with multiple stop lights m' that's the essence of the question I asked that earlier and the answer I got back was they would need to study that area their intent is to study the area for potential expansions of the roadway Network they don't have they don't have any plan in place today okay I real my time is up I just wanted to say that when we were looking at the map that the developer had you can see that there's kind of four quadrants around the highway and you could do a lot to proect protect the rural residential roads if you pushed all of the major expansion and stop lights right right up against the highway and ran um basically access roads along the highway that these developments would use um I'm probably not like some of my neighbors I assume the development will happen I just think that the impact on the surrounding property should you know be minimized as much as possible and if you had these access roads it would push all of that truck activity all of the you know high traffic up against the highway and it didn't impact people as much farther back yeah thank you okay thank you Mr chair the next person I have on my list is Danny well my name is Danny wheel I live at 3235 baseball Pond Road I didn't really plan anything to say but I'll say I can kind of empathize with the landowner I had a piece of property excuse me Danny I know you said you didn't have didn't plan to speak but did you were you sworn in yes okay with the class okay thanks I owned a piece of property in pelis County had one little house on it and the future land use was 21 houses for 30 years I had developers want to buy the property when I when I finally did sell it they all went down and the county said it's just not compatible simple is that somebody explained what's compatible about 300 Apartments 1.5 million square feet of Warehouse anywhere on that picture okay that's it thank you I still got two minutes so some want stand there I mean if somebody if somebody wants to explain how it's compatible any saying we like to hear it no I don't feel that it's compatible at all any way shape or form anybody El it could be split up into 20 small Parcels eight small Parcels little family funds like these folks have but there's nothing in that picture that says oh yeah that's a sweet place for 1.5 million square feet of Warehouse sir to be clear the Planning Commission does not respond to public comments the applicant I'm just stating my staff comments if they want to respond to your comments when they're when you're done I'm just I'm just putting ideas into y'all's heads y'all are the ones that are going to make the decision okay so it's just like there's nothing on there in any it's it's hard for y'all to keep a balance in a greed driven Society I'm sure but there's a right thing and a wrong thing to do it just doesn't work on that picture anywhere just doesn't work thank you Mr Sher the next person on the list is Julie wheel okay so after that is um Judy Maddox okay chance you can you can make your comment now she wrote her comment down okay you are you going be coming up here you need still need your name and address my name is Judy Maddox I live at 30532 Hawkeye Road um and we are at the end of that the top Road up there on Hawkeye my husband and I look for property for several years before we we found that property because we wanted to build um our forever home which we did we have a beautiful log home right in the corner of that piece of property we we chose it because the land was so pretty and quiet we hear birds we see I had a bobcat come in front of my dining room and just sat sat there all of that will go away when there's more people more traffic and I just think that that there's other Parcels of land that could accommodate uh an apartment complex that doesn't fit in this rural area that we live in and I really think that you need to take a second look at at this development that I don't think is good for our neighborhood okay and my comment was I'm I'm here to say goodbye to the to the Evans team so um but that thank you very much thank you appreciate you coming in Mr chair the next person on our list is ma Maggie and on my paper it looks like her last name is W cat I don't know if that's correct Maggie Maggie is it Maggie here so the next one after Maggie is Patty you read the last name I'm going to spell the last name r i o r d a n weird after that is Kathleen Kathleen okay my name is Kathleen Schneider I live at 34553 Blandon Road you may not understand stand but I am very proud of my husband Roger who spoke earlier because he is very passionate he's not loud and out of control we have very good friends the plunketts the flynns Caroline and Anna that live just north of this property I don't think what's being proposed fits the area I would like to know why the Evans family does not think hey we could divide this into five acre Little Farms and let people come up and have horses and have animals have the wildlife that would work so much better and I without even turning around I would bet that the people behind me would be more than happy to have something like that in our neighborhood the exit off of 75 was never built for semes when we get off there's we've seen so many turned over semis cuz they take the curve too fast when there is all the extra traffic that's going to be there it is going to get worse I I am requesting that the Evans Family please go back and look at what people are saying in the people that live here why can't you do something that fits in better and you would be a welcome neighbor and a good neighbor because what you're doing does not make you a good neighbor you have so many people whose lives are being impacted by this and it doesn't need to be that way look a different way don't be such dang blasted greed that you have to go for big bucks Evan has enough he could do this and think of how many families could move in there and now have their little piece of heaven that they could live out their lives and that their kids could enjoy it breaks my heart that our friends are dealing with what they're dealing with I hope you stop and think that there's other options and I hope that the Evans family and that their attorneys stop and think what could go on that parcel that would fit so so much better and I plead with you to reconsider any approval of this cuz it is going to ruin us it's just going to ruin us thank you Mr chair the next person I have on the list is Scott Bland hi my name is Scott Bland uh I live at 122 Spring Lake Highway it's uh right there in the semicircle at the very top right there we actually have property that uh that goes on both Hernando and uh Pasco uh my wife Debbie and I have lived on Lake Iola Road for 26 years and raised two sons on 20 acres in this wonderfully rural community um again our property spans uh right across the county line and we get two tax bills thank you very much although I expect my words to have little impact I'd like to make you aware how destructive this proposal will be to this community our house is a little larger than most at 3200 square ft The Proposal would add buildings nearly 600 times that size and add hundreds of thousands of square fet of impervious asphalt for parking this is utterly incompatible in character with the nature of the area and is in opposition to the stated goals of Pasco County's comprehensive plan the buildings traffic groundwater usage light pollution I I have two telescopes and sewage generation will totally erase the rural character of this area over a thousand Vehicles a day would be added to this already dangerous to Lane Highway recently I drove up I75 from Tampa the traffic at state road 56 exit is horrific while the area itself is nothing but franchises and concrete State Road 54 is much the same the personality and character of those areas is zero State Road 52 is in the process of being bulldozed and paved over it's as if someone years ago saw the beauty of pasco's pastures and farmland and decided that it should be erased exit 293 Blandon Road and Lake Iola Road are the last remaining slivers of rural Pasco along I75 bicyclist motorcyclists weekend drivers come from far and wide to enjoy the Rolling Hills Rural nature rolling Countryside and Scenic Highway that defines this area bald eagles are frequently seen here and hunt this area Wildlife is everywhere allowing this gross development will permanently erase the rural nature of this community not just for the people and an animal that live here but for everyone that comes to enjoy it I implore you to refuse the development proposal and preserve this tiny final piece of what makes Pasco a great place to live thank you thank you Mr chair the next person I have on the list is Michael Bratz Michael Bratz 18435 town House Road first of all it seems to me that there's no way to determine the compatibility with the rural area without knowing what the occupancy of 1.5 million square ft of warehousing and light industrial is going to be 300 residential units is obviously incompatible I heard the word Wastewater bandied about quite a bit let's call it what it is sewage do any of you want a privately built and maintained sewage treatment facility over your wells where you get your drinking water for your family and your livestock have any of you been to that location where this is going to be at I heard I was amazed to hear the applicant say that the transportation department had approved this plan that is negligence at best mouth eases at worst the best traffic study I could find that was compatible with this was prepar prepared for Riverside County California it showed a low count of 4 to a high count of over 10 vehicles per 1,000 sare ft of light industrial and warehousing so you multiply that by 1,500 for what's going to happen on that road and then you have 300 residential units the accepted standard for that is 1.8 vehicles per unit there's absolutely no way that Lake Iola Road can safely handle that kind of increase I've invested in real estate in the past I own real estate that I've invested in there's no guarantee you're going to make money when you invest in real estate I'm sure you guys have done it the same thing Evans company is privately held that's lot of money for one or two people what's in it for us as Pasco residents Pasco has an unemployment rate of 3.4% we do not need an employment center at this location that's what I have at this time I urge you to deny this thank you thank you very much Mr chair the next person I have on my list is Melanie lamerson when we moved here 30 years ago Spring Lake was an area for watching the night sky because the of the lack of light pollution bikers were frequently seen on Spring Lake Highway Blandon and Lake Iola roads holding races there because of the Rolling Hills Beauty and fresh air oh sorry Melanie lamberson 184 Spring Lake Highway that's a uh Brooksville address I we just over the line uh the sign saying entering Hernando County and then we're pretty much right there it is my understanding that Joe Hancock of the former Hancock Groves who was killed on his bicycle when hit by a car on Lake Iola Road the traffic on Spring Lake Highway is too heavy to support the sport of bicycling now I fear that if this development goes forward Spring Lake Highway will will have to be widened again and possibly four laned I noticed that one of the things that was on the screen was easy access to State Road 50 and that would mean Spring Lake Highway I wonder if the Fernando County Commissioners are even aware of this threat to their budget if Rural character is to be maintained the people living on Spring Lake Highway and its offshoot roads should be able to enter Spring Lake Highway without waiting endlessly for traffic endless traffic is not consistent with royal character while my interest is in what happens to our life on the other side of the County Line in Hernando Pasco County's plans have enormous impact for our rural character and the life we live here there is nothing about warehouses and apartments that are consistent with rural character the all night lighting from warehouses and apartments as well as air and noise pollution of trucks are not a welcome addition to our area there is no infrastructure to support this development nor is any desired by the public for it to be built Pasco County is listed as third in the entire country for development according to Google drainage and traffic complaints abound as the results of all this existing and inprocess development while water is a finite resource when will it stop this area is supposed to be protected from development contrary to its rural character warehouses and apartments have no rural character thank you Mr chair the next person I have on my list is Bill lamberson what I want to do is just mention this from purely a civil we need your name and address sir beg your name and address for the oh sorry 184 Spring Lake Highway Brooksville Florida thank you what I'd like to address is a civil engineering thing the both the southbound and Northbound exits off i7 5 are the the traffic on them is already too much there's short off ramps and furthermore where Lake Iola and Blandon Road come together it's already congested there and there is a planned 900 space RV Park less than a mile from there and also Travelers Rest is maybe a little bit further than a mile but the infrastructure there the roads are just they're not good enough to support anything else there thanks thank you very much the next person I have on the list is Britney Del the sorry if I said that wrong hello my name is Britney dilello I live at 4025 Majestic oaklane in Brooksville while I am in Hernando County this directly affects me since I drive to work every day um everyone has complained about how this obviously doesn't fit the rural agricultural you know things we have going on in this area already I'd like to point out specifically that their traffic plan that they have provided us specifically says that right now we have 2,220 trips of cars a day an estimated 5,232 extra cars are going to be coming out of this development that is 2 and a half times more cars and vehicles that we are going to experience at this thing specific Ally the residential project it's going to add 65% more traffic going Southbound on 75 in the industrial project adds 50% more traffic going Southbound 30% more traffic going northbound so obviously something is going to have to be done with that intersection specifically um the their their um traffic plan only never addressed widening that intersection at all um it only addressed widening their turn lanes that they are going to need so they need to address that as well um and I would also like to point out that in your section 522 of the master planned unit development District um 522.com Center planning process under review process number four the applicant shall conduct a minimum of two neighborhood meetings to solicit comment feedback and input on the proposed areawide employment center I don't know about everyone else um there was only one neighborhood meeting if anybody else knows of another one the answer to your question is they didn't do an