planning. The planning commission is the final decision-making body for special exceptions, certain appeals, variance requests, and certain alternative standard requests. However, um in any final decisions may be appealed to the
board of county commissioners. If anyone's in opposition to any land development code amendment is reszoning planning commission uh or any item where we transmit a recommendation to the planning commission it' be important for you to attend the appropriate board of
county commission meeting. Those of you are not familiar with the format of our meetings. There are three sections. There are typically continuences uh consent agenda items and regular items. Continuences were are items that
the where the applicant had or the county staff have requested a continuence for any number of reasons in our tradition to grant continuences unless they're extenduating circumstances. And then we have consent items. Those
are the items that u that where the applicant has made an application and we've not received any objection from the staff or or from the public. Those will go on consent. We'll go through those items. I think we have one today. And if there's people here that want to
have it heard, raise your hand and we will pull it from consent. And that'll move to the regular items. And those are the items that we will fully vet and discuss and u applicant will offer their
uh plan or proposal and anyone here that has comments will have an opportunity to speak. Uh the applicant will have five minutes to make the presentation and the questioners will have three minutes to ask their questions each. Um
so um we also prior to getting the main part of the meeting started, we have a period for public comment on any items that are not on today's agenda. So we'll do that in a minute. Uh, let me
mention before I do that that we uh want everybody to make sure you have any phones silenced. So, if that's uh if you have your phone with you, just put it on silent or turn it off so we don't interrupt anybody. And for those of you who do speak, do
plan to speak today, if you please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn. Anybody who plans to speak, All right. Thank you. So, do we have anybody here at this meeting that wants to speak [clears throat] about something that is not on today's agenda?
>> Uh, we do have two individuals signed up for public comment. Mr. Chair, uh, the first individual is David Engel. >> Is who? >> David Engel. >> Oh, >> yeah. I think I heard it. >> Who? Who? Who? No, he's the president of Moff at Doctor
Who. >> David Engel, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. Um, I have just some three quick items for the uh for the planning commission. I won't take my full three minutes. First thing is I wanted to note that on 10:21, Mr. Gray and myself attended the board of county
commissioners meeting in Newport Richie and the uh the board declared uh community planning month and just wanted to let the planning commission know that the board expressed enormous appreciation for your act active role here charting our future making Pasco a
better place to live and to and to grow and um and and they were very appreciative of what what you do as volunteers and also the expertise you bring to the table. you're a highly skilled group of people. Secondly, the uh the board of county commissioners is noting that on 1020 the planning
commission will will take up again the tree protection ordinance and uh they appreciate the diligence that's been uh conducted here by the planning commission on this very important initiative. But they are requesting if at all possible could you complete your
deliberation on 10:20 and so we can move it or 11:20 excuse me so we can move it forward because the board is very anxious to to discuss it and deliberate themselves on this. Uh the last thing is is uh Chairman Starky and also uh Mike Kbala, the county administrator, extend
an invitation to one or two planning commission members. We'll be attending the Congress of New Urbanism U conference next year on from May 11th to May 16th. It'll be in Bentonville, Arkansas. It's a great opportunity. I've
attended several of these CNU conferences and you get a chance to visit extraordinarily um uh great projects, good urban design, um hitting the market at the right time through placemaking, create creating value and
these type of um field trips are important because you'll be able to talk to the developers, the bankers, and understand how how we can do sustainable long-term good urban design. I think we have some pro some developers here in the county already that have that
mindset. Uh you can take the porters over at Wiregrass. They're taking the long view. They're doing things deliberately building value in the project. They'll ultimately make more money than a you know a publicly traded builder that's in and out on a project. We also have it with Avalon Park with
beat Cali. Um he's taking the longer view. He actually is building commercial and retail and and vertical integrated mixed use but he's going to own it and manage it. He's not he's not heading for the hill. He's not a flipper. So, um if you're one or two of you are interested,
please contact me. And um so the invitation covers your airfare, your meals, and your uh CNU um participation fees. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Dave. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate that. Thank you very much. >> Okay.
>> The next individual I have signed up is Nancy Hazelwood. >> What's her name? NCwood 34110, a nice place. I mean, it's jaw. It had to come up here. Um, I'm getting something off my chest.
Basically, uh, I saw an ad in the legal section, uh, advertising a road, said the meeting was in Ridge Manor and Ando County and went to it. That was October the 22nd.
and found out that I when I read more got home that it sounds like it's a 38 mile highway, four lanes going from Heirs Road and at the meeting they gave you three different
quarters. They're up there and if you look at them all they all drop off at the Blandon Road I75 exit. every single one of them. And I have no idea why they decided to do that when
they've got Highway 50 that's been over already built to handle the traffic. But this this road, I know it takes a long time uh to build roads, but they didn't give us much time for public input. At the end of that meeting, I
asked Anna, the project manager, if she could um send some extra material on it. so I could get the word out. And she said, "Yeah." And that was great. And I got it last Tuesday. And then I read on it that it was due in Wednesday if
anybody wanted to make public comments. So I called her up and I said, "Well, can we have a little bit more time?" And she says, "I'll give you to the end of the week." I said, "Well, that's only four days." And she said, "That's all." I said, "Well, what about another
meeting in Pasco County?" Because it ends up in Pasco. I know three4s of it is in Hernando, but I felt that we deserved it, too. The place they put the meeting in Rich Manor is about 5 miles
away from the study area. So, people in the study area that might not have noticed it, and they did they did do a legal advertisement. I think I saw something on Facebook. And I like the way the meeting was presented, but the rest of it is not
acceptable. Not with maybe only a month for public to get in their information on whether they liked it or not. There were these three alternatives and then the no build. They gave us little green things to put on them and the most one
was on the no build, but if you add the other ones up together, it probably eclipsed it. But anyways, I I just think so watch out for FDOT. I think that's really a bad way to get the information and let the public respond to it. Thank
you all. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Good afternoon, planning commission members. Giana German, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. I did just want to note for housekeeping that we do have an individual sign up to speak on WebEx in opposition of PC5 and
as well that PC5 the applicant has requested and been approved for 10 minutes as well to present. >> All right. So PC5 will be pulled uh from the consent, right? >> PC5 is a regular item anyway,
>> is it? Okay. Item >> item PC1 is PDE 267666 a zoning amendment in the name of Murphy Road MPUD master plan unit development Oakley Pasco County Property Trust for a
change in zoning from RMH mobile home district and AR agricultural residential district to an MPUD master plan unit development district to allow for the development of 672 single family detached units and flatted town homes and associated infrastructure on approx.
approximately 118.82 acres located in southeast for southeastern Pasco County, excuse me. And this is coming with a request to continue the item to December 11th, 2025 planning commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City. >> All right. [clears throat] Is the
applicant present? Is anyone here to speak on this? >> I don't see anyone. Okay. >> Item PC2, you'll be sitting as the local planning agency. This item does have a companion item PC3 in the name of Adrien
Phillips MPUD. Item PC2 is PTE 2600135, a small-cale comprehensive plan amendment CPIS- 2415, Adrian Phillip, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps 2-15 and sheet 14, changing from comm to
PD plan development on approximately 32.51 acres of real property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Old Pasco Road and Overpass Road. And this is coming with a request that the local planning agency continue the item to December 11th, 2025 planning
commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City. >> All right. Is the applicant present? >> Anyone here to speak? >> Okay. >> Item PC3 is the companion to PC2. It's
PTE 267837, [clears throat] a zoning amendment in the name of Adrien Phillips MPUD master plan unit development. Adrien Phillips Overpass LLC reszoning request from MPUD master plan unit development to MPUD master plan unit development district to allow
for the development of 73,500 ft of retail and commercial uses, 74,000 ft of office uses, 275 hotel rooms, 125 town home units, 325 multif family apartments, or 315,000
ft of industrial and commercial uses. and associated infrastructure on approximately 32.51 acres located at the northeast corner of Overpass Road in Old Pasco Road. This is coming with a request to continue the item to the December 11th, 2025 planning commission
meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City. >> All right, the applicant present. Anyone here to speak on this? No. Okay. Motion to continue PC1, PC2, and PC3 to December 11th in Date City.
>> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Likewise. No. Motion carries.
>> The only item that we have on consent today is PC4. You'll be sitting as the local planning agency for this item. It's PDE 260031, a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment CPAS-2419 Bllander Road MRS providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the
future land use map 2-15 and sheet 8 changing from AGR agricultural role to res 1 residential one dwelling unit for gross acre on approximately 19.69 69 acres of real property located on the north side of Blandon Road, approximately 2,150 ft east of the
intersection of Bllandon Road and Talby Road and a text amendment creating sub area policy flew 7.1.86 Lantern Road MRS and a map amended to the future land use map 2-9 adding sub area map 2-986 Bllandon Road MRS. We now have
individuals signed up to speak on this item and we ask that this item be moved to the regular agenda. Okay. So, we're pulling PC4, right? >> And that's the remainder of the consent agenda. >> Well, there is no consent agenda then.
>> Okay. >> Nothing from nothing leads. >> Good. So, is the applicant here on PC4? >> Anybody here to speak? >> Probably should hear from staff first. >> Anybody here to speak else to speak?
Okay. I just want to see who's here. Um, all right. All right. Good afternoon. Amy Tol, planning development and economic growth. Today before you is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPASS 24/19
CPASS Blandon Road MRS. The item before you is a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment. It is requesting to be uh amended from AGR agricultural rural to residential one or res one residential one dwelling unit per gross acre. The intent of this
amendment is to allow for the development of an MRS on one of the parcels. Uh the proposed amendment is going to be on two parcels currently. The MRS is going to be on one of the parcels. Uh there is also a companion sub area policy that's ensuring that lot
sizes do are no less than 2.5 acres. Uh with the exception of one of the parcels, one of the parcels is currently part of another platted subdivision. It's at sitting at about 1.7 acres. Um so through the sub area policy we are
still ensuring that that remains at 1.7 acres cannot get any smaller than that. However if they need to vacate roads or add additional acreage to that parcel they can uh do so. The subject site is located north on the north side of Banton Road approximately 2,150 ft east
of the intersection of Banton Road and Troby Road. And again, there is a companion sub area policy uh 2-986 in the name of Blandon Road MRS that's running alongside this proposed amendment to res one. Here's a county location map. As you can
see, it is located in the North Market area. It is also located in rural area 1, which is northeast Pasco rural area. Here's a context map showing the subject site in proximity to Bllandon Road and Trilby Road. Uh there is a it's
basically surrounded by excuse me it's surrounded by agricultural lands medium density residential lowdensity residential with Dade City to the south. Here's a transportation map uh highlighting that uh on the south side of Bllandon Road there is a 12oot
multi-use path. Here's an aerial view that kind of zooms in just a little bit more for you. What this is highlighting is that the lot sizes surrounding the proposed site range between84 acres to about 23 acres.
So there's a lot of changes or differentiing um uh lot sizes in this area. Existing future land use of AGR proposed future land use of res one. As you can see there's already res one and res six in proximity to the subject
site. Here is the sub area policy that's ensuring that the level of development that's being proposed cannot exceed six dwelling units. So the subject site uh or the subject parcels cannot exceed six dwelling units for the overall
development. Um there is one parcel that's about 17.98 acres. Uh the current density on that parcel equates to about three lots. Uh the proposed amendment is allowing for five lots. So they're asking or requesting two additional lots on that
site. Additionally, this is also taking into consideration the one lot that we are setting aside that's still part of an previously platted subdivision at 1.7 acres. Uh so the overall Banton Road MRS uh development cannot exceed six
dwelling units and you'll see a conceptual plan uh submitted afterwards. Additionally, we added development restrictions to ensure that the development remains compatible with the character of the area being northeast rural. So, we brought in um development
standards for lighting, scenic roadway, and in accordance with the minor rural subdivision, which pursuant to our code is prioritized within the northeast rural area. Here is the Blandon Road MRS proposed conceptual plan. As you can see, the lot
sizes range from 2.35 acres to about 3.99 acres. So, they're still fairly large lots. Um, again, the subject or the one point can I do a little little clicker? Uh, 1.7 acre lot is here. This
is already existing in a previously platted subdivision. So, through the establishment of the sub area policy, it's still honoring the size of the lot. However, the applicant is looking into vacating Fourth A. Uh they have been in coordination and communication with a
real property. Once that process has happened, that portion of the right of way will be absorbed into the 1.7 acre lot. Here's a consistency policies that were established. the following uh policies are or the comprehensive plan amendment proposed amendments consistent with the
following comp plan policies and these are in your agenda memo. Additionally, I would like to highlight in section A6 which is our comprehensive plan. It establishes the land use categories within the flu designation
specifically through table 2-1. Res one is classified as a rural land use pursuant to our comprehensive plan. So, with that, we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comp plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
>> All right, Amy, any questions? >> I have one question. >> Yes, David. >> Um, Amy, has the file number, the PD file number for this matter changed at all? >> Yes. Uh, between 25 and 26. >> Okay. So, it changed because we're
fiscal year basically. >> Okay. But the the location, legal description of the matter, none of that has changed. >> None of that has changed. Uh this was previously heard back in August. The change was reducing the amount of
density that they were requesting. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, just going back to the concept plan, um I noticed that there's the 25 foot scenic roadway buffer on the east or the west side of the property there. Is that
also going to apply to that 1.7 acre parcel on the or is or does it not because that's part of an existing >> platted subdivision? >> Platted subdivision. >> Correct. >> So the the 25 ft buffer does not apply there. >> Um well generally it would apply in this
visual so you can see where the highlighted area is. Um because it is part of a previously platted subdivision. They're not they still have to plan for the scenic roadway. They're not going they're not grandfathered out of that requirement essentially. >> Okay. >> So, but it is still contemplated. Yeah.
Yeah. The um site itself is actually a little o a little over 1.7. It's 1.73. >> So, in the sub area policy, it's contemplating 1.7. We rounded down to give that flexibility. Additionally, um, with the vacated portion of the parcel,
uh, or rideway, that will add, I believe, 21 acres to the site. So, it's going to be about just under um 8 1.8 just under. >> Okay. >> Or 2.0, I'm sorry.