areawide this wasn't an areawide plan this was a plan for one particular property owner in the EC not the entire area but it's for the employment center area correct we're talking about the employment center area right there's there's an entire there's multiple property owners within the employment center M and the comp plan and the land could contemplate that there could have been an areawide planning effort for that entire EC that's what I think that's referring to okay and and staff to in defense of staff I think that's what they're asking for is they want to do an areawide planning effort for this CC at least that's what I think Mr Engle was saying okay all right well presumably if they did they would do follow the process you're talking about okay well um if you'd also like to address your um own 2050 plan your population density that you have in proposed population density in 2045 is 0 to five res res per acre in that area an estimated employment density is less than 0.4 or 0 to five employ employment well workers per acre as well and that's 20 years so I'm not sure why we're rushing this and trying to you know um sorry um never mind sor sorry thank you all right thank you very much Mr chair the next person I have is Daniel Dello hi my name is Daniel Dello I live at 4025 Majestic Oak Lane in Brooksville and every week whether for leisure or work my wife and I have to drive by where this development is going to be as previously stated the on and off ramps for the interstate are very short the turn ramps to go from Blandon Road on or off the interstate are very short if there's one person coming from the interstate to turn left down towards the RV parks it's five cars backed up in a very short space on a curve and just one person turning can back it up so I can't imagine what 300 new units and warehouses with trucks school buses people coming in going all the time is going to do to that area um there's people who ride bikes on that road believe it or not and having this much more traffic is going to be very dangerous there's tractors that drive on this road and people who live in an apartan complex aren't going to understand that that's a part of living in a rural community is you have tractors on the roads they're going to try and speed around them go around them and they have nothing to do in this area there's not even a gas gas station the nearest gas station is 10 15 minutes in either direction in Brooksville or more into Dade City and these people have nothing to do other than travel through Brooksville use the interstate and those are tiny two-lane roads that are dangerous if you have too many people on it or you're having to pass people or people just don't understand the rural characteristics of rural roads and the wildlife that's on them the tractors the agricultural stuff um and it just simply doesn't fit there is nothing around this development other than one tiny electrician Warehouse I think closer to Blandon Road there yeah there's nothing for these people to do who move here other than travel through the county travel through Brooksville the infrastructure in Brooksville is already so low where if there's two simultaneous car accidents someone's just going to have to wait the last time I called 911 in my neighborhood they didn't even have a time frame to when they could get here and I had to drive my neighbor to the hospital myself um and that's all I have thank you very much appreciate you coming Mr chair the next person I have is Kathy Lambert Kathy left okay so the next person I have on the list is Mr Russell John Russell John Russell 17810 Highland Lane um been sitting here you know I've been to some of these not so much this meeting but uh County Commission meetings in the past and uh you know I have a fair idea how these things operate um I uh was was the Democratic nominee for us house District 5 in uh 2006 and um just in relation to how things may operate uh not accusing anyone but uh I got a call from a guy named Ken Freeman DC lobbyist for big Pharma I'm a health care professional and uh John if you're willing to work with playball with the pharmaceutical industry we get you all the contributions you need and I've seen some of that uh when I've been to you know when I pay attention to what goes on in uh Pasco EXC me just a minute let me let me hold you up here man could we just get to the point I'm getting to the point I'm trying to illustrate people have put details we we know you think we're all Crooks so just get to the well well I'm not saying all you guys particularly I'm saying I know how politics operates in here and so these people are speaking with with a fervor and emotion and are fact correct for the most part and presenting documentation thereof but when we're talking about an employment center usually you'd have an employment center uh somewhere where it would be more convenient for people who are seeking employment this is not the most convenient place I think most people would would uh Garner uh putting it kind of out in the country there I think it's more of a placeholder and what was mentioned uh earlier was the fact that once the camel's nose this is well be the camel's nose under the under the tent um that opens the door to the people who who are big land owners who are already inquiring about how we can put our stuff up for sale and so once the once that rezoning and uh of land occurs then the whole place is shot I think there's a problem there's a problem with people uh in um positions of power actually understanding value I've heard a lot of people here um take note of what the value truly is in a place other than Wesley Chapel and when we talk about safety so I'm in healthcare I've uh worked in trauma at Tampa General and uh so I've seen lots of the detrus that occurs on our roads and when you're talking about I don't know if anybody here's uh into motor racing and knows what the lagona sea the cork screw at Laguna sea is because that that's exactly what coming the southbound exit getting off onto Bland road is it's like the cork screw at lagona Sea it's very dangerous and when we're sitting here and we're wondering about um you know is is the County Commission serving serving the community as a as a servant of the community or a servant of the developers it seems to me haven't been around here for more than 20 years uh much of the membership on the County Commission are either land owners or their Servants of land owners I would speak to you know specifically to Mr Oakley would be one one to pay attention to but there's no there's no um there is no um his time up Sir yeah uh you know I think I probably send it up you get my drift we want an honest decision that suits the terrain that is the that Northeast rural care cor Corridor and I don't want City Water I have perfect water I have perfect water right now I thank you very much and I hope you'll come to a an honest and and thoughtful decision on this when it comes to that point thank you very much all right here on next Mr chair I don't have anybody else signed up but I believe there are several people in the audience who wish to provide public comment who have not spoken yet okay good I hear your hands okay have you been sworn no not yet okay unless anybody that wants to speak that hasn't been sworn please stand up raise your right hand okay and I know you're all passionate about it and I want you to have an opportunity to speak but I'd like you to be speaking about something besides what we've already heard because we you know we we're pretty tuned in on what your concerns are and but I want you to feel free to speak so come on up we'll give you your time even though you didn't sign up thank you thank you thank you for coming um my name is James Navaro senior and I live at 34721 Blandon Road um I'm not going to bring up anything that's been discussed here uh you guys as you mentioned know pretty much the the thing but I am confused and and this is my confusion my confusion is uh the Evans team here had gone through litigation and they've acquired rights to this property and they have um outline some of the things that they want to do there according to what what this County had agreed to back I guess in 2005 and 2006 now my confusion stems is why are we here let's let's think about that why are we here are we here to agree to allow them to do this to ruin this area or are we here to find ways that we can make them move in without Runing this area can anyone of you guys explain to me what is it that we can do with having these folks here as neighbors can we allow them or are we just wasting our time application for resoning that's why we're here excuse me they're seeking to rezone the property that's why we're here if they're if they're seeking to reone the proper then why are they not allowed to put what they want before according to their agreement maybe you can answer that uh uh excuse me sir you can't address them oh I'm sorry yeah that's all right um if they're going to go resoning to to this new plan is it something that you guys have last say on or is that something that you have to any resing of this property would have to be approved by the board of County Commissioners okay even though they had this legal agreement that they have there's a comprehensive plan land use designation for this property of employment center okay that's the comprehensive plan they still need to obtain a zoning approval to do the types of entitlements that they're seeking and we're the first step in reviewing that second step is Board of County Commissioners okay so so second so you can take some of our opinions and and considerations into into your decision that's why it's a public hearing right so having said that if you guys can at least at some point look at what everyone says here and take that into an account because I'm not going to go over thean things but at the same time I want to have the nice views and and also the Pleasant living conditions we have that's exactly what we're doing today thank you thank you very much for your time who's next careful hi my name is Kim Wht I live at 17030 Palamino Lake Drive in dayve City uh i' like to submit these if I can can uh and give your attention to the summary par motion receive file second second okay all in favor so ma'am this is a summary of the neighborhood meeting at the meeting that they held I believe on December 10th I that's what you're giving us as a sum that's what I'm giving you okay and that was some of the questions and was there something specifically you're pointing out to us uh did the summary of we can't read the whole summary while you're while you're there we wouldn't want to hear what you're saying well it was not a very good meeting in my book let me let me ask the question different way is there anything that was said at that meeting that's different than what we've heard today just very unprofessional I thought um but that's I'm giving that to you you guys can read it if you want uh the question I have is that if this is an industrial uh that's happening what's going on with the waste how is it it going to affect my well my property um I grew up in West Palm and I grew up in Tampa and I have seen the changes it's not good my husband who grew up in L was involved in an automobile accident because of so many people on the road and he's paralyzed and we moved out here and he just grew because there was more things to do on his property if you allow this you're affecting people's lives and the last thing I want to say is if you can do something it's not always the right thing to do thank you thank you very much appreciate you coming good afternoon my name is Brock La clear I live at 18615 Lake Iola road is just North and across the street from the subject properties being discussed uh I bought it some 25 years ago at the time I bought it Pasco County told me that God couldn't change the zoning out there it was going to be one dwelling unit per 5 Acres I eventually sold off the 37 acres and 5 acre plots some six some s acre plots everybody would stop me on the weekends on my bush hog and asked if they could buy the property up there cuz they fell in love with the rural area and they wanted a little farm at I walk my dog out by that Highway in front yard every morning at 7:00 my dog has got a routine and uh I have to stick with that routine cuz she's a big Labrador I have noticed the traffic increased since they widened and put the bicycle Lanes which is kind of insane because cars do 100 Mil an hour in front of my house because it's a straightaway the Sheriff's Department of Fernando County and Pasco County are scared to death of that county line they won't go near it because they don't want to chase people in Hernando Hernando doesn't want to chase people in Pasco so they're afraid of it so the traffic goes crazy motorcycles are doing 100 miles an hour out there all the time bicycles are out there with this traffic this is going to add more traffic I noticed the traffic in the last seven years years has increased dramatically since they have improved and put those bicycle Lanes out there uh I am afraid of the problems with the infrastructure for something like this this is like throwing a diamond in a pile of rocks it just doesn't fit and I hope that people will understand that adding to an already overburdened infrastructure is is ridiculous and insane thinking in my opinion now you're going to add water I've got a pond in my backyard what is this sewer system going to do to my drinking water I've got a well what is this going to do to my drinking water what is this going to do to the traffic out on the road in front of my house there is a pipe underneath my fence that feeds the well on this property and it comes from a pump on some property down closer to the county line at Hawkeye Road and Lake High Road does the pump on Evans property up there is it going to take care of all the water for that or are they going to use that well system from down the road and that is just a booster pump up there on the hill uh I think that this needs to be explored further and see how this is going to be accommodating all the infrastructure burdens that are going to be placed on thank you thank you they'll have an opportunity to answer some of these questions when they come back up I'm sorry when they come back up they'll have an opportunity to answer some of those questions thank you was there anybody else okay yeah I'm Janet Olson I live on Nolan Road my family has lived on Lake Iola for 75 years we're not opposed to growth by any means but it's gotten out of control we don't want to look like starky Ranch nobody over here wants to look like that mess over there nobody everybody wants their quiet life people have moved here for that quality and it is terrible this man you need to Sir Excuse me miss miss you have to address US can't turn around talk to the will you turn around and tell him what I got to say he can hear you that's why you got a microphone I'll let you do it that's why you got a microphone he to go sit at Lake Isa Road as it crosses over coming off a Blandon at 6:00 in the morning when you're trying to go to home assassin