>> Amy, what's the necessity to change the flu designation for the existing lot of record? I'm looking at the flatting section in the land development code and this would be 700.3I
allows the construction of a single family dwelling on any parcel of land recorded by deed as of June 16th 1989 but not to include lands platted on or after May 1st 1974. I looked at the plat that was 1920 something. >> Mhm. And it looked like this was
recorded by deed in 1976 or so. So why it appears that there's already an entitlement to build a single family home there already. >> Correct. >> Yeah, they do have the ability to construct a single family home like you stated. Um their intent is to eventually
bring this into the overall MRS design. So, they're most likely going to they're going to vacate the ride ofway, consider vacating that portion of the plat, and then they're actually from and I can have Jar speak to that if necessary, but uh they're actually proposing to
potentially downzone the existing zoning district to make sure that the overall development aligns with more of a rural character rather than >> so >> higher density. >> The last time this was brought to us, this was pitched to us as a family
compound. Mhm. >> So what's different? >> Yeah. So from my understanding, the intent is still to to pro give these lots to their family members. Um previously the challenge was through the limited family lot subdivision proposal
there. They weren't direct family like they weren't directly related to the family. So they couldn't qualify >> compound, >> right? So they couldn't qualify. Um, so they proposed to reduce the density the
lots from that time. Still the overall intent from my understanding. So I can have Jarus speak to that if necessary. But they that is what is being proposed to us is that they are still intending to use these lots for
the daughters and sons and family members. So, it's Well, I guess we can ask the applicant, but I recall it was one non-family member. >> Mhm. >> And it would seem that there's an existing lot of record that the non-family member could buy that lot and
then the limited family division could be used for the family members on the remaining land, but we'll hear from the applicant. >> Sure. >> Okay. Any other questions for Amy? >> No. Just one more last question. Amy, is
the rightaway for 4th Avenue included in the change? >> It is part of the change. Yes. >> Okay. So, it'll if it's vacated, it'll just be part of it'll also be >> correct. It'll be absorbed into the 1.7 parcel, acre parcel,
>> but it's it's it's flu is being changed as well. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> All right. You come forward. Give us your name and address, please. >> Can I ask a question before you go back? Sure.
>> So, is that right away the title's vested in the county? >> Correct. >> So, how does the applicant get to apply to change the land use on a county piece of property? >> Uh, we've coordinated with real property, >> but it's not vacated yet. >> Correct. It's in the process of being
vacated. >> Well, the county, remember, the county's approved. If the county approves it, the county can decide to change the land use on its own property. Yeah, I understand that. But just seems like the cart's a little before the boards.
>> If the county commissioners don't like it, they could always exclude it. >> I just want to know whether it was being included or not, but >> yeah. >> Okay. Maybe you have some more comments on that, but yeah. >> Jarus Barbie, uh, Symbiosis Planning
Consulting, 10117 Kingsbridge Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Um, appreciate you guys time and thank you for hearing this out again. Um, yes, it still is the plan of the family to essentially h have lots and share it across the family, but one
of the people does not meet the requirements of the limited family lot division. So, that still is the plan. Yes. Um why [clears throat] why are we kind of treating this uh southeastern parcel separately is because we're not
trying to lay out policy to establish what the board has to do. So the board still has a prerogative to vote against the vacation of that rideway. So we're not asking for policy to be created to force their hand to do so. if it is in
their prerogative to save that rideway for some uses, that is in their prerogative. And um as far as the legal description, I believe you are correct. I I don't believe that right away is included in our legal description that
is for this this um sub area policy nor the uh the comprehensive plan map amendment. So yes, you are correct. I think there would be some slight discrepancy there for that particular thing, but that's not we have no control over that. That's going to be on whether
or not the board votes to actually vacate that rideway. Um, so that's why it's been presented as such. Uh, what we've tried to do is reduce the lot count by one more lot to to show that, you know, we are o okay with trying to
give up something to still proceed forward in this endeavor. And I believe the lots that we've shown um as far as sizes do fit a rural um character and size um they're larger than some of the
lots that are in the area and middle to the size of some of the other ones. Um so so that's what we've decided to proceed forward with. Um, >> so is the the five lots that'll be on the larger parcel, those are going to go to
family members? >> Uh, yes, sir. >> Okay. So, >> I I only believe that three houses would be built right away by the families. >> All right. >> And then the other two parcels would be
given to some of the children. >> Okay. that could then, you know, build a house and and do something with it as they grow up. We're talking about some children that are very young still. So, less than teenagers age. So, they're not
going to go right in there and build a house for a teenager. >> Okay. So, what I'm what I'm trying to figure out is I've got five lots for family members. The limited family lot division allows me to have
>> but they don't but they don't qualify for the limited family lot division >> because he's not a direct family member. >> Why can't the nondirect family member buy the one that already has an entitlement to or have the lot that already has an entitlement to build?
>> Well, I I believe it's because they want a larger piece of property for themselves. So they have planned to basically the the founding members of this subdivision would get the largest lots and the
remainder of the lots would be left for the children. So I'm still not understanding this. I've got five lots for five family members and one non-family member. And
I've got land here that I don't even need to be here for a public hearing today for. I can avail myself of the land development code as it is with the with the land use and zoning that's in place the zoning the >> and I can accomplish my goal of getting
five lots for my five family members and one lot for my non-family member. And we were concerned the last time here that the problem is is the story that's getting pitched to us today is that this is for a family compound, but yet we're
setting this up to be a subdivision that well, if I change my mind and my family doesn't want it, then I can just sell these lots off to any Joe Q public. >> That I think that's the issue at hand. >> I I understand what you're saying, Mr.
Moody and um there's nothing in the county that that says anyone at some point can't get rid of property. So un unless it were tied through a limited family lot division and that is a headache for the planning
department to try to track that as it goes on in history as well. But [clears throat] >> there's lots of headaches. We can't we can't move forward with that on that parcel as it sits now because it has AC zoning which requires um 10 acres if I'm
not mistaken. Correct. So that parcel is 17.96 acres. So it can't be legally split now with the zoning that's in place. That's why we're proceeding forward with this. And if and if this doesn't work out, we would have to come
back for a reasonzoning for that particular parcel to allow for a zoning district that would allow for that type of split anyways. So we can't do that as it sits now. So where does the limited family lot
division say that the five lots has to comply with the minimum size of the zoning district? Um, >> okay. All right. Actually, it does. I do see that. >> So, you're saying that's zoned AC today? >> Yes, sir. Correct. The the smaller
parcel is zoned R2 and it should be original zoning um based off of that platted subdivision. >> The large piece is zoned AC. >> Yes, sir. Correct. Which is one part. Why aren't we here just asking for a reszoning of that property so that you can use the limited family?
>> Because we're contemplating giving the family ability to have additional parcels where they could possibly give them to family members. That's what we're contemplating today. >> They're allowed to do that here already. >> Well, we all we all have every landowner
in in the county has a right to to file an application to ask for a change in in land use or zoning. So the landowner is is just, you know, asserting its right to file. >> Well, okay. A right to file and he's is
and he's getting his public hearing. >> Yes, sir. >> It doesn't mean he has a right to a recommendation of approval. >> I'm I'm I'm not telling you what what to do, Mr. Moody. I'm just simply stating why why I'm here today. I'm just
completely confused and baffled as to the code already has provisions to accommodate the situation you've described, but [clears throat] this is the second time we've come back here
trying to create a subdivision. And with all due respect, I'm in the northeast rural area. And I'm sure that these people behind you are all going to get up and tell me about it about how they want to have their minimum 5 acre and 10 acre tracks out here. And I agree I
appreciate that you've agreed to 2 and 1/2 acres but at the end of the day the kind of standard out here is already five acres. Well, I I have included something in my presentation on page
it would be page number excuse me 14 which I did a GIS analysis of the entire northeast rural area and identified the land use categories and and show here that res one
covers approximately 11,572 acres which is 14% of the entire rural area. And as you can see, there are other things that are like res 3 is in there, res six, res
11,572.94 acres were changed to res one by the property owner >> that >> were those 11,572.94 acres of res one created with the original comprehensive plan? I I don't have that
answer, Mr. Moody, but I would say that we've tried to go above and beyond to do something that is rural by further restricting ourselves from res one into this sub area policy that simply asks for a density increase
from 0.2 dwelling units per acre to 312 dwelling units per acre. So that that is the request that we're coming forth with. We're proposing to do wells inceptance in in accordance with
um some other comprehensive plan policies. We're not proposing to extend any um services for water or sewer. We're trying to do larger lots. The scenic roadway buffers will be in place. the other buffers that are required um
through [clears throat and cough] through the um the other code in 604 will be provided. So that's a 20ft width um between any buildings and roadways and 30 foot um buffer between any
buildings and adjacent properties. and and the goal of this land owner is to save as many of these existing trees that are on this site to to do this, you know, with with respect to whatever, you
know, has to be leveled for pads and might have to be altered um to accommodate storm water. So, I I think that we're trying to propose something that is is rural in character in nature and and we've shown um
evidence of of how we we meet the comprehensive plan policies that are in place today. >> Okay. Anybody else? You have a do you have more of a presentation because >> No, sir. I would reserve my time for any questions and and
>> All right. All right. Do we have any other questions right now? >> Okay. You have a chance to come back up. >> All right. Thank you, sir. >> All right. >> All right. So, do we have people on the list that want to speak to this one? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. The first individual we have signed up is Mr. James Navaro.
>> Mr. Navaro, if you could just give us your full name and address, please. >> Yes. James Navaro, Senior, 34721 Blandon Road. I live adjoining to that parcel that uh uh Mr. Barbie has spoken
of. And thank you so much for listening to us. I've been here before. Um I do want to clarify something that maybe might be some confusion here. As I um spoke to Mr. Barbie uh this week and as
I understand it um the daughter of the owner is not planning to move next door. So I don't know what they referring to as a family compound. Um maybe he can correct that. Uh maybe I misunderstood.
But I'm here also to tell um you guys that um the water quality right now is terrible. Um, I have an image that I show here of the uh what I have to go through to get decent water. And even
then, I'm having a lot of uh tannon and uh rust in my house. You're adding an additional uh five, six units, it's going to create more strain. Um the other problem is a runoff or we get a
lot of uh flooding coming off especially during hurricanes coming off the the crest of the hill as it goes in. Our neighbor across the way Mr. Loreno he's not here today couldn't make it but he's had to put bags of uh sand in order to
prevent the runoff. Again, uh I get flooding towards the back part of my property as well. So, I do see that uh we're going to be seeing more trees down, more asphalt and also more uh roof
coverings. So, this is going to create an issue as far as runoff is concerned. I think in my personal point of view, again, I have nothing against the the Fernando family. I they're lovely people. They sat in my
my table and we discussed uh this. But originally, as I was understanding, they were only going to use uh three three lots. They were going to build three lots. Uh one for the daughter, one for
the uh father, and their neighbor. Thank you so much. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? No. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> The next individual we have signed up to speak is Mr. Paul Gandalf. Gandalfy.
I apologize if I messed that up. Now Paul, if we could have your full name and address, please. >> Yes. Paul Gandalfi, 34953 Bllandon Road. We uh have 10 acres just to the north of the subject property
separated by 24 acres. Um my concern, this goes to res one. The person who owns a the 24 acres north of this property has voiced um [clears throat] his intent to eventually sell his 24
acres. this moves to one acre parcels that 24 acres could follow and then we'd be um have subdivision on our southern border. I object to it. I think there's I'm suspicious about the reason for res. I
think there's could be a developer waiting in the wings or it gives the owner the possibility of eventually selling for multiple one lots for a nice profit. So that's really what I've got to say. Um
that's it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Are there any questions for Okay. >> The next individual we have signed up to speak is a Miss Cindy Gandalfie. And who's next? so they can maybe come
to the front bench. >> And Miss Nancy Hazelwood will be next. >> Okay. >> Uh Cindy Gandalfi, 34953 Blandon Road. That was my husband. Um this development doesn't fit in our area. Most of us have
lived here 20 to 40 years with the intent of because of the zoning for all of the parcels around us, a subdivision not coming in. Um, we fear that once, and I say fear, not concern, that when small property owners, just as this
starts to chop up their property, then it's just going to open the door to other areas doing it. Um, you know, it's bad enough we have to be concerned on the larger development coming into the area and now we have to uh start being
concerned on small private land owners. um he knew what his zoning was when he purchased the property. Um I don't know why he just doesn't sell it and go buy some property that will accommodate his um requirements.
Um he's still asking for res one. Uh we have no guarantee that if it does get passed to res one, it will stay at uh six lots. Once you're in res one, then that opens up the door for um one lot
per acre and that's not what fits in in our area. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> The next individual we have is Miss Nancy Hazelwood and we have no other individuals signed up after that.
>> Okay. >> There's no one else that wants to speak to this one. Okay. Nancy Hayeswood 34110110110 a nice place. Um is I'm waiting for a map to be put out,
but I'm going to say that going from act to res one is the problem. It's not how many units he's going to put in. It's changing the land use in the protected area. Once that map goes up, you will
see it. It shows it very clearly. Um, this makes everything pretty much fair game for anybody else to come in that wants res one or higher.
>> All right, Nancy, your time's up. >> Oh, sorry. I'm waiting for my wonderful staff of the camera >> upside down. >> There we go. It's right with the world now. >> Okay. So,
the part uh on the bottom is the grandfather in six units per acre, I believe. And then right across the street is theirs. And if you look at that, if you can pull it all the way out, you see that the dark green all the
way around there and three4s of the area is all higher land uses. And you're going to stick a res one right in the middle of all those large acreage and
that's not going to help protect the northeastern area in any way, shape, or form. sticking res one in the middle of a and as you can see there's a lot of egg there. What's that going to do to it? It's going to start making people
want to change their land use in the northeast rural area plan. Well, of course they get they can always ask, but there are things in your comp plan that says we need to protect northeast rural and hopefully they're going to hold up here
and uh I'm just hoping that this doesn't go through. Thank y'all. >> Thank you. >> So, just to get the straight, you had that map up there. All that green area was northeast. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'm just There were some lots shown there right next to that property. What What's that? >> Those aren't um is that these lots right here? >> The the um light brown ones are um
There [clears throat] you go. The ones to the left, that's the old grandfathered in area. >> The ones at the bottom right down there. Yeah. I'm not sure what the AC is. I think that it's probably five acres
looks like, >> but that was >> that's an old plant. >> 1928 or something. I looked it up. Yeah. >> I'm just curious. Are those all built on? >> Yeah. There' be one house per acre area. >> And what is that?