go scalloping it is bumper to bumper to bumper it has gotten ridiculous it's out of control there weren't that many scalps this year scalping was okay not that good but the keys were better for lobsters just take just so you know you know okay and and and uh you know I feel so sad I know the Evans Family I've known them for years I have worked for them I think Jimmy and Harriet would roll over their graves if they saw what EMT was doing I really do I really really do I I really do and it upsets me they don't need the money but you're going to put a 300 multifam Apartments how many people's that going to add 600 900 Everybody's Got a Car everybody kids living at home because they can't get a job you're going to put this Warehouse or warehouses we've got a warehouse on Pasco Road if you come out Pasco Road to go up to 52 where the Burger King is there is a warehouse there what was told to the public years ago when oh we're going to bring in 600 jobs three shifts of 200 people per shift you go by there there's one car maybe one truck ain't no people in that parking lot it's a joke it is a joke and I know that they probably got uh all kinds of tax incentives to build that thing there that's an isore I understand they have Master plans I I understand that I understand growth but we don't want to look like starky rant we really don't and you go down bellany brothers and you look at all that's ripped up land it's just horrible you got three subdivisions going on St Joe Road going from Happy Hill into town Happy Hill you got one right there 52 right there that land was designated as agriculture permanently Julia Pitman told me that she don't gave that to Drew there's 80 houses 90 houses going in there right now and it's it's sad am I over time you sure are well all righty there thank you I don't I don't mean to be over time what was that address for the lobster again oh we got some nice bugs this year I've got a bag full in the fre well I do but I I thank y'all for what you do it's a hard job it really is you have a lot of bull dropped in your lap and and it's how do you walk through it but being here for a long time and and there's Generations sitting right back here and I'm still considered a newcomer even though I've been here am I not and but I love this community I I've I have volunteered and bartended fundraiser in this community for 25 years to give to the community because I can do it and I hate to see what's happening I really do I do but you ain't putting a there won't be one by my house no no there won't thank you all for what you do we'll see you in the next fundraiser appreciate I like you he's got my name is Kobe Cassidy I'm at 13337 K Bradley street but um me and my wife actually just purchased a 10 acre lot on ambera in October embera road is about one or two miles south southeast of this on the other side of the interstate um we purchased this land because of the scenic um views and the rural overlay we purchased this because of the Northeast rural protection area um the drives are obviously beautiful and everything we ever wanted is here um we plan on building our forever home on this property um this is completely incompatible with the entire character of this of this rural area I think that's pretty obvious um I'm not going to parir at everything that everybody's said but it the lake Iola road is completely incompatible with the traffic for the mobilization of this project Alone um and the de once it's developed is a whole other story so like every everybody said the interstate onramp and offramp is is pathetic already um to add this to it is going to be absolutely insane 300 units a million and a half square foot of it's just ridiculous um so I just think it contradicts the entire idea of of what the rule overlay is and what this stuff is for um we spent our life savings in October close to our life savings buying this 10 property because of everything that this area is um I actually called the planning um Department to find out if there is was going to be anything like this anytime in the future and I got a a no so this was in October I'm not really sure why I got that answer um but that's a conversation for another time um there's a lot of questions obviously with um the project whether it's get a whether it gets public utility water or if it's got a plant of its own it either way is bad it's terrible for the environment it's the terrible for the the ground water in all the lakes in the surrounding area and I got a um a uh a drop in our land with some Springs in it right next door so I was also told about this about what time is it I was told about this meeting at 11:00 a.m. this morning by a neighbor who I just so happened to meet and get her phone number and we've been in contact cuz her husband has cancer she couldn't make it so she texted me I had no idea about this like I said I called in um in October to find out about this prior to our during our due diligence of buying our property so anyways the people in this room are the ones that are directly affected and I'm a newer generation but I think it's clearly obvious that this the the roadway is not built for this and we all know how long it takes for that whole um Gallop to go once it goes there once this project is done um and I don't anyways I just hope you guys take consideration um to what everybody here has said today thank you guys appreciate it thank you for coming okay what's that anybody else now my name is Lynn Silvers my address is 25329 Old Spring Link Road and it's very rural and fact the road is condemned because of the traffic and so and it is Hernando County but I think they are if in order to keep it looking Rule and um they ought to put Maybe five or 10 Acre Farms on it and I know they paid over a million dollars for it and they're probably crying already but um it's you can't really put a um you have to have water brought in because we all have arnic in our water so you can't even put walls in third wall and um everybody in that in that area has got arsic and um um the problem with me is that everybody uses our roads and shortcuts out of Brooksville so that's going to put more traffic on our roads and it's going to wear them down faster it's just that I'm worried about the traffic and all all that on Spring Lake Highway and Old Spring Lake Road and Paul Road and Aries Road so that's all I got to say okay thank you is anybody else okay all right Mr T you want to have your uh technicians respond or you want to respond Mr chairman thank you Joel two again for the applicant I'm going to be extremely brief I'm getting way too old in retirement I'm worn out after 3 and a half even though I only spoke for my 20 minutes so I only want to say uh two things number one is I uh have to go home to my own 95 year old mom who's lived with me the last two years and will probably shake her finger at me when I get home so so I'm used to it and I'll tell Mom the same thing mom I hear what you're saying I understand your concerns and and what you have out there but you know the facts are what they are and the comp plan is what it is this family has owned this land for 50 60 years um that family doesn't have any greater or any less rights than anyone else who owns land out there and this land from the beginning from the origin of time of the pasu county county comprehensive plan had a mixed use designation on it um any realtor who sold any of these people any property certainly could have found that out um that mixed juice was actually down planned to this employment center designation in ' 05 over their objection that was a huge that the employment center as I said was actually embedded in the original Northeast rural protection plan so it's not that it was a surprise it was a known factor from the day there was any concept of Northeast Pasco so either the people weren't here and weren't aware of that whole proceeding which was months I mean this was a year or two probably two years it took for that comprehensive plan amendment to go through so it it's not a surprise it's always been the fact and it is what it is we are sympathetic and that's why I said whatever the comp plan policies are whatever the Land Development code requirements are as we go through site planning once we have specific users of specific Parcels so you can determine what is appropriate we will buffer we will landscape we will have setbacks and we will do what what the comp plan and the LBC require and we'll comply with any additional requests that are reasonable as we go through that process so that's really you know those are my two points uh is is that we can't change that and my final point because it's a lot easier for me to say it than the Evans family but I've worked for them for 20 25 years now um it's a little unfair for the family to be personally attacked because people only look at one situation where all they're asking to do do is to have that which they've been entitled to for 30 40 years the same family since the issue's been brought up is the same family that funded a million dollars privately to start the vop financial plan because the county only had $400,000 and they LED that property owner group they also were the family that committed for 10 years that land for the vop super park at a substantially discounted value on land that had far greater development potential that family also as Mr Williams knows has provided him School sites gladly done so not fault him for school credits rather than being paid in cash so it's unfair to paint them as a greedy wealthy family they have they have been a Mainstay uh largest employer back in the day in Dade City with that Citrus plant when they started it with likes and then did their own plant they they produced jobs so I think it's unfair to turn this into a personal attack on the family hopefully that's not where this is coming from um but I just feel like they need to be defended uh and I'm I'm happy and and and uh proud to defend them on that point we all have rights if it was my land I would feel like I had my rights thank you Joe can I ask a question yes sir how did you guys arrive at the million and a half s where house house and the apartments I understand and I'm looking at this document you gave us from the settlement the stipulated settlement agreement some of the uses could have been corporate business park targeted primary business I'm not exactly sure what that is and I think that probably changes over time I know at one point warehouse and distribution was a targeted primary business um and Industrial uses and I see multif family included but why the warehouse and Industry versus corporate business park or whatever targeted primary business is if you if you refer Mr Moody to the agreed uh conditions that we worked out with staff we actually covered all of those we we have as permitted uses the corporate business park the target industry the i1 light industrial certain limited I2 uses the thought process with staff when we were cooperating on what this should be uh was let's give you a regional smorgus board as long as we eliminate noxious noxious uses and uses that would be offensive like outdoor you know storage or outdoor manufacturing uses let because we're going to be competing with that pasu town center Double branch and Hines the thought processes that most of those appear to be heavily headed toward medical uh technology and and and and medical type uses we think that this will be a good site for a broader mixture we we we probably will get some warehouse distribution I think we'll get some clean Light Industry that's why we said that all the perimeter Parcels have to be clean Light Industry the others have to be buffered in the center surrounded by those uses as to the quantity the county staff at the time wanted us to make it as robust as was reasonable given a normal F ratio and also the contemplation is if there's enough demand the whole site would be those employment uses we we may not build the multif family if that happened and so if you do the math on that it's an F of maybe 0.5 which for that type of large Warehouse structure is not you know overly heavy uh so it was a number that worked with a reasonable F ratio if it got fully built out but that's why it says up to that amount um and then and of course we limited the remember now we voluntarily limited the multif family to only platted fee simple product there have been references to Apartments today and we agreed even though we have every right to those under that category we've agreed we won't do that and just might ask you this question but it's more for clarification of some of the comments that came up here in this future land use designation of EC are you allowed to do single family detached you are not exactly see that's the thing you absolutely cannot so we're doing that which it allows except that we're voluntarily agreeing not to do an initial rental you know apartment uh we're doing Fe simple planted products so I think we're actually and we've limited the retail to only what staff agreed were were good neighborhood support uses not large scale Regional uses uh We've limited the indust carved out noxious uses we've agreed to put light industrial only around any perimeter lot uh there is one issue I want to bring up for about the gentleman that owns the immediate parcel to the north and you need to be aware of this we had originally we had to fight staff because staff wanted the mandatory cross access to every adjacent parcel we said well that's crazy why would we force a connection to the gentleman to the north who given his 10 acre parcel in his home he likely is isn't going to be happy with that so that's why we I asked for the waiver of the mandatory cross access staff's the one trying to force that cross access that shouldn't happen you know we shouldn't be required he doesn't want us to cry just talk to he obviously would not want us to cross connect um so we're we've tried to do everything to be sensitive to that so that's why if you do see fit to recommend approval please include which it's in the conditions they had agreed on this originally um you know be sure be sure that you approv that part to grant that waiver to not require that mandatory cross access to him on the North because if I were him I would not be happy with that so but that's how we came about it we just did a logical F that if the full site went to an industrial or Target business or any of those uses uh you conceivably at an F of about .5 you you could get close to the million5 square ft probably not very likely to happen but it really depends on what happens with Hines and columnar down at 52 because you know the other problem is the county doesn't have any enough of these signs you know you you talk to Economic Development people they'll tell you they don't have enough pre approved industrial uh you know corporate business park areas that that are ready to go um and that's the reason why this went at an interstate interchange I mean this is alone that's why the comp plan is long term um you got a plan for that but that's how we came up with the numbers I mean if a million5 is a problem then we don't think it is but if that doesn't make sense let us know like I said they're they're actually reasonable people they're just trying to get something done and how did we arrive at the 15y year life of the proposed MP versus the standard six yeah just being realistic about the market um I think it would be foolish to only do a six-year buildout here uh uh because you got to wait for that market to come to you uh so we've done the same thing at CPE we did the same thing at Pasco Town Center all of these large projects that we've done particularly the employment center projects we have build a longer Horizon just so you don't have us back in here having to do a full MPD modification go through this again when all we're asking for is five more years so the thought process is if we're going to do it and since the comp plan has always contemplated it at least give us a reasonable business Horizon uh to to Market and build something like this out uh we got a lot of utilities to pay for um it's going to be a big nut up front uh to start this private private not okay thank you is there anybody else from your group that you want to not unless you guys have a specific technical question that's why we put everything I don't know if they want to speak about traffic or ask the same question we can if there's a we haven't really heard from any traffic expert at all structure well the reason the reason I didn't feel compelled to do that but we certainly can is in the record from the applic there was a full-blown review of the transportation study that was approved by engineering and as Mr Goldstein knows he's had me agree in the transportation condition that if we do anything that generates even one trip above that assumed number we got to do a new study if we do any commercial we have to do a new study so this will go through the standard access management requirement um and the reason that it's important to do those on an update is as you know until you have a specific use on a specific parcel in the property you can't really do an intelligent analysis of access and what the impact is uh because different uses you know but this this assumes a large buildout number and what it demonstrated is at buildout and mic Razer can it's it's in the PowerPoint paper copy in the one I sent you all those all those links still operate at at acceptable level of service and the County transportation engineering staff signed off on that and we've agreed that if we do anything other than what they've approved we have to do a new one and it does require both left turn and right turn Lanes it requires the additional rideway on Lake Iola and like I said we'll provide whatever they gave us the number they needed for Lake Iola off the master long-term roadway plan I mean the county has the that specified in the lrtp and I said tell me the dimension you need and and we'll we'll we dedicate it for free that's in the conditions Joel but if you want mic Riser yeah can we have mik come up I've got a couple questions from too so I got one more question for you Mr to on uh your slides here you've got the ECU flu is limited to and only allows industrial distribution support commercial and multifam where's where's the distribution come from I just I'm not seeing it where it's specifically called out for the EC flu um I think it is in the overall EC category or which one are you looking at are you looking at the one that that's in the full comp plan or the one that was attached to the settlement that just dealt with the percentages I'm looking well I I looked at both and I don't I'm not seeing either one but it's on your slide or distribution C out specifically cuz the the line and I think the comp plans uh well I did I did Central Pasco employment Village and I did Pasco Town Center double Branch with Mr Engel and I know in all the EC areas we've allowed uh the industrial uses and the corporate business and others now typically on some of the others that were ECM PDS you know we had to allocate a certain percentage to those Target uses which we've done but I don't think there's any question uh under the comp plan there's never been any question but that you can do industrial uses in the EC and I I I'm sorry I didn't nobody's ever questioned that so I haven't looked but we can look at that before we get to the board certainly but I'm pretty confident that we can and I'm just kind of looking at letter of the law and what we've got here I don't see in underneath industrial covers manufacturing compounding assembling processing packaging treatment um I I think you know you brought up the original intent from 2005 I had the benefit of getting stuck in the car with a guy that was a part of that a lot um and and the way things have changed I've talked about this a lot you know take somebody from 2005 and put them into today's world B mind right I don't think distribution centers at the time were a thing um and maybe that's why the county now automatically does that I know I know input we've received uh if there's anyone use on this site that's looked most favorably by the powers that be it's the it's the wide breadth of industrial uses for what that's worth I mean the push back I got was on multif Family Apartments right and or multif family but I've had no one question and actually they asked that we include as broad a brush of acceptable industrial corporate business park Target industry that they they seem to want the broadest we can have as long as we exclude those nox noxious use items which William and I did yeah but we we're certainly happy to look at that if there's an issue with we can review that with ped and Mr Goldstein before BCC and if we need to tweak those industrial uses but I'm pretty confident that the board's going to want us to do those industrial uses for what that's worth right I I think my only concern is looking at distribution centers now they're all getting robotic they're limited job creators in my mind um and and just it's not employment center right it's not employment center to me I think you know I think employment center I think of like um just those job creating businesses you know some so I just and we've got a distribution center that's sitting there at like somebody mentioned that Pas Road sitting empty the target the T the own again off again Target off again off Target so um well somebody has a lot of money invested there they'll eventually they'll eventually figure out that use and I doubt that Mr Engel could get to that knowing him well enough I doubt he gave them any economic benefits until they they produce jobs so so I can probably answer the question if you look at right section and admittedly this is an MPD not an ecmd which Joel's quick to point out but if you look at the EC mut standards what allowed use in an EC mutd if you look at section D um 1 B it list the industrial uses and number seven is distribution plants right that's what I've seen and then there's a number 20 which talks about light industrial flux space which is a form of distribution as well okay yeah I know there are places in the comp plan that I've seen so just you want know the the list of uses that's in 52 2.5 um D these preferred uses which include in corporate business park and these were all developed with the pass Economic Development Council these are the uses that PDC told us that we should authorized in EC now admittedly things may have changed since this was done back in I don't know when this was done probably in 2008 or n or so um but pedc has not asked us to remove distribution or light industrial Flex bace from the permitted uses in EC so but if you're asking are they allowed today the code says they are well one point that was targeted business is it still a targeted business do you know no there's actually a separate list of targeted businesses so there's a whole there's a whole there there's a c which is targeted primary businesses which is manufacturing whole list of manufacturing uses medical research office uses so it's all like I can tell you is please look at 522.com an employment center and it's got corporate business park industrial uses light industrial flux space distribution I'm not I'm not expressing any opinion about whether this list is too broad or not I'm just telling you that this was the list that PDC gave us when this section of the code was developed okay okay Jamie I think you want to see yeah and for Mr Razer he's going to need his slides back could we go back to our power come up you'll have your slides on the PowerPoint there toward the end if you need to well good afternoon getting into good evening uh my name is Michael RoR uh with racer Transportation Consulting um I am a registered professional engineer with a specialization in traffic engineering and I have been sworn um there may be specific questions but I will give you a brief overview of traffic for this project um when when we initially uh took this project on uh in 2023 early 2023 we had prepared a time in INF phasing analysis to accompany the rezoning um that study looked at 250 apartments and about a million square fet of light industrial the results of that study as reviewed through staff both through the methodology and and the the analysis identified that Transportation performance standard pursuing the Land Development code were met or exceeded um from that point the as we have heard from uh today's discussion the entitlements have been modified generally upwards um we did not update the study because during that time period uh Mr two had identified that there was an exemption in the code for this project requiring a time in in phasing analysis uh 90112 C3 C I believe which where a project with an underlying future land use of EC is exempt from providing timing and phasing analysis so we did not update that but the original one that we had done with slightly fewer entitlements identified the transportation study area met the adopted uh standards pursuant to the Land Development code um I've also heard discussions today regarding the interchange and I think we can all agree it's an older interchange and most of the interchanges in Pas County all of them have been old at 1 Point and they've been reconstructed when the need and the growth is there and hits it and this would situation wouldn't wouldn't be any different um I had spoken with do about this particular interchange during the project at the Northeast quadrant of uh of of The Interchange which uh was rezoned a few years ago to to I or i1 I'm not sure industrial of some sort they had indicated at that point that they had no issues with the interchange they had no concerns about that particular project um when back out to them this time around I think some of the folks behind me had gotten to them and they were not so um forthcoming and stating that they didn't have an issue um they said they needed to look at it they needed to talk with folks in pasca county and whatnot so I never really got an answer to that um at that time we looked at 5 years of Crash data there was not a crash history associated with The Interchange that was a typical or pointed out any specific deficiency um in asking dot for updated information they said that they didn't have complete records over the past 5 years so the prior 5 years is is what we've looked at uh and again there wasn't a specific deficiency identified through that review as I testified before uh the Planning Commission and board for that project at the Northeast quadrant so with that I'd be happy to answer any specific questions Jamie well my my specific I mean multiple people got up and and voiced concerns about that those interchanges particularly at the interstate and I maybe you just touched on it briefly but I mean I was trying to get an understanding of what is the process I mean I've seen enough dot projects that I'm hoping they're completing my lifetime um right they're always uh building something somewhere and sometimes things don't get done however um overpass Road got built fairly quickly as did 56 interchange so there's some there's some outliers specifically in Pasco County um but as you know being in the engineering field yourself you know the the the need the demand needs to be there first just like we heard with water earlier they're not extending water lines 10 miles for no reason the need needs to be there I didn't know what trigger I guess what my where my question was going was is what would trigger you I guess you would only trigger the requirement to do a to do level study if you're connecting directly to a DOT road in which case you're not I I think I know where you're going with that and you're and you're right the this development once it assuming it gets approved if it does get approved is is not going to be a snap of a finger in generating you know Max buildout traffic it's going to happen over a long period of time other development will come online traffic will slowly grow and during that period the dot evaluates these things they will hear from folks they will hear from the county David uh Mr Engel even earlier said he's going to be incorporating some of this in the 2050 plan um so these things happen I'm going to say naturally through through planning efforts over a period of years so it's not like this development is going to be you know next year generating you know the the maximum buildout level of traffic okay and then I think I also remember a couple years ago we had another project that in this area and there was concerns and I think even your intersection analysis which I'm surprised I think your intersection analysis said it's a level of service D at plant and Iola or level service F but yet your statement is that all intersections meet criteria right level service is acceptable criteria person to land development code depending upon volume to capacity ratio and specific delays level service f is a qualitative metric of of Transportation performance there are qualitate quantitative metrics as well level of service is the quantitative there's delay and volume to capacity ratios which are the the quantitative measures so you can have a level of service F operating condition and still meet standards if your VCS and your delays meet other standards explain the qualitative that so level of service is a letter grade between a and F just from grade school we all kind of kind understand what that means FS are Bad A's are good but exactly a is not very efficient for a transportation system though because that means that there's no delay and you know so the the origination of what you would assign a level service letter grade is based on other values one of those is volume to capacity ratio which as it states is the traffic volume over compared to the capacity for a particular movement a roadway segment or whatnot depending on what kind of facility you're looking at so a volume to capacity ratio is a measure of the demand to the supply delay is a value that is based and it depends in the context of what we're doing here and in the study that we did delay is on an average average number of seconds per vehicle stopped at a certain condition and the delay is a specific function of conflicting