>> And it goes up to like one per 20 in the area. the rest of the area. >> You you can't you know you got to talk to the microphone. >> You know better. >> Sorry. Anyways, um the rest of the area around there is 1 to 5, 1 to 20, you
know, they're they're all area where there are homes in there and people are very happy and they want it that way. So >> we would appreciate it if somehow we could keep that land use from changing.
>> So but Amy, this area over here that's been parcled up into smaller tracks, >> correct? >> That's been there for a lot of years. >> Yeah, it's it's predates the uh establishment of the Northeast Rule. Um, Patty, if you could zoom out,
please right there and turn on the future land use. >> I was just gonna suggest doing the same thing. >> I would zoom out even more. >> There's a lot of res one to the south. >> Correct.
>> As you can see, there is substantial res one in proximity to the area already. How much of that res one though >> was changed by the property owners from an egg designation to res one or are those original comp plan designations?
>> I can't answer that right now but we can run an analysis if that's necessary. >> Can you zoom in a little bit more too on that map just to show >> I'm just not believing there's been 11,000 work acres worth of applications of people up there changing their future land use designation up there. I'm just
wondering how long it's been there. It was Are were those all done before the northeast rural was established? >> Yeah, it does appear that that res one polygon is its own pre. >> Yeah. >> So >> this polygon
>> I mean all the all the resiculous so it looks like a comprehensive land. >> They're not oneacre parcel either. >> Predates it, >> right? They're not one acre parcel, >> right? >> Oh, the data. So if you look at the polygon, if you select Patty, if you can
click on the polygon, please. The big >> we have something that shows what the boundaries of the northeast rural are up there. >> Yes, you can turn on the northeast rural boundary as well. So as you can see, it highlights that whole polygon. So in the
GIS data, that means that's that has not changed. Yeah, >> there's not there has not been any amendments in that area. >> Amy, Chris, >> it's under planning areas. >> Um, I want to wait till this question is
done, but I have a different question, but it's somewhat related. >> Okay. >> Turn off the flu. >> Just click land use. So the green shaded area is the north rural area. >> Correct.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And then Amy, I quick question. Sub area policy. >> Sure. >> I'm not saying exclusive by asking this question, but don't we generally have sub area policies associated with PD
land uses? So PDS require a sub area policy because they do not define density intensity. However, a sub area policy can apply to any land use because it it's it's essentially the comp plans version of an MPD condition.
>> David, do you had a question? >> Yeah. Is there any way you could pull up um flu policy 1.1.3 1.1.3 >> 1.1.3 >> I use chapter 2 >> limiting the proliferation >> 1.13
>> yep >> so my reading of this policy is it's basically saying that res one is a sprawl >> category >> correct So what are your thoughts about this change in light of that policy?
>> Um so res one generally is a sprawl land use. Uh however this is not going to one dwelling unit's larger lots. So the idea in this scenario is is it aligns more
with the rural and agged. So there's an exception indeed. It says developed at a gross residential density not exceeding one unit per five acres of land. So it seems to be saying that if it's one for five that's not sprawl.
It seems to be saying that if it's conservation subdivision that's not sprawl. It seems to be saying if it's [snorts] not sprawl. I recognize that there's an exception a if it's less than 300 acres, but
that almost seems like an arbitrary distinction because if somebody came in with a series of 50 acre tracks >> that all added up to over 300 acres that you could effectively >> create sprawl. I mean, I don't even know why we have
that exception in there because you you might indirectly create sprawl just by a series of small tracks that added up to more than 300 acres. So, >> I mean, I don't B, C, and D makes sense to me, but I don't know why we have an acreage. I guess what I'm saying is if
we think that res one is a sprawl is creating sprawl, >> why do we have an acreage threshold exception? I I can't speak to why nectorius PTO is playing to public economic growth. I can't speak to why flu policy flu 113
has letter A in it but I do the policy is correct that res one is considered a sprawl density throughout the county except for in northeast rural because in uh section flu A6 the official futral manus map the appendix A6
um I guess it would be under provision three no under table 2-1 One division three within the northeast Pasco rural area res [snorts] one future land use classification is deemed to be
a rural land use classification. So the comprehensive plan is already considering res one in northeast rural as not sprawl but as a rural density or excuse me a rural land use classification. >> That's odd to me. So we're saying that it's rural, but it's So we have one
policy on the comp plan saying it's rural, but another comp plan policy saying it's sprawl. >> If it's outside of northeast rule, it's considered sprawl. If it's inside northeast rule, it's considered the maximum density potential of the overlay.
>> I'm asking you as a planner, do you consider the res one a res one flu to be sprawl >> in general? >> In general, yes. Yeah, it is. It's a sprawling and that's consistent with the rest of the
comprehensive plan. But there's an earmark in the comprehensive plan that considers res one as not as a rural not sprawl but as a rural land use in northeast rural. >> Well, well, wouldn't it have had to have been?
I realize you weren't here at the time. >> Yeah. But if the giant polygon that she highlighted on the screen was an original flu category which predates the northeast rural area then we would have had to have when we
created the northeast rural area declare that hey all you resz one are still considered rural because they were already there existing with that flu category. >> Yeah. I mean, how do we know that wasn't the intent when that was put there was that we were trying to invest the res
one that was already there and say that we weren't trying to prohibit res one that was already in northeast rural but new new res one that is still sprawled.
I mean, no, that being said, I recognize there's this 300 acre exception, which to me doesn't make any ex sense, but but and I do encourage you, Terry, when you when you reook at grows, the grows
element, >> yeah, >> we probably need to fix this issue because >> in in in the PESCO 2050 update, uh, RES one is translated over into a new future land use category called RDR, rural density residential.
um in it ex the RDR flu is combining some of the uh skipped over densities that exist between where AGR is today and all the way up to what the comprehensive plan
today considers what you would think about it as res 2 but we don't have an actual res 2 but technically speaking the RTA the rural transition area which is to the west of the rural northeast rural talks about two dwelling units per acre. Um but uh so RDR is trying to
cover this gap that we've been silent on for so long. But in the northeast rural area specifically, we we're proposing a cap to keep it at one dwelling unit so that there's no status so that the status quo remains in northeast rural. So if you have the RDR designation
within northeast rural that means you were likely a res one previously and you are going to remain capped at one dwelling unit per gross acre. That that's how currently the >> I'm just trying to figure out how >> update is working. >> Good. I'm trying to figure out if if
you're if staff firmly believes that a res one density is sprawl, how are you going to avoid the proliferation of that sprawl under the new comp plan? Well, we could craft. There's no policy in the comprehensive plan right now that says, "Thou shalt
not do." >> Somebody tried to do it with 1.1.3. I mean, the the only thing that I think they maybe missed the mark on was this 300 acre exception because I I mean, to me, that's subject to abuse because you
can just have 10 track and a 10acre track and 10 track and then you have a sprawl. Um, MPD and conservation subdivisions, I can kind of understand those because you can craft those to avoid sprawl, but indeed makes some sense because those are really five acre
tracks. But somebody thought it was a bad idea to have one acre that that was sprawled. I mean, somebody But I just think that the that a the exception a sort of swallowed the rule. Um, can you put that
policy back up? >> Yeah, I think they sort of I think the idea was is they they saw those existing >> units there and rather than have them be non-conforming uses >> can you scroll up the screen to see the entirety of the policy. That's how they
addressed it. >> They included them in the so they wouldn't be gr they sort of grandfathered. But >> so David, although your argument might be helping the position I have on this case, I'll just
say read this again. It says Pasco County shall limit the prol proliferation of large lot sprawl development pattern over large expanses of land by evaluating. That's why the less than three. >> I agree with you. But the the my concern
from a planning perspective is that if you have if you allow it on a 10acre track and then the next 10acre track and then the next 10acre track, suddenly it's over a large expanse of land. >> Absolutely. >> That's the problem. >> And so now you have sprawl. And so the
problem is that exception of a series of small acre tracks is swallowing the rule. That's the problem. And so I'm suggesting that maybe if we're going to retain this policy, we get rid of that exception. Otherwise, you there's no point to the rule.
>> You're you're saying get rid of 113A. >> Yes. Because you're you're >> I mean, I understand why you needed to recognize the res one that already existed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep what people legally already have the right to today, >> right?
>> But if if you firmly believe that res one is a sprawl category, why are you continuing to proliferate it? It it has been understood based on the precedents that we've seen
that res one was not considered sprawl in northeast rural but as the maximum density allowance in the rural area. >> So I mean to >> I'm asking you to put your planner hat on if you think it's sprawl >> no matter what the >> what I was going to say is that >> I'm saying I'm talking about for grows
when we took when we >> and that's what I was going to say next. >> Yeah I'm I'm talking I'm talking about this case. I'm talking about when we fix bros, >> right? >> Maybe we need to look at actually [clears throat] stopping the proliferation of res one. >> Sure. >> Even in northeast rural is my point.
>> Sure. >> I mean, if if that's a consensus, >> uh that wasn't the target of update and we're going to maintain status quo in northeast rural. But if that's a if that's a policy direction, we can explore that.
I suspect if you ask the people in Northeast Rule if they want us to stop the proliferation of res one, they'd probably say yes. >> I know we can ask Nancy Hazelwood, but >> sure. We didn't quite get that comment in the summertime, but but yes, we could. >> I think we already know what Nancy's
going to say. [clears throat] >> But I'm forgetting what Nancy would say. I know what she would say. And I'm asking you to put your planner hat on and you're telling me if you think it's a if it's a sprawl category, we as planner, why shouldn't we be stopping that? >> Sure. >> I've had I've heard Barbara Willai get
up here and say it's a sprawl category. >> It is. Um again, the idea for Pasco Grows was to maintain status quo in Northeast Rural. If we want to change this piece of of the status quo, we can change that piece of the status quo. >> I would argue you're not changing the
status quo because there's already a policy on point that says that it's sprawled. It just that we have this exception in there that's swallowing the rule. >> I get rid of a exception. >> Sure. Yes, we could get rid of letter A, but I'm also thinking about section flu
A6. >> But I think you could limit that. You could limit that to just the res one that exists today. >> Correct. Yes. >> Right. Right. But as it stands, the current comp plan doesn't have that kind of um distinction
built in. >> But my guess is that probably was the intent. But I mean because I don't know how else you reconcile that with 1.1.3 which basically says the res one sprawl. >> I think the way it's been reconciled is
that this is for the rest of the county that the overlay was a carvaile. I'm just trying to think if that makes common sense, though. Like, >> why are we saying that it's sprawl in the rest of the county, but it's not sprawl in Northeast Rural?
>> I I wasn't there. >> It's like It's almost like you're saying we're going to treat northeast rural worse than the rest of the county. >> Yeah, we were we realized it wasn't here. You weren't here when that happened. So, >> I can't speak to why they >> I can only blame Amy for that. [laughter]
>> We'll blame >> Nancy. Nancy Nancy Jitter. It's always NY's fault. >> Okay. Anyway, that's an issue for grows and we I just wanted to somewhat relevant to the current application, but I admit that the current application is less than 300 acres in size. So, there's
not much we can do about that particular policy. So, >> so anyway, we need to give the applicant an opportunity to come back up. Um, >> thanks again everyone. Um I I will make a statement as a planner myself as well.
I do think that there is a difference in between fully maxing out res one and having 1 acre lots proliferated across a large land area and what we're trying to do by proposing a sub area that is
directly tailored to how this land can be developed out. So if it were to ever be contemplated to be changed, it would have to come in front of you to be voted on at that time and um if if there is
anything that we have missed, we have that opportunity now to add something into there. If you think that we have missed the mark on protecting the character by this proposed intrusion, I would argue that this is not an
intrusion. This is just a development that would allow in between sizes of the most dense allowed in northeast rural and normal typical density in northeast rural. So,
we have proposed a transitional lot size to those existing very small lots that are across the road. And I would contemplate that this would set a precedent for other things if they were to apply for res one that they have seen
how you guys have expect people to treat the northeast rural area and to propose additional things to protect these residents. And that and that's what we have proposed to do by proposing this sub area policy
which goes above and beyond the typical regulations. >> What you just said is that I'm drawing a road map that others can use to develop the northeast area. Hold on. The gentleman got up and gave testimony that he's 10 acres. There's 24 acres between
your property and his 10 acres. All right. So, what you've just said just said is I'm drawing a road map showing the next guy that wants to come in here and ask for res one on his 24 acres. Well, look, if you just create a sub area policy and limit your lots to 2 and 1/2 acres size, you can basically double
the density in the northeast [cough and clears throat] rural acre, right? Is an AGR one unit per five acres. Now, it's one unit for 2.5 acres. I just doubled the density by by using this by using your road map, which I'm I'm sorry. And Amy, I'm sure you guys
worked hard on this and maybe you'll consider this derogatory, but I think the sub area policy amounts to what I'll call comp planering. We're we're engineering the comprehensive plan with a sub area policy.