traffic traffic the type of traffic control whether it's a signal what kind of phases they look at whether it's a stop sign control um you know there's a there's a there's a good number of factors that go into the analysis that identifies ultimately what that average delay is the average delay is then assigned a letter grade but once you get to a certain uh level of delay it's always an F so the Land Development code recognizes that a level service F may not necessarily be a deficient condition if for instance the delay is not significantly above the level service e category or if the volume to capacity ratio is at a certain point um and and a great example is if you're on a a road uh State Road 54 Where It has very long traffic signal Cycles if you're in a minor street that traffic signal cycle may be a 3-minute cycle and it is mathematically impossible to it to achieve an acceptable level of service because the overall delay is so high so to to bring this back home level of service is not the only performance standard recognized by the passive County Land Development code and so the results from our analysis whether there's it if there's a level service F that means that the the VC ratio and delay combination still meets the the um the the criteria for it not being a failing or deficient movement okay and in your opinion adding 50% more industrial 20% more resal and 100,000 foot of commercial is not going to trigger you and that's why I preface this ation by indicating that the study that we did was based on the land use plan provided to our office the 250 apartments in million square fet we had run that study and those are the those are the results that I reported on we met the we met the the code requirements the entitlement package proposed had been changed at that point we identified we were exempt from timing and phasing so we did not have to do another uh study and in Pasco County there is no Transportation concurrency so to speak um Mobility fees are assumed to take care of all Transportation impacts Transportation Mobility fees so with that I don't know what the results would be if we had run a different scenario because we were not required to do that by again by the by section 90112 3C of the of the LDC okay yeah just my concern is is that obviously even though you're not required to do it and we've got everybody here is going to attest to and testify that there's there's a problem and yet you're going to add more traffic on the road but we're just going to look the other way because you're exempt that's the concern it's no different than us analy it's not your fault that's no different Jamie and I understand your point and I agree with your point but I will tell you this we I've sat up here and pointed out many a day that the land when we get the traffic engineering testimony we analyze an mpud and we look at it in a microscope and we don't look at all the other MPS that were were were approved last week or last month or last year and the cumulative effect from all of those things because we got rid of the concurrency system in favor of the mobility system and it's a it's a problem of the code I'm not well it it is but if I could address that because Mr Goldstein and I obviously work on this a lot that is the reason you have Mobility fees that's why they're reviewed and adjusted and let me just give you an example you could Marshall the mobility fees from a large employment center area like this and you could earmark those to a specific Improvement so there are ways for the county to get there plus obviously there's Dot and federal funding when you're dealing in an interchange but remember even though we are exempt and Pasco Town Center was exempt we're not asking to be treating any differently right hind everybody that has EC is treated we're just asking to be treated the way the code allows it I understand your point but the point is the county will be receiving Transportation money that can address specific problems and this is the kind of thing that could be identified down the road as a potential issue in the meantime we still have to do access management so don't don't forget that part we've still got to widen Road and do turning lanes and access improvements so it's not like we don't have to do anything and we don't get credits for those I mean we have to do the access improvements and still pay the mobility fees Joel I I do want to clarify something though because what Mike is testifying to is different than what your draft conditions say Mike is saying that the access management study he did was only for 250 multi family units and what was the square footage of 960 something under under a million just under a million so well uh I think I think staff provided the numbers that are in the condition if if Mike's numbers are different then we can make that change in that condition to reflect the actual quantity that was in the study the condition contains what the staff review gave us to insert yeah William address why it reads the way it does I'm only pointing out that the testimony we're hearing is different than what is in the language Mike did the study that he knows he submitted to staff and staff approved so if Mike tells us what those numbers are I'm happy to have that lined into that condition so they accurately reflect what he submitted we agreed to what we were providing because it do it does say that if you do commercially you got to redo the study and we've agreed to that but I think part of what Jamie's concern is is that it doesn't really necessarily require any study to add more appartments well but what he analyzed okay doesn't the condition actually say David that if we generate any trips Beyond those assed in the study the problem is that the Baseline is 300 multi family units in a million five but but hear me out what the condition says is if we generate any trips beyond the assumed trips it doesn't matter what type of use well it says any development of land uses that generates D greater traffic impact than those assumed but it says what was assumed was a mil5 and 300 but it says the impacts assumed the impacts are the trips okay let's put Mike what are your numbers and just put them in know this is not worth quibbling over let's put what Mike says the numbers are in even though it's really trip based so it doesn't really matter but given what were the numbers 250 multif family units 931000 531 Square F feet of industrial so and no commercial well commercial's already addressed because it says they have to add commercial they have to do a new study so regardless of what you do with this overall application since it sounds like the applicant conceding that those numbers need to be what Mike just said I think we need a motion to amend condition 10 again I'm not saying this needs to be is going to get approved but at a minimum we need a motion to amend condition 10 so it's reflecting the numbers that Mike just St second any further discussion on favor iOS like sign so but to go back go back to the commercial I mean this this application is for 100,000 ft of support commercial but it says they got to do a new study to get commercial but shouldn't that study be done before submitting an application requesting 100,000 commercial that's that's a discussion that you all need how I'm just saying that they can't get the commercial unless they update their study let let exqu ft of commercial if there's no study that has been done that is required if there's 100,000 ft of commercial can can I try to address that Mr chairman I mean what we normally do this is not abnormal any Mudd zoning that is approved has an assumed set of uses largely for maximum theoretical purposes or best guess purpose but any time you come in with a preliminary development plan or preliminary site plan you on it you have specific uses in specific locations and you have to do an access management study update for that so what we agreed with staff was and again this support commercial was added because I was asked to add it okay some of the powers at B said well we also would like to see the opportunity for support commercial so the way we said we handled is well there's a 5% minimum right right and and if we get a retail user when we have and it's going to make a big difference what type of user is it you people that do commercial site plans know it makes a huge difference so when we get a specific one when we submit for a preliminary development plan or preliminary site plan approval with that use part of that submitt will have to be the new access management study on that commercial use so you will have it before any plan approval or permit is issued for a commercial use and it makes it makes a little sits because now for example if you told Mike go do it now what 100,000 of retail uses would he assume I mean what what mixed bag would you look at a crystal ball and guess you you can't you wouldn't even know what what uses because they all have different trips so I I want to be clear about something all my only Point whether you guys want to approve this project is up to you my point is the condition 10 is factually inaccurate based on Mike's testimony all I asked for was a motion to make it factually accurate that's all I'm trying to do here which we do so so did you approve that motion yeah we did now what you do with the was my followup after, Joel I can I ask cliff and I think maybe address clip question and this would be if there becomes the necess necessity to build a private Central Water and Wastewater system how long do you think it would take to get permits from the state to design build and construct a sizable wastewater treatment plant and then the affluent disposal that goes with it two years two years so it's not iment it takes a while you've got to get the um design permitting uh D Swift Mud water use permits water quality testing water quantity testing all done approved and then um once your permitting is done select your contractor and build it but it'd be a two-year process and any idea what I'm sorry uh Cliff manual Coastal Engineering uh professional engineer with a 44 years experience in design of water and sewer systems um any idea the type of effluent disposal and how much an area that would take up so the loading rates for the uh fluid disposal do depend on whether you take it to tertiary or secondary treatment standards uh this would probably be secondary and we would need at least 10 to 15 acres in addition to the plant site all right and and just for um purposes of of for the folks in the audience that has expressed concern about how this would look how was water a treatment plant would look can you just kind of describe what that plant would look like so it's an interesting thing in my many years of the experience um this was designed and built a lot for these types of places where water and sewer hadn't got there from the public sector private plants were put in uh they're generally located internally and buffered um it's our desire not to make them them a neighbor to you know our neighbors um so they're internally designed um they're very small footprint for the plant itself um and then uh the buffering and the the actual disposal ponds are at grade and can't be seen and so they perk into the soil uh the perk rates are all regulated by the department um of Professional Regulation those perk rates are designed to make sure that the water quality standards are met in the surrounding areas and that's all reviewed during your design two years at a minimum okay smell andage ma'am you can't speak from the AI well since she asked you can you can ask yeah that's kind of what I was getting at too is just uh because there's some concerns about the aquifer and quality of the water of the people with Wells a properly operating sewage treatment plant doesn't smell one that's not properly operating smells that happens in municipal plants and private plants that's the nature of the Beast no different than your your septic system at your home when it's functioning properly you don't smell it when it's not functioning properly affluent from your drain field is bubbling up through the ground and it smells the other thing that complements smell is the distance of loading a plant so when you have a plant on site and your users right there with you because these are private plants for specific use adjacent to the plant they're not as smelly as ones when you have to send the waste 2 miles before it gets to the pl sure and it's septic by the time it gets right absolutely okay that's all I had thanks sir any other questions I another a question on condition 10 so when they talk about any development of land uses that generate greater traffic than those assumed who's who's making that at least initial determination for triggering triggering that is somebody complaining or is the county looking at the uses or how does that work presumably I think I can answer this yeah presumably the staff should be checking that if they comeing for a site plan and it's generating more trips than what was assumed paper okay they would say you're not getting approval for that unless you do a new study gotcha thank you if anybody from Transportation Planning wants to give a different answer I'm okay with them doing that I don't know if David is anybody your team want to answer that okay assume my answer is accurate I'm assuming that thank you yeah as I understand it for this the purposes of the audience we're not approving any specific construction on that site or any particular design we're only can we're only talking about land use and talking about zoning there'll be there'll be lots of other uh meetings to discuss if they want to develop the site in terms of the site plan and the buffering and all that stuff so generally if you're asking will there be additional public hearings the answer would be probably no because at least in Pasco County our site plan approval process is an administrative process currently I just want to explain that to them so if the zoning is approved this would be the last time that there would be a public hearing to discuss the project now still a County Commission hearing yeah I mean but the Z is approved by the board um but the site plan approval process is generally administrative unless there's some odd variants or something that's coming that goes through the public process but generally it's an administrative process okay and I understand for purposes of of the commercial that you know you don't know what commercial is going to be so I understand for that that you haven't done another traffic study but the way I understand it is prior to any construction on this property there will have to be another traffic study done because there is a 5% minimum requirement for commercial and it says if there's one square foot of commercial that's constructed there will be another traffic study so it is a 100% chance according to the way the the flu is written that um there will be another traffic study conducted right and and and we basically stipulated the condition 10 that the first development plan we propos that has any commercial element that plan has to include that new access management study that's what we understand tend to say which David and I had I think David and I agree that that's that's what it says and that's what would happen well and now that we've amended the condition it would also be any multif family over 250 or any or letting industrial over might correct so correct but regardless there's going to be have to be another traffic study down because there's a minimum of 5% coverage of commercial that's on on here somewhat depends though because in theory they could come with with the industrial or multif family first correct which wouldn't necessarily trigger a new study that's correct um Mr chair before we take goes to the Planning Commission I do think you need to give our staff a chance to reut State any additional comments they want to State based on the testimony they heard and well do you have anything I don't know if David Engle or will or Terry want to say anything Dave I um I don't really have much more to say I just ask the Planning Commission to be very measured and thoughtful uh we we like balance plan growth and as the Planning Commission indicated previously which is new information with connected City that they were concerned about development not following certain protocols and delivering certain things um this is a situation not only affecting the evence prop but creating a precedent without a good comprehensive analysis of this area looking at traffic looking at drainage looking at compatibility all the things that we've spoken about today um I I I really feel that may have an unattended consequence of the negative for this area secondly uh the warehouse distribution does not pay Mobility impact so um it would only be generated by the commercial thank you thank you Dave will you have anything no Terry let me just clarify one point David Engel made he's correct that warehouse distribution is not currently paying Mobility fees however we're about to go through a Mobility Fe update next year and it's possible that could change I don't know but I'm just his act his stat is accurate as of today that's just want to be clear if this gets approved as of today does that mean that that no because Mobility fees are assessed when they come in for building permits so is it possible that in the future they can be assess Mobility fees yes it's possible okay just making sure we're not changing our list of Target Industries and there's a pretty good chance that warehouse distribution is going be removed because it's a low jator uh thank you Mr chairman P play development economic growth Department I'm not going to repeat all of the uh arguments that were made at the beginning or the initial presentation arguments that were made at the beginning of the meeting I just want to point out though that um as it relates to the particular land uses within the EC future land use the the argument is not about inconsistency of land use but about the timing of the development as it relates to uh the presence or lack thereof of water and St utilities so just want to remind that because that that did come up a few times during the com during the discussions and the various uh three minute presentations from from various individuals and from the applicants Mr chair the public Pascal County Utilities representative would like to yeah I just need to leave a quick note here that the county has been always having trouble with private utilities if you try if you try to create a private utilities that you're trying to create a problem down the road which is really uhco County doesn't want to tackle that part and try to acquire these utilities we don't want to create a utility that will create a customer base under a private entity uh doing it has been a policy for tax County Utilities throughout the year starting with when I worked with Kennedy and down all the way to uh so I just want to leave this note uh part of the of the comments here thank you thank you and in abundance of c and Joel any final comments B on staff's comments uh Joel to again only to the utility comment we already went through this we we're not creating a private utility that goes out and has a utility customer base we're doing a centralized private utility system to serve the project or serve the EC area so I don't think the utilities representative really is comprehending that distinction so that I want to clear that up thank you okay Mr chair I'm a little confused because last Friday we had a meeting with Mr 2 David Goldstein was involved and he said he's been talking to the surrounding Property Owners about putting together some type of utility sore treatment as well as you know some water distribution well David the policy that we've now given you several times makes it clear that a private Central system for the EC area is allowed the EC area is the entire Fu EC area so if that group once they get their entitlements want to share that system for the EC area that policy allows that but that's not going out and getting independent homes and service people outside of the EC Development Area the policy specifically says a central system for the EC area and in fact that's what was contemplated what was contemplated is the county could write a check for tens of millions of dollars to run the public system out there or they could allow the EC flu area as an EC project to figure out how to privately fund that and do it with a central system so theoretically you could have one for each property or those people could jointly within the EC area do one just for the the areas we can't control them our initial plan will be to solve our own problem but uh that policy clearly would allow that for the EC area that's that's what it says on its face I don't know if that was the intent of the way that policy was written because again County doesn't want to create U private utilities obviously so again please remember our condition our condition requires us with respect that if a public system gets there we have to take ours out of service and collect to the public system so we can't run we can't run a private system except for our project we have to disconnect and connect to the public system right which they're supposed to prioritize after 20 years to get to we'll be happy if they'll go do that that'll make us very happy not to have to build a system at all okay do we have any more questions or comments or do we have a motion for discussion i i as a point of just comment and discussion because this is a conflicting issue I mean I understand where everybody's coming from I spent the most probably formative years of my life on bayhead road living out there and again I had the benefit of being stuck in the car with somebody who knew the plan and knew that development was coming at some point at the same time we've got this em or economic Center that if we had a plan this would be subject to we don't have a plan yet understand the the they've got entitlements but we're we just got done talking about connected City where we didn't we had a aspirational plan that we didn't get met like I don't know how the solution kind of bringing it to you guys think we get creative about how we either Grant these en but then we got to develop a plan for the rest so that we don't end up with a hodg podge of things that don't make sense within this economic Center I think the economic Center is important as well because we've always been a bedroom community in Tampa I I drive into Tampa I get on 75 Southbound it' be really nice to go 75 Northbound get some other people going 75 Northbound to some jobs in this area it'd be great and I think that was probably the original intention I it'd be great if we could find a creative way to make the most of this opportunity we've got at the beginning of developing this economic Center I don't know what that is but feels like we need to find a way to do that make the best of it I from what I understood I think it's some of the reason behind staff's recommendation to continue the project again was to evaluate how it fits into the rest of the employment center future land use so which they haven't had the chance to do even though of course this is an old application 22 months and in making right and I mean and that's the I mean maybe the boat has sailed on making this one con conform to a plan because the plan wasn't in place the application was made but part of the conundrum we have here and is I don't think it's unreasonable to think that an Interstate interchange is going to be developed at some point in time the conundrum we have is that in the infinite wisdom of the planners that were at the county back in 2005 that's none of you all they also made this a rural protection area at the same time that's problem but the issue I was going to use the word litigated apparently wasn't litigated it was negotiated and settled settled and stipulated and there's an agreement there's an agreement signed by actually I couldn't find in here can somebody sign me who was the chairman of the board of the County Commission that signed an H de brand signed it and some of the most vocal members that I've been working with for 20 plus years of the Northeast rural area are signatories to this document so that's the problem we've got to work through I don't see the project as imminent I see them asking for an entitlement so they can go out and figure out how they're going to get utilities like you said how they can start attracting users and yes I think it's the logical progression of things that the other quadrants of this interchange are going to follow suit in the other properties in this EC we got to remember this is an applicant that didn't ask for this EC to be imposed on them I hear the public and I sympathize with them I've heard quite a few of the the members of the public come up here and say why can't they sell 5 and 10 acre ranchetts well the answer is cuz the land use doesn't allow them to do it maybe they would but it doesn't allow them to do it you can't speak from the audience we got everybody chance to speak go ahead John so that's the conundrum we've got to work through I at least that's from from where I see see it I will say other than Miss Hazelwood I had many discussions with people that spoke here today and only one of you followed my advice told you don't come up here and tell me I don't want it in my backyard that's not substantial confident evidence and nobody came up here and offered a bunch of comp plan policies that show that they're in some violation of the comp plan with this proposal and I don't believe that they are but what I did say was that this is an mpud zoning and then in an mpud zoning unlike a ukian zoning a multitude of conditions can be applied and I'm not sure what that was I was actually hoping that the folks some of the more ven folks in the Northeast rural area would come here with some conditions that their group could live with and the developer could live with in my personal opinion I'm leaning towards a continuance now I don't want to deny these people only for a very short time for them to resolve differences from staff if the staff thinks they're going to go out and do a study for the next 5 years and delay this applicant I wouldn't be in support of you you're going to now 20 years later we're not going to do an area plan this is not a surprise that this EC is in the comp plan and then I'm going to say one other thing to the staff the two gentlemen sitting right at the right in the front row are two of the best attorneys in the land use practice in the Tampa Bay area and in the state I've worked on with them and against them and if you think you're going to come up here and start grasping at straws in the comp plan when they haul you into court you're going to get a lesson you never forget I can assure you he will teach you a lesson you guys are especially will you're young you're up and coming you got to do your homework these guys are the best at what they do and I see that some of the reasons cited for denial are absolute grasping at straws that you're not going to get anywhere with and I I can't support that but I might support a continuance for a short time to get this to the board they want to get to the board and I think there needs to be a resolution I don't know what else to tell them I asked the staff okay if you don't want them to do this what can they do but you can't give me an answer what are they supposed to do you can't tell me what's an acceptable use what's acceptable buffering what's acceptable timing I don't know what they're supposed to do yes it was known in 2005 that there are no utilities out there and that's exactly why these flu policies were put in that they could do the utilities because that's the only way they can ever get that interchange developed I don't know whether developing The Interchange is a good idea or a bad idea but I know this in my life I've driven up a lot of interstates and every interchange gets developed so I don't think it's unusual to think an interchange is going to get developed I'm sorry that this staff got left with a poor planning decision made by a prior staff and hopefully you'll go to work to try to fix it and I can tell you that it's going to be a political football based on the discussion in this room I wish and I'm sure well if I'm still sitting here I guess I'll be part of that resolution but we got to find a resolution to this case and we need to find it soon I'd support a continuance if staff tells me that they've got a few conditions they need to iron out and these can be ironed out by the next time we have a meeting here in Dade City if you can't tell me that that you need it in two or three months then I'd probably support a recommendation of approval all that being said I'll also say this to the applicant I'm not sure that when you get to the board that you got all the votes you think you got so everybody here is going to roll the dice and the chips are going to fall where they made I'll just make a general comment for the benefit of the the audience um a lot of folks talk about government you know this is what government does to us or it's us against the government it's a quasi judicial body so we're weighing rights between the property owner and applicant versus the rights of everyone that lives lives around it and we can't we have to be fair and impartial when it comes to to those things you talk about um that land use the land use has been in place for or the future land use has been in place for 20 years and some of you hadn't bought property there yet and when you bought property there um that PL that future land use was in was in place other folks that did own property before that being in place you had the opportunity to be part of when that land future land use was was being changed I understand where you're coming from and saying well if if 5 acre lots make a difference or be would be more appropriate um just change it well the problem is is in just changing it is what happens to the rights of the person that's own that property with the possibility of selling it for development in the future by just changing it then you devalue their property that's within that that