>> Well, I I'm sorry that you feel that way, Mr. Moody, but I truly feel like that what I have done as an agent for this land owner has tried to propose something that is feasible and and reasonable. Um,
and that's through further limiting uh what the MRS actually allows. So in this situation, if if we were to just get res one approved and to do a minor real subdivision, we would be stuck at a max
of 10 lots. Now that that max of 10 lots would apply if it was a 20 acre parcel, 100 acre parcel, or a 300 acre parcel if they were being developed as a minor rural subdivision. Now, not all subdivisions may not have to be
developed as such if they have or are proposing connections to utilities, but I am making the statement that the comprehensive plan dissuades that type of development from even happening and proposes and purports that people should
should do individual wells and septic, which in my opinion would mean that people should be doing minor rural subdivision. divisions when developing in the northeast rural area. So, we we have stated if we're going to propose to do a minor rural subdivision, but we're
going to further limit ourselves than that 10 lot maximum. >> You still haven't convinced me why you need an MRS. This is my family compound. You've told me the family compound, the li the
limited family division allows you up to five lots. You've told me you've got three lots that you need today and two that may go. So those >> Yeah, but you can you can create and then someone can do another limited family division to give it to their
child or grandchild later. >> We would still that the non-family member that has a building entitlement that the non-family member can have. So, I'm trying to figure out why has why must it be this way. There's already a code section that you can avail yourself
to accomplish your goal. You still have to come back here for a reasonzoning, right? >> Yes, sir. Understood. >> Yes, sir. You could have just come gotten the resoning and you availed yourself, >> but we didn't. We decided to to propose this, >> right? because this opens the door to create a subdivision that I can sell to
any Joe Q public out here instead of creating the family compound that you're purporting to want to build. >> Does a non-family member want a larger lot than the 1.6? >> Correct. Yes, sir. >> So that's why you have >> correct. Yes, sir. >> To do that. >> After they vacate the rightway, it'll be
larger. >> Yeah, but it still is going to be acres versus three acres. That's the That's what I assume is the issue. >> So, what happens when the daughter or the son decides they don't want this
lot? I'd rather have the money, Dad. Just sell the lot. I mean, as as it would sit now, there there would be no further protection, but there's no there's no comprehensive plan policy in the northeast rural area
that says that no one can sell land outside of the family. >> That's that's not a policy that the county takes and says, I mean, >> no, the policies are to to try to prevent the development of the land and
the subdividing of the land. We made some carveouts so that families can leave a legacy for the children. >> Well, >> but we're trying to prevent the development of the land. >> I would I would contemplate that this action would leave the land in its
finished state of use. So, it would not be contemplated to be further subdivided. It would simply have to operate in the form as as intended by this sub area policy that we proposed. >> So,
And do we have an ADU ordinance? >> We do not >> in the county. I I believe you guys have an ADU ordinance. >> Right. So So after I after you subdivide these properties, can then I just avail myself of adding an ADU to my lot, too?
>> I mean, the rest of the county can. I I guess you could. I mean, if that's something >> by five houses is 10 houses. >> If that's something that you guys want to contemplate in changing, you're we're more than welcome to. We have a sub area policy here to do so. But that I mean
that is going above and beyond the treatment of every other parcel in the county. Um if you want to do as such >> well the ADUs aren't separately platted. You can't sell them separately. So it's not >> correct. And they have a maximum square
footage of I believe 1,200 square ft if if I'm correct. So it's not really >> unless you're a special exception. >> Unless you're a special section. So like I stated, I'm I'm happy to try to work within the policy to help
with the compatibility issue if that's the true the true thing that you guys see the issue is. But I've I've tried to do my best. We originally started with with nine lots shown in in the minor rule subdivision and one lot of that
existing 1.7 and then now here we are at at six max. So I' I'm trying I'm I'm trying. I I promise you I I don't have any ill will against any of these families. I love them just like everyone else.
>> I don't think you have any ill will. I think you're a planner here representing a client. I don't think this isn't personal attack on you. >> Can we put the flu map back up on mapper? >> I
you're I don't believe you're understanding my point. You they came to us and said this is we want to build our family compound here. And every time I offer them the chance here, here go build your family compound. Use the limited family. I then there there's a
there's a of all the reasons in the world why I can't do it. Well, is it cuz I don't want it to be my family compound. >> Either I want it or not. The code's already set up for you to do it. >> Mr. Moody, I've made plain and clear statements that it is my it is my
understanding that that they want larger lots for the founding family members of the subdivision and that is their intent. I I don't know what else to say. That's why they they want to do this. >> They founding family members. They're
either family or they're not family. I >> mean, for me, when I look at that flow map, I mean, it's the same thing that I said last time. I mean, it just everything to the north of there, the subject of precedent setting comes up because everything to the north there to the Hernando County border is AG or AGR.
I mean, I understand that there's proximity. There's res three and res one in that area that's that's I I get that. But anything everything north of Blandon Road up to the Hernando County border is aging and AGR. And I think you know to to John's point, all the points that are
made here, we're just we're setting a bad precedent with doing this. And it's nothing against what you've tried to accomplish there and and the sub area policy and the like, but I just I I really have heartburn with with this one. >> Understood. Well, I I'll just make I
guess my final statement. I believe that the comprehensive plan policies that are in place as well as the companion land development code do help protect the proliferation of res one in this entire area. This particular case is looking at
doing a size in between the typical agricultural lots and the typical residential one lots. And it will be served by well and septic as [clears throat] in compliance with several policies from the water comprehensive plan policy section, the
sewer comprehensive plan policy section, and the flu comprehensive policy uh comprehensive plan policy section. So that that is what I've tried to put put together for this application to support this proposal. >> Yeah. And I think I mean you've done
your job certainly. I just think, you know, me sitting here looking at this, you said it before, you didn't mean to say it this way, but you're setting a precedent as Mr. Moody said, there, you know, this is a roadmap for for others in the future to to use. And I just I
can't wrap my arms. >> Understood. >> I was simply meaning that from the purposes of the sub area policy being sub area policies being able to be employed to further protect those things. >> I understand you didn't to say that, but it's that's >> understood. sitting sitting up here.
That's the way it that's the way we do it. So, >> understood. Well, I'd be happy to take any other questions if if there were. Otherwise, I'll let you guys. >> Are there any other questions? >> Anybody? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate you. >> Thank you. Presentation.
>> Have a bless. Okay. So, do I hear a motion? Sure. >> For purposes of discussion or otherwise? >> Yes. For purposes of discussion, I would move to deny the recommend denial of the petition.
>> Okay. >> I'll second it. Motion. We have a second. >> All right. Discussion. >> Um I'm I think I said it and I'll just take it again with with Chris, I think. But he's exactly right. stood up here and said, "I'm creating a road," basically creating a road map for the
next guy to come along. Whether it be 20 acres or 15 acres, we'll change the comp plan to resz one. I'll create a special sub area carve out the comp plan for my subdivision. And why wouldn't why wouldn't every
other property owner along Blandon Road go and do this if we if we push the first domino over right here? Yeah, I'd additionally say I mean I think it's our obligation to protect this area as you know the residents that
are sitting here. I mean we so we're committed to doing this and I don't think that Mr. Barber's done anything wrong. I think he's done his job. It's just I I can't accept the precedent that it sets for this area. >> Yeah. And I mean it should be noted that I mean there there was a lot of effort
made. I mean it wasn't just strictly came in and asked for res one. >> Um there were the sub area policies that were discussed but again in the same position. I think it just sets a precedent and everything on the north side of Blandon Road um is either AG or AGR like it's already been said. So
for me, I mean it's um you're talking about a difference of two units. You know, as it is as it stands now, they can build four units on that land and we're talking they're asking for two extra units. So it's not a tremendous impact to the area. I think they did a good job with coming up with sub area policy. I can see how it could
potentially be abused, but we would review those cases on a case- by case basis whenever that comes up and we can see that happening and and take appropriate action at that time. So, you know, I think we need to look at this on the merits of its individual case as opposed to what might happen in the
future. So, it's I I kind of disagree with the rest of the body because of that. >> Matt, do you have anything? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to say what I'm thinking. But um >> you could just vote. You don't have to say anything. It's a few though.
[laughter] >> I'm just saying you're not compelled to say anything. >> My wife tells me that all the time. >> Um >> trying to keep you out of trouble. >> This is the comprehensive plan amendment. What What are we saying it's inconsistent with in the comprehensive plan is my question.
>> Well, to be clear for comprehensive plan amendment, it's a legislative decision. So you pretty much can just deny it because you think it's >> so there's not >> it's a bad idea land development code
amendment we get to we decide whether it's >> the criteria okay >> all right just >> okay well if there's nothing further then let's uh >> I'm just I was just going to add this is almost to me it's almost like a line in
the sand And it's either going to be rural or not rural. The area to the north or to the south of them, excuse me. Those small lots looks like they were built 1980, which is like 45 years ago. That's a long time ago. So I just uh
a lot of a lot of the county as we know is developed and there's not much left that is not developed. So it's just in my opinion, let's keep it protected like it should be. >> Okay. So, well, we you better wait till we vote before you clap. So,
so um Okay. So, we have a motion. We have a second voting for the denial. Correct. >> Pardon me. >> We're voting for is for denial. >> So, so if it if it's I, that means you support the denial. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Let's make it clear. >> So, all in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All oppose like sign. >> Nay. >> All right. We have one nay and the rest I the motion passes.
>> Now you can clap. >> And I'm very sorry that I think you presented a good case. >> You know [clears throat] I want to be clear with the audience that the planning commission is your recommending body on this item. So the final decision is made by the board of county commissioners.
>> Yeah. So make sure you attend that meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thanks for your time. And uh anything else?
>> We have another item. >> One more item. >> The last item that we have on the agenda is item P5, PTE 26455, an appeal of a determination by the development review director. Appeal 202500005
Meadow.2 to community development district CDD and appeal the determination of the development review direct director to deny a request to install a gate across Windrest Drive site plan 2024 00162 presented by staff
uh Patrick Dutter development review director. So, as Giana said, this is the appeal of uh one of my decisions on the application, which we'll get into, right? >> Uh so, the appellant meadow point to CDD
is appealing a determination made by the development red director to deny the request to install a gate across Renest Drive where Metooint 2 meets Meadow.3. The location is obviously Ren Crest Drive located within Meoint 2 and Meoint 3 south of State Road 56 between
Mansfield Boulevard and Meadow Point Boulevard and north of Beardsley Drive. So here is our location map. You can see 56 just to the north. Meadow Point is over on the east. Mansfield is on the west. Beardsley to the south and then
Rancrest uh which is the residential road that runs between it. And the star is the location of the proposed um uh I won't call it a gate but a emergency arm basically. Um [clears throat] so I'll I'll kind of
keep the this presentation kind of high level. Uh the agenda packet was fairly detailed and has a lot of information on it which I think you kind of already went over and uh it's probably worth just getting into the discussion portion. Um but primarily while we're uh denying this application was with this
uh provision right here which is the interconnecting street pattern portion of the land development code. So I'll just read it out loud. Continuation of existing street pattern and street access to adjoining property. The proposed street layout shall take into consideration the street system of the surrounding area. Streets in the
proposed development shall be connected to streets and or rights away in adjacent areas to provide for proper traffic circulation unless approved otherwise uh at the time of preliminary plan approval or unless all lots within the proposed minor rural subdivision. Uh this is not a minoral subdivision um are
5 acres or greater or unless lots are within an LLD which this one is not an LFLD. Uh street connections and rights of way to adjoining areas shall be provided to give access to such areas and/or to provide for proper traffic circulation as determined necessary at the time of preliminary plan approval
where the culde-sac is not provided. A temporary T-type turnout including barricades shall be provided on all deadend streets with more than two fronting lots or parcels. Uh sub collectors shall also comply with that section as well. But that's primarily why uh we denied the application.
Um, so this is just a a quick little um snip I did using Google. So the top is the uh travel time it would take. So uh it's kind of hard to see, but on the right hand side that's where that gate would be. So someone was on the opposite
side of that gate. Right now uh it's a 3minut travel time through on Rancrest to get out to that major intersection um with very limited potential conflict points. Assuming that gate is installed, uh the residents of Meadow Point 3 would have no option but to go south uh all
the way out uh to Beersley up again, which is a 7-minute travel time with multiple potential conflict points. So, a little bit more on the background. Um on August 20th, 2024, the appellant applied to construct a swing arm gate across Rancrest Boulevard where it goes
from Metapoint 2 into Meet 3 to act as a permanent road closure. After reviewing the request, the LDC, the comp plan, and receiving input from other departments, the development review director denied the request, citing LDC 916011 as the main factor. Uh, the appellent then submitted an appeal pursuant to LDC
4071A2, which states the planning commission is required to conduct a denovo hearing of the set appeal. And then like I said, the agenda memo contains uh more information, documents, rebuttal support for the development review director, um information on the LDC comp plan, county
attorney's office input, and prior court actions against the appellant. Um I'm going to go backwards just real quick. Um so where Renest meets Mansfield, um I believe CDD2 had originally installed there's there's an existing gate there.
um that was they installed a swing gate arm in front of that which um made traffic backup uh a bigger concern and I believe uh the county and um the district went to court over that issue. Um and the judge said that swing arm
needed to be removed or uh kept in an upright position until they actually go through uh permitting process which is why they submitted the site plan. Granted, they moved the location of where the swing arm would be. So, it's in the middle of CDD2 and CDD3. Um, but that's how we kind of got to where we
are today. >> All right, Patrick. Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Any questions for Patrick? Just real quick, can we go back to the the land development code section? >> Mhm. I understand
your logic, but isn't the the land development code? Did the very first word say the proposed street layout shall take into consideration the street there? Nobody's proposing a street layout here. It's an existing street
layout. >> I think they're saying at one point it was proposed. >> Yeah. So the I think the original application >> well all right and so then I wanted to ask this question at the time these two middle point two
and three were developed was this section in the code and was it in the comprehensive plan? I know we have a continuation a street pattern. >> Sure. Um that's something I don't know
off the top of my head. Uh I will say if you look at the subdivision plan and the plat uh that uh supported these developments, you could clearly see that I I think there's some argument maybe. Um I think the CDD uh assumes that that
connection was only shown for the purposes of construction access. So Renest was only supposed to be a construction access to um CDD3. We couldn't find any information on that. Um and it it appeared that again when you look at the plat which I think
the plat was a part of the application package um it was shown a full construction up to the property line which inferred that it was going to be a full connection. So when metal.3 came online which it did that they would connect and I will also say I I believe
they've shared this access for the last 25 years without any issue. >> Yeah these are all public roads right? So, these are CDD roads. >> Um, and the nuance of a public road and
a CDD road and a private road and an access drive. Um, this this is where I I struggle a little bit and the differences in the rights and I might lean on the county attorney's office a little bit here to to help. I'm not saying David has to speak. >> Um, but I I think there are some
distinctions that are important uh in this >> address. Is our legal position that CV roads are public roads? answer your question. >> Okay. >> And especially in this situation because tax free bonds are utilized to construct said roads which the IRS require.
>> They're also owned by a public body, >> right? >> What what I haven't figured out or maybe I missed this, maybe we'll hear it from the appellent. Why why was a gate put here? >> What's What does the gate do
>> in that exact location or in general? Well, in the location that they put it, what was the purpose of why why are we why are they applying to put a gate there or why did they apply to put a gate there? >> I think I I could try, but I think it
might be more appropriate for them to respond to the specifics. >> Okay. All right, that's fair. >> Okay. Anything else for Patrick? Um Patrick, one of the appellants arguments I believe that I read was that the
county had approved other gates on Renest. >> Sure. >> Um have you can you show where these other gates are and is there any evidence? Did you find any evidence that the county had in fact approved these other gates?