area so it it's it it's of course it affects you but it affects them as well and that's what we have to weigh I'm not offering at least in this statement I'm not not offering opinion yes or no I I think I tend to decide with Mr Moody uh and I do have some concerns about how um where we're at with this whether or not this is premature um this level of development is premature for the area that's that may may be true but that being said just for the benefit of of you all knowing what we have to do we have to balance those rights between between you and between the property owner and the applicant and we have to abide by that legal standard so I just wanted to mention that he you well I personally I hate to sit here just like everybody else for four and a half hours or 5 hours whatever been sitting here and then Kick the Can down the road again um seems like we're getting pretty good at that unfortunately um I don't know I I just I agree there there's a conflict here and how do we resolve the conflict I mean you got the whole Northeast Pasco roal protection versus the EC why in the world this area wasn't either excluded from Northeast roal protection or made something else I mean I personally I've got issues with compatibility of the uses I've got issues with the traffic I mean the the the thought of let's wait till a couple people get killed at The Interchange before we do anything about about it that's a problem to me okay and and I've got a problem with the utilities um so I don't know I'm I'm still wrestling I don't know whether I'm going to go with a continuance or not but I can tell you it doesn't excite me yeah I'd say it might in my time on this commission I mean this is the most difficult case that's come in front of us I think in in that time it's uh highly contentious I hear everything that's being s new audience I'm sympathetic to it I've driven this area numerous times and it's it is beautiful I it's a little Slice of Heaven up there um that being said a planning perspective I mean I'll likeo everything Jamie said I I think I share the same concerns with it and uh it's it's um I don't know that John they're going to be able to get staff would be able to get to an answer within within a month so um I guess we'll post the Recons but yeah this this is a very very difficult case to John's question I think the requested continuance was for a month sir well I mean so I think Mr Moody's point was though is that if there could be additional conditions added in a month to deal with things like buffering and some other issues I I don't get the impression that Mr engle's request for continuance was for that purpose but I'll let him speak to why why he want to continue in well it it it wasn't to come up with a an area plan for this project we just received information on the weekend and during the week this week and uh as you know Mr Goldstein we didn't have the normal time for uh us to undertake the RLS process and get fully aligned with h with you and uh we just needed some more time regarding uh generating an area plan and I I can't make a commitment we can do that within one month um but I think it's it's warranted at least to look at the area holistically now the preponderance of zoning in the EC area there is AC it's Agriculture and including this Pro property so it does have entitlements they're seeking new entitlements to be consistent with their argument supported by the conf in litigation settlement but alternative there's a conflict between the comp plan and the Zone the LDC right now so you know there's another way of looking at it than you know looking at the comp plan and making it consistent with the LDC so there's an open discussion I'd be willing to do my best uh to work with the Evans folk and listen you know take in what's been said in the community understanding our concerns and see if we can find a collaborative consensus but I can't guarantee it but we will give it an effort you know I I have no act to grind with Mr two or EV family and uh you know I'll treat them with respect like I do other property owners Chris well like uh you all have said it's it's it's a conundrum I mean e in this northeast rule is a different and it but it's unfortunate that it's existed for 20 years and yet we haven't tried to address it and come up with a planing mechanism to right and based on what I've heard you know there's I think John mentioned it that you know there's no resolution as to okay well how do we how do we address the Northeast Rule and make it make an easy fit but but at this point with it this long a as Derek said they've had these entitlements now for that many years I mean we can't just in my opinion we can't just keep penalizing them again I live in this area too I don't like seeing all the growth that's going on but they're again weighing weighing what the property rights are I don't see keep penalizing them trying to come up with a plan that's that we should have done a long time ago so I guess where I was going with the question to Mr Engel is and following up on Mr Moody's comment is if the purpose of a continuance is to develop additional screening or buffering conditions that could probably occur in a 30-day period but the purpose of a continuance is to develop an area plan or up you know that's not going to happen in 30 days so Mr Moody to your question I'm just being realistic if you think what bothered me is that he testified well we need to study this this we need to we need to study the traffic we need to study the roads that's not going to occur in 30 days either I that that's my point that's why I said I would support a continuance if this thing was going to get resolved and we were going to be done once and for all and I agree with Jamie we can't continue to Kick the Can down the road and I actually feel bad for the applicant and I guess the good news for the applicant is if we don't do a continuance you'll either get a recommendation of approval or a recommendation of either denial and either way you'll be on your way to the board of County Commission we just want to see the end of the line so Mr Moody I depends on what your goal is with the continuance if if you if you want to see additional screening on Lake Iola Road or additional buffering imposed on Lake Iola Road could that be drafted between now and 30 days yes it also could be drafted between now and the board of County Commissioners my my problem with that David is that when I asked the staff what do I do to make it compatible they they couldn't tell me and so now I'm supposed to do the planning and come up with I mean so so it depends on what you want to do if you want I mean you could approve I'm not saying I'm not telling you what to do you could do denial approve whatever you decide to do I'm just saying that if your goal is that you think it's approvable if there was additional screening and buffering on some aspect with the project you could make a motion that says approve if that a condition is added for additional screening or buffering and then staff would have to figure it out or the applicant would have to figure it out between now and the board but I can't tell you what to do I'm just saying that well if that's your purpose of a continuance it can be accomplished if your purpose of a continuance is because you want your staff to go back and do more traffic analysis or utility analysis I don't think that's going to happen in 30 days so it depends on what your goal is I don't know what your goal is well my concern is that I know Joel I know you all have been at this for a while this is really the first time it's come to us though and you know since we just got it last night I don't think anybody's had a chance to come up with a solution to it we were just thrown into this I think everybody's calling a conundrum uh of how do we treat both parties in a fair way an equitable way and um the thing about rushing the the decision through and the reason that I would tend to tend to go more for a continuance is because whatever we do these people going to have to live with from now on you know the Evans Family they're great family they've contributed a lot theyve got great great representation high integrity you know I really feel sorry for that somebody would turn around and and assail you like they did and uh but I think to give it another 30 days to try to come up with an equitable plan makes a lot more sense to me than to ruin these people's lives because I'm trying to put myself in both positions and if I live there I know I'd feel just like they do you know if I own the property I know I'd feel like Mr Evans does and so you got to we got to try to come up with an equable plan one that we were stuck with we had nothing to do with this one of my thoughts and I hope one of my thoughts about this and I apologize Cliff if you take this as an insult but that mpud plan is an orange blob and two blue blobs and two dras and it was funny cuz when we were here hearing the Tall Timbers we had a massive debate about you know binding concept plans now I got a blob but there's a reason for that I I understand I understand and some of discuss had employment centers they apply those as residential but they're not applying those to Commercial and Industrial so it's not applicable in some of the discussions I've had with staff about trying to apply binding concept plans they agreed they would be applicable to residential at first and not nonresidential but it has a residential component and I'm not suggesting you come on here and give me a layout of a townhouse or a condo complex what I'm more concerned with is the one thing in the EC description in the flu appendix and the comp plan is that it specifically talks about this employment center and that there needs to be a step down a transition of uses I would feel more comfortable if the mpu plan made some attempt to illustrate how you would achieve that step down transition of uses I think that was I know a lot of the audience is probably going to disagree with me for saying that but that was one of the protections for the Northeast rural area that was put into the comp plan when this EC was created I would feel more confident if there were a little more detail as to how we might do that I Joel I understand the conundrum of trying to get a development you don't you don't know who your users are you don't know we have zero idea I mean we can pay somebody to draw you basically any picture you want because we have no users and that's why I asked the staff the question but I'm disappointed that the staff could not provide that I I can make a proposal that I've been authorized by Evans properties to make that I I think is consistent with what I'm hearing from the Planning Commission and can get us all to dinner at a reasonable hour but it's contingent on Mr Engel making a commitment to you that you've asked him for about three times I want to be sure that it's clear Evans will agree to a an extension to your next Planning Commission hearing here in date City provided that what I don't hear back is what I heard on January 2nd and what I've basically been ghosted on since then the message that Mr Engle delivered to me clearly was they were going to oppose the project if I'm coming back here in 30 days for him to oppose the project then I need a vote up or down tonight because I've already heard that argument and I'm not going to waste 30 days we go up or down we go to the board in March they do whatever they do we either have three or more votes or we don't and win or lose no harm no faou Evans can assert its legal rights if necessary but I'm not going to waste 30 days and get stonewalled in a shell game played because they made no serious effort to do what you're asking them to do they dumped that on me yesterday at 2:30 in the afternoon after telling me on January 2nd that they were going to change their position that is disrespectful it's discourteous I told David that that's why I got mad and hung up on him I actually had worse than that to say before I hung up for good reason because he and I have done a lot of work together and to get treated that way is is disrespectful and unprofessional and I'm not the kind of guy to put up with it so I'm not going to play the game 30 more days with David unless he tells you that they will in good faith sit down and he'll authorize the planners to do it and we will work on conditions but if they come back here and say deny and throw that crap against the wall the other thing too they can't come come back and make more arguments on consist they' made their arguments I'm not going to continue a hearing till now that they've heard our position to go try to Jin up their defense because they got no defense so I need to know clearly what it is Staff intends to achieve in 30 days if it's in good faith to work on buffering and and and a better more detailed plan we're happy to work on that but I'm not going to play the game anymore and if that's the game please please vote us up but if you can't do that vote us down but don't continue US unless they agree to that that's that's our offer all right thank you so guess the ball's in their Court um we all have conundrums my conundrum is the definition of an employment center two distribution warehouses in 300 Apartments is not an employment center the the comp is very clear that the priority is creating I good job I didn't offer more of his substantive argument it's an easy question are you going to work on conditions are you going to oppose it's funny those those that picture and those entitlements he signed and writing were consistent and he supported their approval so he liked them until he didn't like them so he's now arguing against himself in his own September this is why I'm not wasting time on if he's going to say word like that just vote it up or down let question answer the question but he's not answering it we give him time okay we're giving you lots of time I've given him a lifetime I won't respond to that that sounds like a marriage um what I can say is um you know typically it's not our job to tell the applicant what to do on the property but I understand in the situation the Planning Commission members are looking for some direction um I have to weigh the overall good of the community and the area with the property owner rights I will tell you I'll do everything that I can ethically and professionally to meet uh with the with the applicant and try to come up to some resolution I again I can't promise anything but I'll make a good good fith effort and just a reminder according to the 2006 settlement stipulation it's got those minimum percentages for those things it's a got it's a 20% minimum of multif family so they're complying with that minimum can we I still don't take that as a commitment that he's not going to Simply oppose but can we at least have an agreement that the the argument Pros or con are closed we either come back here in 30 days with a set of conditions he decides he can support or for a set of conditions that you vote up or down but I am I am not going to open this up and give him a chance to go back now and do the homework that they clearly