Um, so when we're talking about the network itself and ways to get to a collector road, so ways to get to Mansfield, ways to get to Beardsley, ways to get to Meadow Point, I believe there are four gates in total. I think two are with CDD2 and two are with CDD3.
Um, when we looked, we couldn't find any permits on the record. >> First of all, show me what gates they're talking about. Like, can you can you identify them? Uh maybe Pasco Mapper might be a easier way to do it to to zoom in a little bit. All right. So, that is number one right
there on the left where the bullet is. So, that's that's the first one. I believe that's the one where the swing arm was initially installed in front of that um I think was asked to be kept in an upright position. >> It's not exactly there, right? So, it's in a little bit. >> It Yeah, it's in a little bit. 75 100 ft
from the actual rightway line. >> Okay. >> Um and then you can keep on >> the end of that. Um >> yeah, you can >> Yeah, you can keep on going down. Um and then go down on that road now. Go south. >> South. Keep going. And then you're going
to go Yep. Uh and it snakes, I think. Keep going that way more. Yep. Snaking. Keep going. There's another connection right there. So, that's number two. And I think these are the only two. And they'll probably
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these are the only two that CDD2 has. And then, uh, CDD3. We're going to go that way. >> There's one to north. Before you scroll. >> Yes. >> I think there was one to the north of that, too. >> Yeah. Right there. >> So, there's two. Uh, I'm sorry. Right
there. To >> Oh, zoom out a little bit, Patty. >> Yeah, right there. >> To the northwest. >> Northwest. Yeah. >> So, there's two gates. Okay. So, >> so it's really three grates there, >> but I'm not sure it connects. I think it might be an isolated pod. Can you zoom into that community just to Yeah, that's
an isolated pod. >> Like a gated community and then this other one serves as a gated community. >> Yeah. >> So, did you find any evidence that the county had approved those gates? >> So, I'm not I do not know if we looked
at every single gate. That's something we can go back and clarify. But of the gates that we did look at, we did not see we could not find any building permits uh applied for for the gates. We could not find any plans um that officially approved the gates. One of
the the older subdivision plans for Meadow 2. You could see very very fainted out concept of hey, there's probably going to be a gate here, but there's no no arrow pointing and say, hey, this is a gate. There's it wasn't reviewed for for any type of gate.
Now granted, these were approved back in the 90s, and I was not uh making those decisions back in the 90s, so I don't uh know other than just finding that information. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> And then CDD3 has the gates to the east,
right? >> CDD3 has the gates. And if you you zoom out more, Paddic is kind of a expansive area. Um and then go north more. Yeah. And if you zoom in um Yep. And go
zoom in a little bit more to the right. Yeah. So that line that long line is is really the break over to the right where you see the uh the pavement change a little bit. That's really the break between the two CDDs. But yes, if we go uh further to the east, you'll find two
gates uh this way for this CDD. And if I'm correct, that line is the proposed location of the new warning gate. >> That is correct. >> That's that's its own pod there, I think. >> Yeah, it's his own pod. Uh there's an out more to the north and an out to the
south, I believe. >> Oh, no, sorry, not north. Um >> south. >> Yeah, you have to snake down. Okay. Yeah. So, there they are. one to the uh move your mouse to the left
uh right there and then also to your north along um >> that one right there. And then I have a question for Mr. Tanelo. Um is Meadow Point
3 zoned for the schools that are on Mansfield? >> I need to take a look. Can you >> actually I think the county has the school zones on the map on the map layers. >> Patty, can we check on Pasco Mapper if
that's a layer? >> I think it might be under cultural >> cultural >> I think so. Schools. U might keep going. I think there's another one for elementary, middle, and high. Yeah, there they are.
>> So, you can toggle those off for every school. >> Okay, I'm having a hard time reading this. Oh, >> that orange. It's all the same school zone, I believe. That's >> I know. But what school is that? >> John Long.
>> John Long. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, is that the one that's on Mansfield? >> Yeah. You can look at You can see it right there on the map just above that block. Yeah. >> And then Wire Grass is if you go to >> So, is it it's it's zoned for all the three schools that are on Mansfield. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Go back to elementary. There was a little >> carve out. >> Yeah. >> That's not part of that neighborhood though. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That's it pod. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then just go to high school just to be uh it's going to be
Wiregrass Ranch High School just so we cover them all. Yeah, right there. >> So, they're all zone for the schools to the west. >> Yeah, right in that area there. >> Okay. >> It's like the whole complex.
>> I'm not sure why it's showing four schools if there's only three schools there. Unless PHSC is there, but showing >> anyway. Yeah. So, the people [clears throat] on the east side of the neighborhood would have a much longer commute to school if that gate was in place.
>> And it would impact the bus routes, too. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> All right. >> You want to wait for the chair? >> No, he I'm sorry. I was sleep [laughter] at the wheel here. >> You want the g? I don't think if anybody does anybody else have anything for Patrick.
Okay. And now we're on to public comment. >> No, the appellent. [snorts] Oh, >> the appellent. I'm sorry. Representative >> appellent. And I think they were granted 10 minutes. Is that correct? >> Correct. [clears throat] >> Okay.
>> Good afternoon. >> Um, thank you for putting up the PowerPoint. My name is Lindsay Mosinski. I'm with Glinsky Van W representing Metooint 2 CDD. I see I have a clicker here. I'm guessing this is going to help me with my PowerPoint. Awesome. Thank you so much. All right. So, I want to
thank you everybody for the time today to present and the additional time. As I stated, I represent Meadow.2 CDD. I also have in the audience with me some residents as well as the district manager's office, the district engineer, and some people from the board of supervisors in case there are any questions that can be deferred to them.
So, as we start, this is about the appeal of the denial of our site plan. The dates here, August 2024, we started this process with the help of the county to figure out what type of application needed to be submitted. We answered questions May 5th, 2025. And
unfortunately, we got a denial June 20th, 2025. And so, this was part of the application we submitted. This is just a simple little screen showing what the proposed gate would look like. It is not a permanent road closure. It does allow for emergency vehicles to access the
roadway. It also still allows for cyclists and pedestrians to cross through the different neighborhoods. This shows the location which is part of our package. It would be on obviously where Meadow point 2 owns the road but close to the boundary with Meadow 3.
And this also shows here, just a little zoomed out, what Renest Drive looks like. It's a winding roadway that has multiple homes with driveways located directly on it. But in order to start, we need to go back a little bit. This CDD was established in 1994.
So, as Mr. Dutter had mentioned, a lot of these development orders date back to the '9s. And what I have listed here on the screen isn't even exhaustive because meadow point 3 and four have still been phasing out in the recent years. And you can see this is where we started as a
county. This was the transportation network from 1989. And look how far you've grown. And so as part of those development orders, you have had to take into consideration the traffic access and the safety of the residents within the county and their
respective communities. And so when those traffic studies were done, when those development orders were put forward, when the county um decided to approve them, they took those traffic studies into consideration as well as the concerns from the residents which were brought up numerous times during
the public hearings. For example, uh during the hearing when resolution 20036 was entered, a petition was actually presented from Meadow Point and Meadowoint 2 residents that had 1,774
signatures which petitioned the county to not allow future residential development without making sure that State Road 56 was getting extended. So, this has always been a topic of discussion as this community has been in place.
And it's understandable because we've grown so much as a county. So Renrest Drive, this is the first page of the plat which shows the dedication. And part of the language within it is that it's the intention of the owner that the district shall construct,
operate, and maintain all street rightways as shown and depicted here on. And when you go to the page of the plat that has Renrest drive as tract A, it also has the language that these respective tracks tract A is not dedicated to the public.
It will never be con and is still to this day has not been dedicated to the public. It is not considered a public right ofway as defined by Paso County Land Development Code. So Rancress Drive, it is a local residential road. If you pull it up on your GSIS mapper, you're going to see it's designated as
residential and owned by Metal Point 2, CDD. It runs east to west. It does intersect with Mansfield Boulevard. It does not intersect with Metal Point Boulevard. It actually deadends into Meadowoint 3 into a culde-sac. And
throughout the entirety of Renest Drive, it's lined on both sides with residential homes, single family homes with driveways throughout. It is a narrow road. It is with the drive over gutters, not the permanent higher
barriers. Um, and as it was discussed by Mr. Dutter, there is a swing gate that opens up at the intersection of Mansfield Boulevard and Rancrest Drive, as well as the other locations that would get you into this portion of
Meadow Point2. Meto.3 also has these types of gates to enter into their part of the community. Now, as I stated, Vinerest Drive does not go into um Meadow Point Boulevard, and you'd actually would have to connect through it to a through a couple of different
streets in order to get there. But these roads located within the community, they're not considered public. They're considered private. And that's under chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes. In fact, the community had to enter into a traffic enforcement
agreement with the county just so that we can make sure that the local law enforcement were going to um enforce the rules of the road. C >> can you define softgate? I was just curious. >> Yeah, sure. So, it basically means you have a button that you just have to
press and someone just has to be, hey, got it. It goes through an electronic thing. um our engineer will probably be able to better speak to it than I can since that's not exactly my area of expertise, but it doesn't prevent access. It just slows it down. It's still able to be accessed by any member
of the public. It just takes you an extra second to get in there because you have to press a button. Um and there's obviously to the faster ways that emergency vehicles can get through the swing gate. >> So, it's almost like a traffic calming purpose. >> Exactly.
>> Exactly. It's, you know, can act like a deterrent, but if people wanted to, they just drive up, they can get in. I just, you said that on the record. So, um, but as I was stating, Renest Drive, it's narrow in width. It can't be widened because of these homes and residential
driveways, and it was never designed, built, or intended to function as any type of regional bypass or shortcut road. We know that the planning department is relying on N01.6D11. My review of the code shows that this does not appear to have been part of the
code when this development started back in 1990 and 1994 when the district was established. There's been extensive amendments to the code in 2011 and then 2024, but this community was built then. And so what we're trying to do though is
make sure that the whole code is looked at and not just this little strict section. Because if you look at the beginning of 9016, you see that the intent and purpose of the section is to make sure that there's safety for vehic vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Additionally, throughout chapter 901, 9013 access management, you want to preserve the flow of traffic in terms of safety, capacity, and speed. And that's what we're looking to do here today. The code also requires you to follow the manual uniform standards for design.
They also put safety as the first principle that needs to be taken into consideration. So yes, connectivity that makes sense. Unfortunately though, one of the reasons that we brought forward this application is that it is our understanding and
belief that the gates of Meadow 3 may not be really slowing down as much as they used to in the past. Uh where they either might be remaining open or there's been some kind of bypass system that allows more people to get in more freely and more um often.
And because we know that this area though in general meadow point 2 meadow point 3 does have gates. It was never meant to be a cutth through street. Um, as included as part of our package, we do have a section relating
to a current um, well, current semi-reent reszoning petition 7530 from resolution number 2207RZ where there was a special condition under the rightway public dedication section, but it said streets required to ensure adequate traffic flow to and
through the land are to remain public and should not be gated. Renest drive private gated. Therefore, it's not required to ensure that there's adequate traffic flow here. And that is um evidenced by the
different highway vision maps that have recently been amended by the county throughout the years. Because as you can see, even with the future 2035 classification, Renest Drive is not on here. It's not meant to be a major collector or
arterial road. And so although connectivity may be convenient, Renest Drive was never meant to be that connector for people outside of the community. And these maps obviously been put in
place because the county knows that this area is developing, it's growing, it's expanding, they're taking these traffic considerations um when making these decisions. you're looking at these safety considerations as well. But unfortunately, due to the increased traffic that have been able to cut
through a street that was never meant for that, we have some safety issues in our neighborhood. That includes um property damage as well as people being struck, including children, by vehicles that are driving at excessive speeds
throughout the street. As part of our application, we did have a traffic study that was done. It did show that all of the intersections around the area do uh meet applicable and acceptable levels. Uh the one F that was found is something that was already existing even without
any type of closure or arm barrier um at Renest Drive. We're actually looking at double the amount of traffic that you would see in the average neighborhood that has many homes as we do on that street. And so what we're looking for here is
for the county to consider safety over convenience. Um I know that there were a couple of questions regarding the other um similar streets which I can't answer that question but I know I missed low on time so I want to make sure I get through the rest of my presentation here. Um but the
county mentioned in their agenda memo that oh we shouldn't have a problem. You guys are gated. you're only having your residents within these communities access it. But it's interesting and conflicting when we had our response to comment period u back in May of 2025
when the county actually said that we are supposed to be using this as a reliever road. And I do respectfully request that I may have another minute to finish up my speech and then answer questions if necessary. Thank you. Um, so, so as I was saying, it's conflicting
information stating we're supposed to be a parallel reliever road for east west traffic between 56 and Beardsley, but yet, oh, we don't have a problem because we're gated. Can't be both ways. And so, that's why we're requesting that this county look at safety. Um, another thing
in the agenda memo is that yes, vehicle accidents happen and there can also be the occasional trauma airlift. I'm not sure when that became the standard, but I don't think it should be acceptable, especially when we have the option and the choice and the chance to make it
different. And so that's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to avoid the trauma airlifts that have occurred on our street by putting up an emergency service gate to reduce the traffic because we can't control what Meadow 3
does, but we can control what we can do within our own boundaries. And so safety should always be at the forefront of this development review. And we request that you reverse the previous denial by the planning um department and allow that the gate
barrier be implemented and that the county choose safety over convenience. Thank you. >> Can I ask a question? >> Go ask questions. >> Go ahead. >> Well, you you can start. Go ahead. What kind of permit approval did you apply
for? >> So, we had an conversation and I do have Jerry Wided with the district engineer who here who was part of that process who might be able to better answer. Uh, we had requested what type of application would be needed here because we weren't sure. Um, the county seemed
to be unsure potentially at the beginning. Um, and then they gave us I believe a substandard road application but then said we still need to go through the whole PSP process with the site plan. So, there was a pre-application meeting, there was a submitt, the fees, and then comment period.
>> So, a preliminary site plan. >> And if I could defer to Jerry Whiteed here with engineering as he's nodding his head, he was sworn in earlier today, too. But yes, it's my understanding it was a prelimary >> preliminary site plan or preliminary development plan. >> Site plan with a storm water uh plan as well, which
>> Could you give me give us your name and address, please? >> Uh my name is Jerry Whited. I'm with uh BDI Engineering. >> Okay. Thank you. So, you had to apply for a preliminary site plan. >> That's correct. With a storm water plan requested um as well as the fees that
accompany that which are very substantial. >> Okay. There was a lot of ambiguity surrounding what type of application submitt that we would um put forth and there were many attempts to clarify that after our
pre-application meeting um over several months and we moved forward um based off of the suggestion and recommendations that were made during the um the meeting to go with the um with the full PSP plan.
We did we did also petition for a straight to construction um application process and that was denied. >> Who >> who maintains the room? >> It is strictly CDD uh maintained. We the
residents of the district pay special assessments through nonvat nonadvaloran taxes that goes towards the infrastructure. >> Okay. So, let me ask can I ask the engineer a question? Let's say that I don't know there's a sink hole
opens up and now there's a big hole in the road. Okay. And you have to fill the hole in the road and it's your it's the CDD's responsibility to fill the hole in the road and pave the road. >> If it's on the Meadow Point2 portion of Renest, it would be the Meadow.2 Community Development District. And are
you required to get a permit from any agency to fulfill that hole and pave that road? >> Not for maintenance purposes. Mainten General maintenance purposes, we wouldn't seek out a permit for it. >> All right. What if you wanted to widen
the sidewalk along Renest Drive? >> Believe the change would we would request a permit or we would at least come to the county for guidance. >> CD is not exempt from any county permit. So they're they're treated like any other developer basically.
>> Okay. But where I I'll tell you where I'm going because you're going to look you can go look at this. He the application that is denied is a preliminary site plan. >> That's correct.
>> All right. And it's a preliminary site plan on a right of way >> for the right of way. That's correct. And to clarify, not a public right of way, but >> excuse me. >> You're going to have to give your name and address every time you speak, so let's take turns. >> Sure.
>> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Just for the record, so we have to know who you are. >> Understood. Lindseay Mosinski with Kolinsky Van W. >> So then both Mr. Engineer and Mr. County Attorney, a preliminary site plan is required when
someone does development. So, what I'm trying to figure out is how does how where does putting up a gate arm across a road fall in the definition of development? >> It is if you look at the court order
that's attached to the packet, >> the court actually determined that it is development. >> All right, that's what I need to know. So, so that that it is appropriate is since it's development, then it is appropriate to get a site. They actually on that regard they are following what the court told them that the erection of
a gate on Renest is development and they're required to get approval from the county to do that >> and they they say that the gate acts like a >> sorry speed bump. >> It was your statement that the gate functions more as a traffic calming
device. It's not necessarily a blockade. doesn't necessarily stop traffic from going through but only slows it or >> Lindsay Mosinski. Um, so the gate that we are proposing is an arm gate barrier
that would allow emergency service vehicles to go through. The 2024 case, which is within your package, is a case that was actually dismissed by the county's failure to prosecute and any injunction or court ruling is not um,
resticata on this issue. Um, and also the placement of that. There's still the swing gate access though into Renest Drive from Mansfield Boulevard. That's the one where I was stating it slows the access but does not prevent the access.
>> Right. Sure. Okay. I got you. >> So, do you have to get out of your car to push a button? >> I believe it's just a rolling down the window type of thing. >> Okay. So, well, let's go back to what was denied. Um, so
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is >> why did you why did you not seek an old standard from 9016D11? >> Uh, >> cuz cuz you hear all your arguments are that this meets the intent and purpose of the code.
>> So that sounds like an allstandard argument. And I do not disagree with you, sir. Uh, the first thing that we did with our communications with the county, as Mr. White had stated, was to find out what type of application or permit that would
need to be processed in order to see if we could get the gate. It's not until we got the denial to see that there was going to be this strict interpretation. I do understand the code does provide for an alternative relief, but this application was our first step not
knowing >> I'm trying to figure so but trying to figure out how this is even properly before the planning commission because my concern is there's a statute that says that you cannot take any action that's inconsistent with our code. Very
clear. Section 190 00434 statutes. One could certainly argue that this appeal is an action that's inconsistent with 9016D11. Now, if you seek an alt standard under our
code, that's at least an argument that's not an action inconsistent with our code because it's an alt standard under our code. But you didn't seek an alt standard under our code. you just appealed.
>> I would argue that the fact that one of the reliefs that you have avail that we have available to us under chapter 407 is that we can do an appeal when we do not like the result or do not believe
that the result from from the planning department was correct. So although I can >> but you're but your the but the result would be inconsistent with that code section. >> The result could be inconsistent but the code allows for us to appeal to you the
planning commission and as well as the board of county commissioners. It because there is an avenue to appeal it means that there are some times when the first level that looks at it doesn't get it right. So what we're stating is the
planning department did not get this right and because of that we don't think that we're not in compliance with sections of the code. >> Could you elaborate on what you think the planning department didn't get right? They denied it based on continuation of existing street pattern.
What part of that section of the code do you feel is not applicable to the to your situation? uh the continuing street pattern. If it was something where we would be able to control the access of
the continuing street from Meadow 3, then yes, the continuing street pattern, I could see a more strict compliance with that. But the fact that Meadow point 2 is not able to control who accesses the street from Meto.3, that's where the continuing street function as
well as the fact that there as Mr. Dutter admitted as well, these development orders are old. Not everything is necessarily accessible through the county due to the age or in digital format. Uh and so yes, we do have a plat that ends at Renest Drive,
but have still, you know, there's not necessarily it could be inferred that there's a continuation, but there hasn't been a concrete showing that yes, this is a continuation. >> But you're applying for a gate that would break the street pattern.
That seems like that's in conflict with the code section. I understand why you have your arguments why you think that that you should be granted relief from that code section. Okay. And that's
normally processed as an alternative standard request. And there's engineers even on this body that process those [clears throat] every day of the week. Okay. um when they say that there's good reasons why the code section shouldn't apply in my particular case,
but that's different than saying we just don't want to comply with the code. I mean I mean I don't and particularly because there's a statute on point that says the CDD can't take an action inconsistent with our code. So,
I guess what I'm concerned about is I don't even know how the planning commission can rule in your favor if we don't even if you didn't even file an request for an alternative standard. I mean, unless you can convince the planning commission that 901611
just doesn't apply to this situation. And so we're going to stand by our presentation as well as the materials we submitted here. Um, but what we're looking for is yes, for the county to apply the code, but the planning commission can review
what the planning department has done. If it is the commission's decision to continue the denial, then my client is going to look at other avenues which may include either another appeal which we are warranted before the board of county commissioners or maybe looking at the
alternative standard of relief. That is maybe something we could do, but to do it before now would have been premature because we didn't know how the commission would go or I'm sorry, the department would rule until June 20th and then we had a deadline of 30 days if we wanted to appeal. So, we're just
making sure that we're going through and exhausting our administrative remedies so that we don't lose them. >> I'm not saying we might not ever go for an alternative stand of relief, but we couldn't even know if we needed to do it until we got this. >> I'm not even sure the planning commission be willing to grant I don't even know planning staff would
grant the alternative standard. So, I should >> Yeah, that's my question, David, to you. What I'm I'm listening to you and I'm I'm trying to figure this out. Okay. You're telling well you Mr. Dutter denied them based on the
continuation of existing street pattern and then you're saying well you didn't apply for an alt standard. Well why would Mr. Dutter approve an alt standard? >> He he may not have. I mean I guess we can ask Mr. Dutter if he >> I'm just trying to figure out why would his opinion change depending on what
form this was submitted on whether it's a preliminary site plan or some alternative standard. Okay. Well, I don't think that it would change Mr. Gutter's I suspect he would probably deny the alt standard, too. Okay. The the problem I
have is that I'm dealing with a statute that says they can't take an action that's inconsistent with the code. All right. This is unique to this particular applicant that most people don't have this statute that says this.
Okay. So, I think one could argue that if you file an alt standard request that that's that's a way to get around the statute because now you're not taking an action inconsistent with the code because the code allows you relief from the code. Does that make sense?
>> True. >> But they didn't request that relief. And so >> you're suggesting >> now I'm saying they're direct. You can't you can't grant their appeal because >> you're just suggesting that they're >> because it would violate the statute. It's pre it's premature because >> now now that being said
you may ultimately decide that even that even if they file a request for rental standard he denies it you would still deny the repeal. I don't I don't want to weigh into that issue because you may that's that's a decision for the planning commission. I'm only trying to deal with the legal issue is that I don't know that you could gr I think if
you granted their appeal today I think you would be violating the statute. And if I could just respond to that, sir, just to reiterate as well, as we know, the land development code has been amended extensively 2024 and 2011, and
the street design was not in at the time, this section of the code was not part of it. When the community was originally developed, so when this original development was done, this was not part of the code. But you've applied you applied for new development at the
time that that it clearly is in the code >> and we did make the application and the type of it was because of the way that the county phrased that we needed to do it. So, I understand that that can be slightly conflicting, but the fact that, you know, a retroactive application may
not be appropriate here considering the fact that this development >> understand how it's retroactive when you're applying for a new new development of a new gate. We're the code exists today, >> right? But the section of the code has to do with continuous street patterns.
And if a continuous street pattern was not a requirement when the street was built, then I would argue it is retroactive application. >> But the street pattern exists today and you're blocking it with a new form of development >> with a lifted gate barrier for emergency
services. >> Can David, can you did the judge give an explanation of how he >> the gate qualifies as development? >> Yes, it's in the ruling. I can read to you what he said.
>> I apologize cuz I didn't get a chance to review this because this is third probably the fifth or sixth planning commission agenda. I mean that we've gotten beyond the Friday. This we did get promised that they would come no later than the Friday before the
planning commission hearing. >> Give me a second. I got to pull it up. says the erection of security. It's it's this is page four of nine of the court order and it's
so it's it's exhibit B and it's it's the order that says order denying motion to dissolve temporary injunction. I'm sorry. Which page of the agenda? >> And so it's
page Oh, the agenda page is Give me a second. Agenda page 24. It's paragraph 19. Is that helping you at all? It's a paragraph that starts with the erection
of security arm barriers. I'm on the online version. It's exhibited the complaint and affidavit. You see that? It's way down here. >> It's under the numbered exhibits.
>> I know this is a very lengthy item, so to page 24 of exhibit B. >> I guess I can't blame you for not not having read it. Thank you. >> Exhibit B, I think it's on 207. Conditions of approval.
>> Um, it's not a conditional approval. This is part of the order. This is part of the court order. >> Court order. >> So, this is you said page 24 of that. >> 24 of 29 of it B. Yes. >> Yes. Did you find it?
do it. >> Paragraph 19. >> Okay. >> It didn't exactly provide an explanation. You just made a declaration, but whatever. >> Well, 18 also talks about those too as
well. Okay. So, I got a couple questions when you guys >> And can you just clarify one other statement that you made about the emergency airlifts? >> Yes.
>> Are you insinuating that there have been traumatic accidents on this road because there's no gate? >> Uh, yes. There have been um at least two people who have been airlifted due to being hit by a vehicle on Renest Drive.
Uh and that is one of the driving components for trying to put up a barrier. >> I understand. Okay. So, >> and I do have residents here who are more familiar with that if you would like any further information. So, I noticed that um you mentioned
based on a ROAR engineering traffic study that 60% of vehicles on Renest were non-local. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Um so, so I I guess they're getting through the soft gate, right? So, because it's a
soft gate, they're able to buzz themselves in. Um and so this proposed warning gate, the residents of metapoint two and three will not have the ability to open that gate. Right. So it's only emergency use and pedestrian and
bicycles [clears throat] normally. Right. >> Correct. The vehicular traffic would be uh limited besides emergency vehicles, but there still would be able to kids if they're biking to school or walking to school would still be able to do so. >> So you're stating that the the impetus
of this measure or the really the crux of this problem is that there's so many non residents that are using this as a cutth through. Why wouldn't you provide uh why you why are you creating a gate that would also cut off the use of residents
within the community because I think that's the biggest issue. >> So Meadow point2 CDD's concern are the Meadow point to CDD residents. Uh and so we are making sure that they still have access to go throughout the community. It's just an unfortunate consequence that Meadow Point 3 would not be able to
travel through Renest Drive if the gate is approved. Um it is not, you know, with bad will or bad intention that we're doing that. It's just because we're trying to limit anyone else who may come in through those soft gates of Meadow 3. >> So So why wouldn't you at least allow
access to residents of Meet Point 2 and three to be able to open and close that gate to at least access either side of the neighborhood? That might be something that is possible. I am not familiar with the engineering feats of what type of gate
that would be and whether or not that would be a code [clears throat] or a clicker system. I would just uh thinking out loud that even if that's possible, if it's a code or a clicker, that residents would still be able to share it with other people or potentially uh duplicate those. But yes, that might be
a good alternative if it's possible. And I would have to speak with the engineer as to what that would look like. >> Yeah, I'm not saying I'm in favor of the gate necessarily. I'm just saying that that's definitely would be one of the major issues is cutting off one side of the neighborhood from the other across an established street pattern over the
last 25 years. So, um have and and so the follow-up question I have to this is is have you considered, you know, again, you're citing that the reason for this gate is because of the traffic going through Rrest and accidents and things like that. Have you considered the use
of other types of traffic calming or applying for other types of traffic calming features, stop signs, speed bumps, things like that? >> Uh, yes, it has been looked at and uh Jerry White would be able to speak more due to the fact that the houses are
close to each other, which means there's driveways every so often. It doesn't allow for there to be a different type of traffic calming device that makes sense that wouldn't interfere with someone getting in and out of their driveway. Um, it's my understanding that this county might prefer the tables more
than they do the humps. Uh, the only location that would be possible if we were to look at the gate or I'm sorry, the map that we had um would be where there are no houses. But then you're going through a whole slew of houses. It's very close to where we're proposing
to put the gate in the first place. Um, but Renest Drive is, you know, the top wavy street up there. the beardsly ones on the bottom. But you can see kind of close to where it says sparkling faith in between those streets there. That
would be the only place where we might be able to do a traffic calming device as well as where we propose to put the gate. But where we've noticed that the traffic is still able to go at excessive speed and where the accidents have occurred are where the houses are located towards the west side closer to
Mansfield. >> So I'm just doing a rough count just on the Meadowoint 2 side. It looks like there's seven different opportunities to have a four-way stop. That right there, I mean, not saying you even need to use seven stop signs, but I mean, you know, even a couple of stop signs has proven to be a really good
traffic calming device. There >> there's a stop sign, sorry, Jerry White, WBDI engineering. There is a stop sign uh to the west at that first intersection that stops traffic. Um there's no intersections however in the area where we see the most property
damage and where the incidents have occurred. >> So where's that area? >> That would be uh in between the if you look to the far farthest uh west the first intersection and then the the next inter intersection to the east there um that that's where cars gain all the
speed. And at this point there's no traffic cominging so they can gain additional speed coming from the area where we're proposing the gate. So it looks like you're talking about the intersection right inside >> where all the driveways are. >> Green Grenville. >> Well really if you just look where all the driveways are on the on Run Crest on
the west side. >> Okay. >> We had also I believe submitted a diagram of this with our application. Um to your first point sir uh there was a uh in in the year 2000 there was a um
interlocal agreement for roadway use because both of these roadways meto point2 and meto.3 um are maintained by those districts separately with the on andm funds from the their own respective communities. So there was actually a joint use agreement entered in so that
metapoint 2 residents and metapoint 3 residents could use each other's roadways. um that had a 20-year term and it was uh able to be cancelled by either party and it was canceled appropriately with the appropriate measures by Metooint 2 um in 201920
range. So that that joint use agreement for Meto.3 and Meoint 2 residents to use the roads of the other communities that are being paid for by the other communities was canceled at that time. The reason why they entered into the agreement in the first place is because
metapoint 3 was developed with the use of this roadway and it was supposed to be to designated. >> Well, I I think that's a moot argument anyway because I I think Mr. Goldstein would argue that um those are public roadways regardless of who says that
they have control over it. So, but um I I think you've answered my question. I just wanted to see what other options you've explored besides in installing a >> a gate that nobody can get through, >> especially for the existing residents.