didn't do before today and change our position on that they've had their chance to argue so the substance we're not going to continue let me just ask the question in a different way maybe this will answer it if if the applicant proposed the different plan that had the step down in intensity or density that Mr Moody asked for in additional buffering are you still going to recommend denial 30 days from now I can't answer that there you go my point move to recommend approval second all right we have a motion in a second any further discussion of the motion okay all in favor signify by saying I I oos like sign n n we do a roll call vote just yeah Mr Jamie Gerard nay Mr Christopher P nay Mr John Moody hi Mr Matthew M no Mr Derek hot hi Mr Chris Williams hi chair Charles gr nay so the motion failed so we need another motion I'd like to make the motion that we continue to the Janu to the March 6th meeting here understanding that we can't guarantee that the staff's respond or they're going to change it I would ask to your your point Mr chairman that we had a very short period of time to look at this that's not our fault either I think we have some more time look at ourselves but I would encourage if you can't get conditions with staff as the applicant come to us with some conditions we we get the opportunity to improve those conditions here I think you've heard our concerns I I'd like to see some conditions that deal with better deal with traffic and maybe you know figuring out a way to have a plan Beyond understand you got to get your entitlements but how how do we best serve so let me ask still a question so even though Mr Engel is not willing to commit to work with you on additional conditions or revised plan sounds like the Planning Commission is asking for those things can you propose something to the Planning Commission 30 days from now that would address independent of what staff is I yeah yes we will as I said before I'm happy to do that if PL commission is willing to keep an open mind which clearly you are or you wouldn't have the very close split vote you have so I'm happy to do that and I will vet the technical side of that with Mr Goldstein so that we have CEO sign off on whatever I can work out with the planners but I'll get with the planners and we'll try to we'll try to work on the plan in the conditions because obviously I've heard a lot today and there are a lot of things we can dis steal from it I happy to do that but like I said I'm not going to get in a procedural position at the next meeting that they get to come up here and argue more um on the consistency and all that stuff that's when it's going to be Mr McLaren at the podium with his court reporter and he's going to stop that and there's going to be some cross-examination of people under oath as to who told them to do what so we're not having any more of that type a hearing and I'm happy to try to work on conditions that hopefully a majority of you can support cuz we we would like your support well the only way to accomplish control to ask for would be if you basically close the public hearing that's what I would like to do and the the only purpose of the continues would be to determine whether whatever conditions are offered up or whatever rise plan is or rise site plan is offered up is acceptable or not to the planning commiss what's the procedural mechanism to do that you would make a motion to close the public hearing so that there would be no more public there would be no more testimony from anybody other than whatever they're going to produce to you in terms of conditions and and revise site plan that would be the limit of what you would discuss is but the public closing the public hearing that means nobody's commenting on on on these revised conditions or revised site plan other than you there's no you you could ask for example you could ask question and answers about those you could flesh them out and if you wanted to you can even negotiate to finalize them I mean that would that also allow staff to bring forth additional conditions so sta so I don't want to commit Mr Engel but I don't know this St sounds like Mr Engle tends to recommend denial 30 days whether it's 30 days from now or 60 days from now so I don't think you're going to get staff to weigh in or Buy in on whatever these new conditions are that you're going to consider or do whatever site plan staff's pretty clear they think this should be denied okay so I don't know that they're going to change that position and I'm just asking because Mr Engle said they got new information I want to also say I much sure it's fair to ask staff to say okay you want this denied but then we want here are some conditions that you think we acceptable well then at this point the applicant just wants to move on if a motion for denial gets him to move on to the County Commission then I'll make a motion for denial all right second two two motions on the floor so but we didn't get a second I was making the motion to continue to the you made a motion to continue but it so you don't don't want to work on conditions directly is that what you're saying I think what he's saying is that he thinks you want to move on no I just said that I was happy to do 30 days as David suggested and us work on conditions I want to be clear I wasn't suggesting I'm not comfortable I'm not comfortable Joel with closing the public hearing if we come back with new new conditions however the public does have a chance with whatever additions you may come up with whatever new mpud plans you may come up with they'll have their chance to speak at the public hearing before the Board of Commissioners and I don't I don't know if I mean I don't know that we're going to hear anything new I mean we heard three hours of public comment today I mean I think everybody understands what the what the public concern is Matt did you did you add that to your motion to close the public comment or what's the motion on the floor I may have spoken out of turn I'm sorry if I C you all so so can so the motion was for continuance but if you want to add to the motion that you would close the public hearing as well that you could do that yeah I would add that to the motion I'll second so so just point of order do you want to withdraw your motion because that one had a motion second I withraw that okay now we're back to mats so I'll move that we we close the public hearing and continue to March 6 to reopen hearing well no you're not reopening the hearing you're continuing to March 6th to receive additional conditions and a revised site plan from the applicant for your consideration yes that's my motion to see if that changes your Vote or not it may not but we don't know good that's my motion okay second any we have a second yes any further discussion Mr chair can I just have a little bit of clarification yeah so um when the Planning Commission would receive an amended site plan Mr TW indicated that we have to stand down and not provide any other further comment I don't think so I I think uh he'd like you to come up with your own ideas if you can well I expect that we were going to get your conditions David correct me if I'm wrong but I expected we were going to get your conditions and Joel was going to bring conditions to the meeting if he didn't like any of the ones you came up with is that not the case well I think there's uh I mean Mr Moody asked us to come up with ideas as to what the County Professional staff would find accept and it's very unusual that we would do so but uh we would try to work with Mr two and and Mr Linton and his team to to come up to some some consensus I guess I guess David So to here to get to the point staff did work with the applicant to come up with the the they agreed on these conditions the Inc case conditions if this gets approved are you saying you would do the same for these additional buffering and revised site plan yes sir okay well then there you go okay but but with with Clarity we're still recommending denial for the project that you me clear and I your memo today makes that clear so but you do have an alternate possibility of approval with those conditions yes okay we we can add conditions from from up here correct you if you don't think the conditions that are offered up by the applicant are sufficient to get you to a yes vote you could impose your own conditions yes well and will there will this be closed to public comment on those conditions based on the motion that was made yes you're closing the public hearing if you don't want to close the public hearing and you want to open this back up to public testimony again to discuss the conditions orvice Life Plan that's within your purview but as Mr Moy Mr Moody stated they also to comment on them it's not like you're denying them be processed because they have the ability to comment on them at the board level too if approved we don't even know you all are going to approve these revised conditions or revised site plan okay there's a motion in a second any further discussion on the motion all in favor signify by saying I I oos like sign n who's the N I am Chris the other Chris the other yeah we either we'll call on that or is it pretty obvious too I think it's obvious he admitted it he admitted it you can send Richard to the next meeting okay thank you all we appreciate your time and sorry that it took so much time but thank you thank you thank you Mr chairman before before we adjourn yeah I have a motion to adjourn hold on just before we adjourn just I got one just policy question I don't know we want to wait till everybody leaves excuse me hey excuse me calm down I'm sorry C down we need everybody to orderly leave we're not done with our meeting okay we we we we're still talking up here so the planning staff please do not leave because I don't know if Mr yeah I if the planning staff can stay just real quick really my my only question is it's procedural issue and I know there was some people here in the audience today and I know I don't know what happened with the agenda item yesterday and it was so late that we got everything but I mean it really seems unfair to the public and up to us to get something especially like this at 2:30 in the afternoon yes Jamie I mean I I understand and I know that that the notice went out that there was going to be an addendum coming but I mean again as Chris said this was one of the more contentious things we've had here in probably eight or 10 years and again no problem I mean I don't know what the answer is and I'm not trying to throw any staff on the bus but I think we've got to come up with some kind of criteria some kind of protocol because this is crazy and not fair to us or the public it is not fair to the public to hit the Planning Commission with 127 pages of documents related to this case which don't even include all the documents related to this case and then a 1500 page Land Development code and I don't know how many pages are comp plan is but it's just as much and expect us to come in here and make an intelligent decision it's disrespectful to the public it's disrespectful to the Planning Commission and it's disrespectful to the applicants I don't know where where the breakdown is whether it's at the staff or the county attorney's office or how how this process works but that's got to get fixed well Mr Mr chair I want to make a point yes that we did ask the applicant to continue and he said they said no and we we came in here today to ask for a continuance as well because we wanted to avoid this situation yeah we were we were told that they the question is why couldn't the continuance have been asked for last week okay at some point there has to be a deadline to publish the agenda and this isn't this this isn't an isolated incident the last three meetings this has happened to us I'm just telling you we did ask the applicant for but but that okay but that doesn't explain the last two meetings too it's the same thing and the the business of the addendum agenda is over the top we're here these people expect us to make decisions which affect their lives it is not reasonable to ask us to review that volume of information in that short amount of time that's a disservice to the people we're here to serve so if the Planning Commission would just let me know how many days you want to have this information and if we don't meet that deadline it just will just automatically continue well I'm told that the county what is the process that with the board they've given you a timeline they want to have it by a certain day or yeah we do have a specific schedule uh and deadlines that we meet for the board of County Commissioners they don't see their packet um until probably Thursday Friday before the Tuesday meeting yeah I mean I guess I don't know I mean maybe they have but I mean I has there been an instance where the boards had an ENT item come to them at 3:00 in the afternoon before their meeting no sir we we don't do Walk-Ons by policy to be clear froman's perspective no probably not but there are other items that get added to the board consent but they tend to be like contracts or something well they tend to be like contracts that have time sensitive that have to be but I don't it's unlikely you would see that on a l use public hearing yeah well I mean clearly I know the applicant and there was disagreement of staff and I understand there was some back and four so I mean I just think that has to be something I mean I I think we've got to get something I would say at least by Tuesday I think we got to have something by Tuesday Trad night the tradition has been that we get it on the Friday evening before the hearing and that see that seems to be slipping slipping slipping slipping I understand when it happens once in a while but this is become Friday evening it's still only three business days before the meeting and we have to give the public a chance to be able to clear their schedules if they want to come and comment on it and they don't have that time when we heard Tall Timbers I was getting calls from the public they they they they understand that the zoning hearing is quasi judicial and they need to provide substantial competent evidence so they went out and they retained engineers and land use Council and couldn't tell them till it was 36 hours before the meeting whether or not their retained experts needed to show up do you think what do you think the bill was that those citizens got that's not fair it's hard to pay an attorney to sit around and wait so I'm hearing the Friday before may not be enough time you want us to generate a proposal and come back I think Friday Friday Friday night I can do it schedule I know I know we're we're going to have a Planning Commission meeting I'm going to spend part of Saturday or Sunday reading the agenda and doing the necessary research but I can't do it with less than 24 I run a business I can't do that right you know we will make sure that whatever whatever's on the agenda if the applicate changes something after that Friday that's on them they know what the deadline all right David thank you thank thank you all right move to a Jour all in favor by thank you all