and Lindsay Lazinski. Again, I'm not sure if this map is a little better to show you how on the left side of the picture, the west side, that that's just a continuation of homes and there really aren't the intersections there that would necessarily um allow for proper
signage with stop signs and such. >> I know it does cut off, but it does extend more into homes to as you get closer to Mansfield. So, you're saying stop signs aren't feasible? I mean, I don't understand that point. >> They I'm not saying stop signs aren't
feasible, but as they are, or maybe I am. I will let Jerry go actually, but Renest Drive because it you do have streets that go onto Renest Drive like the loop um and Tmont Drive. So those would have the stop signs, but people traveling on Renest Drive, you don't
have a break in the road to really allow for that stop. But Jerry as the engineer would be better able to explain since he has done traffic studies before with stop or signage. >> You're saying, you know, stop sign would
basically be in front of somebody's driveway is what you're saying. Yeah. Well, I could see that in a couple of instances, but >> and uh there's uh Jerry White BDI engineering. There's just the four um opportunities right there. They're all clustered together. As you head west,
that's where we see the majority of the property damage and um traffic accidents. as you get past those intersections before you get to the next intersection to the west before you get to Mansfield. >> Are those accidents primarily involving
residents of both areas or are they out people from the outside? >> I wouldn't be able to answer off hand. I'm not sure. Sir, >> we Lindseay Mazinski, we do have a member of the board of supervisors who would be able to better answer the questions because I believe he's more
familiar with the accidents that have occurred in the neighborhood. Um, it's my understanding it's residents and/or children because they might be walking through to go to the schools that are off of Mansfield Boulevard. But if you would like Mr. Senetti to speak to that, he may be able to answer it for you. >> Come up and answer the question. Yeah, that'd be fine.
>> You give us your name and address, sir. >> Yes, sir. Robert Sig ready. Uh, 30716 Nickerson Loop in Wesley Chapel, Florida. >> I'm sorry, sir. Could you repeat the question? any questions that the accidents that have occurred in there, are they
are they happening with residents of both neighborhoods or the outside outsiders driving through your area? >> Oh, they're a mix of all. Sir, it's not it's um >> the prepoundonderance I'm talking about. >> I'm sorry. >> The prepundonderance of them. >> The preponder I I would need to get that
data from Florida Highway Patrol, but we do um hire Florida Highway Patrol um to go outside. They they were not originally um they were originally allowed, I'm sorry, to patrol inside and they were pulling cars over and they
were telling us that they're pulling people over from Union Park, Metal Point 4. Um mostly non-residents. Um and then I guess something happened with the Florida Highway Patrol in a different neighborhood in a different county. So they don't patrol inside anymore. They
just stay out on man. What's your what's your feeling about developing a a system where people from both neighborhoods could get through easily? [clears throat] >> I'm I'm not 100% opposed to it. Um but I do the a few of you gentlemen have
answer asked a couple of questions. I made some notes. If I would if I may, I can answer some of them for you. >> [clears throat] >> Um the the the reason for you know why the why now is because um unfortunately we couldn't do anything for 20 years
because we had a joint use agreement. I do hope or believe that might change the legal argument because the the construction of the continuous pattern was conditional upon a joint use agreement. That's the only reason why it was allowed and and at the time the county allowed it to be termed by either
party. Um, another uh thing that um was asked is uh you know I I think this gentleman mentioned about the soft gate. Is that how >> he ask you he didn't ask you to come up here and make arguments. He very specific question. >> Specific he didn't come ask this is not I >> apologize. I he asked you a specific
question. Yeah. You will have opportunity to speak if if something else. >> Yes sir. So I I'm trying to read you, but I'm Are you saying you don't want to share the access with uh with your neighbors?
>> We currently >> Is that the problem? Is that the real problem? >> It's not a It's not a matter of a lack of share >> because you've done it for 20 20 years. So >> Yes, sir. Uh but within that 20 years, uh since the development was built, there was one school there and there was
no State Road 56 or anything. So now there's three schools there. So we have approximately 3,000 cars a day coming through a gated community. >> So what you're saying is it mostly is people from the outside. >> I'm sorry. >> So what you're telling me is it is mostly people from the outside.
>> Um well according to our um engineering study, there's 600 I'm sorry 1,600 non-resident cars a day uh coming on the metal point 2 side. >> You said 60%. >> Yeah. So um which >> so so if you could wave a magic wand and
eliminate those that 60% then you seem to think that the problem would be solved. Well, certainly no problem would ever be solved, but it it would be exponentially, right? If you have one of 10 drivers is a speeder and you remove >> text,
>> right? So, just mathematically, [clears throat] I think it would exponentially decrease. >> You can't text me. >> Okay. Okay. Um, did you have something else you want to add? >> Um, I think that we covered everything.
Um, I know there were more comments discussing the 2024 case. So, I just want to reiterate there that there was no final order or injunction ever imposed and ever went through for a final adjudication on the merits. Um, so I do request that the commission not really take that as much into consideration. Um,
case wasn't about this gate. It was about a different gate. Right. >> Correct. It was for a different gate that was in front of the current swing gate. So during that time, the swing gate was left open. Um the swing gate does unfortunately allow people to tail behind. Uh I believe that the intent
when they were looking to do uh the gate for the 2024 case that was mentioned was to see if they could prevent the tailgator going through. Um but also so that's why it was done that way. Um it was removed and there was the court
rulings but it also stated that maybe it shouldn't have been put up without the county approval. And now we're trying to get county approval but for a different location and a different reason. >> And if there's no further questions, I thank you for your time. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Who's next? Don't public [snorts] comment now. >> Does any did they sign up for public comment? Anybody sign up to speak? Hear public comment. >> We have um two individuals in person sign up for public comment. Uh Robert Ignaretti and the second is Attorney
Grimma. Um and then we have one gentleman online, Matt Riser. >> Okay, Robert, why don't you come up first? >> Robert's ready. 30716 Nickerson Loop, Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543. Um
so again, [clears throat] um as we mentioned earlier, um it was conditional when the road was was approved. It was a joint use agreement. So there was or should have been an expectation that it could be ceased or terminated if either party chooses to do so. Um, regarding [clears throat] the
inconvenience, while there unfortunately there's been no mention in any of the um the opposition feedback of the inconvenience or safety on the Meadow point2 side um but Pasco County did their study um Mr. Dutter's team did that um and that the maximum driver
impact is 2.7 miles to State Road 56 and 1.5 to Beardsley. Um metal.3 resident called ABC action news on your side and they went from one side of the gate proposed gate to the other in under five minutes. Um on the safety side, both
residents uh from both CDs as well as the boards provide public comments and testimony indicating Renrest Drive has considerable safety issues, excessive driving, vehicles leaving the road, collisions uh with cars and property. It's been bad enough that two individuals had to be airlifted to
trauma centers. Um not sure what other gated road in the United States can make that claim. While all this goes on and while this occurs, please keep in mind if you gentlemen did not know the soft gate that they were referring to at the entrance to Mansfield and Renest
is inside the school zone. It is literally in the area marked between the school zone warning lights. So, um this is why [clears throat] it was challenging to comprehend the significant effort expended to address a five-minute inconvenience for metal
point 3 um um drivers um and not the documented safety concerns and the school zone involved. Um I do um understand some some suggestions have come up for speed bumps, but they don't reduce car volume. Um, globally available data as well as Pasco
Countyy's own traffic department show that vehicle speeds can tend to increase between speed bumps or tables. Drivers may drive around to avoid them and they can delay emergency response time. And I believe uh that adding any potential EMS
delays or even more speeding um is is really an unacceptable risk and and should not even be considered. Um, and I also believe a denial uh would improperly prioritize convenience over safety and deliberately allow these extra 1,600 vehicles to continue into
the active school zone when we now have an opportunity to to divert them. Um, and with that in mind, we respectfully uh request that appropriate judgment be exercised as it was uh for Hazel Avenue and Hudson and that the gate be approved. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, who's next? We have a Tony Grimma. >> Is there anybody in the a anybody else in the audience that wants to speak that hasn't signed up?
>> Okay, we'll take care of that one after this man's time. My name is Tony Grim. I live at 30807 Tmont Drive on the corner of Rancrest Drive. And uh
the problem that I've got is I bought the house two and a half years ago. I took two months to move from Texas to here. And the first night I spent there, I said, "What's going on here? Is there a racetrack out there?" Well, the
high-speed races and the loud cars going by here is in I couldn't accept it in the middle of the night. It was 247. So, I attended a board meeting from the CDD. They tell me it's a private road.
So, I called the county. said uh the transportation all the different departments in the county that I could uh find and they all said uh we have no jurisdiction over that. I called the sheriff and say can we set up a a speed trap to uh stop some of these
cars and impound them the ones you know do some traffic stops. Uh no it can't because it's a private road we have no jurisdiction. What I want to ask if any of you people have been at that location at any time, raise your hand, please.
Okay. So, what are we talking about? We're talking about private road and the county is encroaching on county road trying to make a decision. It's like Putin saying, "I want to get into into Ukraine." Okay. Unless you live there,
you have no business dictating what the residents of the Ranker community should do. Residents rule. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Who would like to come up next? Come state. Come forward and just
state your name and address. John Picarelli, Metal Point2, CDD chair, resident 29529 Eagle Station Drive, Wesley Chapel, Florida. Um, at first >> sworn everybody, >> you Oh, you aren't sworn. Okay.
>> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, at first we didn't sign in to speak, but you know what? listening to the case before us about the residents with the land development and how important it was to everyone in the room including the board and that lady there I'm sorry I don't know her name you mentioned
quite often quality of life came up quite often about people that live in areas and you know what being the chair on this board it's very important for the quality of life of my residents the people who live in metal point 2 on Renest Drive are inconvenienced by the
traffic and the residents of Metal Point 3 who come flying through their community. They have the right to live in the same subdivision like the rest of us do where they can back out of their driveway without being t-boned or worry about walking their dog and getting run over
or that their kids can't play in their front yard because they're afraid they're going to get killed. So, the inconvenience for a separate subdivision and all the other people who live around there to drive five extra minutes is very important to me as the
chairman of that board to make sure that the people who live in my community can live safely and get the same aspect of living in their community that everybody else does in Metapoint 2. Why do they have to live a different standard
because someone doesn't want to drive five extra minutes? We're not avoiding the safety vehicles to get through in case there's an emergency. We're just there to stop the traffic and avoid having the accidents and people getting hurt and restore the quality of life that we're all so concerned about
on the prior case of people who bought property. What about these people who bought property? And if you think they bought into this knowing this was going to happen, you're incorrect. I don't want to tell you the old stories that I know from the developer that there was supposed to be ball fields where Metal
Point 3 is or a golf course when those people bought their their homes. It was never supposed to be another community that came afterwards from the same guy who signed both lines on the joint use agreement. The only other thing I want to add is one of the other board members wanted
you to know that metapoint 3 was developed and not to exceed 183 homes under special section. There are over 470 homes in that community which exceeds that. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Okay. Come forward. >> And I we'll need to swear you too, I guess. Huh? >> Okay. and your name and address. >> Kelly Wright. I live at [snorts] 30649 Iverson and I absolutely hate public speaking. So, please bear with me. >> I was not going to speak today.
>> I'm sorry. >> We don't bite. You're good. >> Okay. I know. Um I was not going to speak today. However, listening, just as John had said, several things have not been mentioned that I feel that need to be mentioned. Um, I'm not sure how familiar you are with a CDD board, but we do have fees that we pay. And Meto.3
has not paid $1, not $1 to pay for that road that is now falling apart. They have never paid for the gates. And I do believe the gates, I'd have to ask John and Rob, the gates cost three times as much to maintain as they do in our community. I live in
Iverson and I also can go through Renest um because we do have a connecting road. So, that is one thing. the gates and the roads. Meet point 3, they have no money and we can't. We tried. You can't share funds through the CDD. You can't. And also the gate that's going up is going
to be a complete cost to Metooint 2. Meto.3 will not be assisting with that either. So maintaining of that, we're going to have cameras as well there. And that will also be maintained by Meto 2. The property values on Renest are not good. I do believe there are
45 homes on Renest, 45ish, and I think 15 of them are rental homes, and people don't stay in them long. The two people that were airlifted were both hit by Meto.3 residents. I'm not sure why somebody hasn't said that, but that is fact. Both of them that were hit were
hit by a Meto.3 resident. One gentleman has a traumatic TBI and will never be the same. Um, and I do believe there also has been at least one dog killed, hit and killed. And another dog was hit, but I don't believe he was killed.
I have been um a resident in Everson for 9 years in February. I went to my first meeting after I moved in two weeks later, and this was hard mentioned then. Our neighborhood has been suffering with this for nine years. Nine years.
It's been horrible. My daughter just started driving a few years ago. She has almost been hit headon by someone passing someone else on Renest. My mother, who's also in the crowd, lived with us for a couple years, she was almost hit head on by somebody passing
somebody on Renest. Coming from three. You can tell when they're coming from three because you cannot take a right on Renest from our last road and already be up to 50 miles an hour. And our police officer, again, I don't know why it was mentioned, he has caught at least four or five people going 55 to 60 on that
road. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> If you'd like to come forward, please. Um, whoever wants to speak, please come up on the front bench there. We'll save a little time. And so, we'll need to swear you in.
And we might as well do both of you at the same time. >> Oh, I don't know. Should we go? Hi, my name is uh Christine Signaretti. I live at 30716 Nickerson Loop. Um just want to speak as far as like being a mom in the neighborhood. Uh my kids are
grown now, but I've had to deal with this and I could never let my kids play outside without me being there. I have guarded all the neighborhood kids because the speeding is horrendous. You have no idea what we've had to live with. I'm sorry. It's very emotional for
me. I don't You know, it's very bad. Besides development of three schools outside of our neighborhood, the traffic is already horrendous with the three schools. But we've got residents from Meadow Point 3 screaming down our neighborhood constant. If you put in
speed bumps, it's already loud enough with the traffic. I can't imagine listening to cars going over speed bumps or any other kind of deterrent. It is so loud you can hear it in our our patio when we sit on the backyard. We can hear cars racing up and down the
road all the time. And that's not what I bought. That's not what I bought into. Um, the second thing I want to say is is that uh when you turn from our road to onto our neighborhood on Nickerson, the cars when we put our direction on
behind us that are going straight through to metal point 3 are annoyed that we're turning and zoom out around us and if there's oncoming cars, they have to race around the car so that they don't hit an oncoming car. This is
constant constant. So, it's really discouraging that it's not really being seen what's going on there. I wish I could show you some video so you can actually see it and hear it, but it's it's really really
bad for a gated community to be living like that. And yes, we are supposed to share. We're both renest, but we were built at different times. We're different CDDs. We operate different. They don't pay for our gates. They don't pay for our road repairs. And there's no
res there's no respect on their end as far as how what they do to slow down and respect the neighbors and so it's not it's not happening on their end either. So please consider it. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
>> Justin Wright 30649 Burley Drive. Um Leslie Chavel. Um I'm the operation manager for community. So, some of the points, there are two stop signs on that road that do supposedly stop it, but if you sit there and watch, California stop
is uh farfetched to what they do on that road. Um, also the road is going to have to be repaired twice as fast as other road. They're all paved at the same time because extra 1,600 cars. Um, that gate is budgeted three times amount for that gate because
of the extra 1,600 cars that go through that. So the amount of Renest has to pay over the other gated communities is sufficiently higher because of the extra traffic. Um all those availed
in our budget and our financials. Um the amount of kids that walk up and down that road, we owe it to them. Like you said, the emergency the school safety sign starts
to the one side of it. Our gate enters into it. People coming from Union Park from metal point 4 from metal point 3 don't realize that they're pulling in there. They don't realize they have to go 15 to already pass this goal and already almost hit. We have to have um
crossing guards there and they actually had to change it this year to now there's a black hat there. There is what they call it that can enforce traffic there because that's how bad it is. The gentleman that retired last year was there forever. He couldn't do it anymore because of the amount of traffic that's there. So I plead you guys that you do
pass it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Is that everybody that wants to speak? Patrick, >> see you have one person online. Mr. Riser, can you
hear us? >> Yeah. All right. Can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yes. Were you sworn in? >> I was not here. I'll come on video, too. I'm sure this will work. >> Yeah, we can. We can see you. So, we know you haven't been. So, >> also, >> go ahead.
>> If you want to do what I need to >> Okay, raise your right hand. Do >> you swear affirm the testimony about the truth of helping God? I did. >> All right. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Thank you. So, I uh Matthew Riser
at 31243 Frank Drive 3 side and just wanted to make a few comments here that you know, first of all, I I certainly don't want to come across as somebody who does not want to see a safer environment or to see our roads improve.
Um, that said, there's a couple of things that I feel like have not been mentioned. The speeding problem, it certainly exists. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that people help speed down both directions. Um, I've seen it in both directions
though. You know, certainly some people met 3 through met 2, but also metapoint 2 residents coming through side as well. So, um, that said, it's also, you know, there's not a complete lack of respect. It's not all bad matters that are
causing this problem. And one of the things that kind of comes to mind for me, the speed limit is 30 m hour for a residential neighborhood. Um, I don't know what the standard is in, you know, most other neighborhoods, but to me that does seem high and sort of lends itself
to speeding in general. Um, I also would like to revisit the speed bumps or speed comps. Um, I believe there was an engineer there who had mentioned that it was not feasible really to place that due to the close nature of each house
and without being able to do that without including access to certain driveways. Um, I just I'm not sure if that's something that you could comment on and provide more context, but I I don't fully understand why they couldn't be placed between driveways, you know, in the
grass sections or why that would be not a feasible uh solution to address speeding. Um, I guess I'll pause there and just see if that's something I'd be good or would like to respond to. >> Yeah, we we're we just need you to complete your statement, your questions,
and then we'll move on. So, >> and yeah, another item that kind of comes to mind here, now I've been through other residential neighborhoods that have their own uh skiing enforcement with like a speeding radar system that can take pictures of license plate and what the fees, you know, so I
don't know if that's something that would be an option as well, but to block traffic directions for all vehicular traffic plus EMS which would be able to get through. you know, it I I would like to see more effort done between both parties, not one, two, and three, to
find a mutually acceptable solution. Uh right now, I you know, it's just hard to understand why blocking traffic in both directions is the best option for all parties involved. Um outside of that,
I certainly want to see roads be safer. It's never good to hear about any injuries or, you know, deaths or anything of that nature related to speeding for residential area. But at the same time, it would be significantly more challenging for a lot of parents to
get to and from schools in the morning to drop their kids off. um you know along with other just day-to-day activities that proposed other challenges you know and why is it that we couldn't allow residents of the metal point 3 and two sides to still
have access through both directions I understand the outside traffic um being a problem and I'd love to see.3 CBD do something to address that whether that's gates uh or working closer with metal point2 but the fact remains that I I
don't think we've tried that hard to retain access in both directions. If there be other measures involved on top of that, providing access between both parties uh to reduce speeding if speed bumps or stop signs or some sort of traffic enforcement camera to let fines
was an option. Um I think that would be a much more, you know, approachable route for a lot of people who would like to not see this uh traffic block open. So those are really my comments I wanted to make but um that's all I got.
>> So are you a board member there at Meta Point 3? >> No sir I'm not a resident. >> You are a resident. >> Yes I have 31243 Frank on.3 site. >> Okay. So I wonder why we have we don't
have more people at this meeting uh from metapoint 3. You have any comment on that? I hey I tried to uh picture my neighbors to join and be good citizens here but maybe they were busy or didn't care to
tune in. I'm really not sure but you know it's I've only lived here actually coming up on one pier on this house and um the traffic pattern has been established throughout the last 20 years. You know, anytime you need to head west really into Wesley Chapel from
Rest Drive to get around on the outside for residents would be significantly more of an inconvenience, not something that I could live with. That's how the board decided to rule here. But um it it really feels like there and again I
haven't been involved in all these discussions really only since closing on this house. But it would be great to see for the public in my opinion more conversations happening between the medical 2 and three boards to find a acceptable solution that doesn't impede
traffic or residents who just need to travel from one side to the other or vice versa. >> Okay, Matt, I appreciate your involvement. I I commend you for taking part in it, taking [clears throat] an interest and uh we'll take into account what your comments.
>> Mr. Chair, just for the record, there is an email in your packet from a resident of medical.3 as well. >> There's an email. She's going to somebody going to read that? >> Well, it's in the packet. You mentioned that there was nobody else. I'm just letting you know that. >> Oh, okay. >> There is an email in your packet from a
resident of metapoint. >> Okay. That's right. I did read that. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. Uh, and to let you know, we did receive an email earlier today from that same resident that you have the email from who said that um, u some of the other residents were unable to attend
due to work and such. But we do have Tammy Snider um, from staff online who would like to uh, provide some comments. >> Okay, Tammy. >> Hi, good afternoon everybody. Um I Patty
basically said um what I was going to say. Um I've been in contact for some of the residents from our country and they did intend to uh join today but unfortunately they all of them there were three different ones that all had other obligations.
>> Okay. Well, thank you Tammy. Appreciate the information. Okay. Patrick, did you have something? Nothing. Okay. All right. Any other comments, questions, or anything from anybody up here?
>> Okay. I know that. So, that email was from Miss Marilyn Davis and she's met a point.3 and she was opposing the gate just for the record. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I guess the thing is, you know, first off, as Mr. Goldstein mentioned I
don't know if we can even approve or or rather approve this appeal just because we may be precluded on legal basis. >> Well, no, you can't today. I guess the the issue is I think you need to decide
what kind of give staff some clue how you want to handle the merits of it though because I mean in theory you could continue it for a period of time and they could file an alternative standard application and then you could act on the appeal once
you got a once it was brought back to you as a continuence. Um, but the only my only concern with that is unless you gave Patrick some clue where you were leaning, I he probably wouldn't know how to act on that alternative standard
application. So, I mean, you probably need to give Patrick some clue where you're leaning on the merits. Otherwise, I'm not sure Patrick would know what to do with it. >> So, since I since I started, I'll say what I was the way I'm leaning. the
the biggest heartburn I have with it is is cutting off access for middle.3 to be able to use that road. Um, you know, it looks like based on the traffic study, 60% of the trips according to the traffic study were outside the neighborhood. Um, it looks like this
data that's up on the screen right was up on the screen right now. [laughter] Can you go back to that? >> I guess he I guess you said your time was up. >> Yeah, I guess so. Um, so that looks like that tracks with 60%. So it looks like, you know, the
national average versus the actual data is approximately a 60% difference there ter terms of total daily trips, the, you know, trips per home per day. So it looks like to me, you know, the biggest issue is the outside traffic utilizing
the the the neighborhood. And so I think there needs to be more exploration of if we're going to install a gate trying to figure out a way to at least allow the people within the middle point two and three to be able to utilize both directions of Rinrest to both ends. Um
you know I live in a gated neighborhood myself that could be cut through. Um and uh you know we uh there's there's a lot of traffic that's probably safe by having it being gated um in that section that you know from outside traffic that
would be cutting through the neighborhood. And I'm appreciative of that, but I'm also appreciative of the fact that everybody within that gated section can use the entire length of the road and not be cut off from one side of the neighborhood or the other. Um, and so that's I guess that's my biggest issue with it is is is
that you know especially an established road network that's been used for 25 years. [clears throat] So my thoughts on it are basically Patrick um you know typically I would come down the side of not blocking the road. I don't think that's ever very rarely
would that be a good idea in my mind. However, you know, I I can see that they've made some efforts to get this problem solved. And the fact that they have a private road has it put them in a position they can't get any help from the sheriff's
department or or public services because it's a private road. So, what's their option? What what are their options left to do? the only option they really have is develop some kind of a traffic calming or something uh situation. And I
I mean I think maybe the only logical way because it seems to me that since the we've created a problem because we put schools there and it's created a lot more traffic and and I sympathize with the fact that you
know people racing up and down the road because I'm on a road like that and uh you know we don't have a gate but we have our our roads aren't private so We can call upon the sheriff to come in and and help us out.
>> Got to be clear, Mr. Chair, the status of your roads are the same status as their roads. These are both CE roads. >> I know, but he they've already said the sheriff won't come because they're private roads. >> So that's what I'm >> But then that's an issue between them and the sheriff. I mean, the legal
status of their roads is not any different than the legal status of your roads. They're both CDD roads. Mhm. >> So I I I don't I understand that gentleman got up and called them private roads, but they're still CDD roads. So they're not they're not any different
legal status. I don't know what happened in their inner their agreement with the sheriff and why the sheriff won't patrol their roads, but the sheriff is patrolling the CD roads in our neighborhood. I'm not sure what happened with their neighborhood. So,
>> well, but but but the >> the sheriff, to my knowledge, still patrols CDD roads. I'm not sure what happened in that neighborhood. It seems to me the uh public road >> a good solution would be to come up with a >> a gate if you want to say a gate but a
gate that has mutual access where the cars that actually are residents there can have a sticker on their car and that's what opens the gate and they don't have to push a button or have a code but it would make people from the
outside drive around and uh >> you mean logist.3 three. >> Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking two and three >> talking about that they have mutual access point two and three and I think that would be the most reasonable
solution to the problem because the problems are derived really from the fact that they have so many outside cars coming through there and uh and I think a lot of it's because of the schools that are there. So, Richard, you may
want to comment on that. >> Yeah, I'm going to comment on Yeah. >> Can Can I just ask a question though for clarification on this this thing that's on the the 253 homes that's in me point two? Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're going to say 60% of the trips. I mean, that might be from me 3
going through there. I How does this table up here tell me? I'm missing the point how this tells me that 60% of the people are outside of Meadow point 2 and Me.3. You probably need to call up whoever prepared this table. I don't know who that was. >> Sorry. >> And I was referring to that other the
traffic study the ROAR traffic study but so I don't but I don't know if that delineated between >> would you like to come up and try to >> if somebody can come up and just clarify that because >> repeat who you are please >> Lindseay Mosinski with Kolinsky Van Wik. So it is my understanding commission
that the 253 homes are how many homes are located on Renest Drive. So that would be Malpoint 2 and three. Uh but there are um as stated before over 400 homes that are in Meadow 3 and there's even more that are in Meto 2 in this
area. But uh this study right here with this chart was done for how much traffic is actually on the Renest Drive portion of the communities and there's >> I just want to clarify because I know there was a statement that 60% of the trips of the people using Renest Drive are from outside of Me 2 and Meto.3,
>> right? >> Which I don't think is correct. you haven't provided anything with me that says that that's correct. >> Um so the traffic study is part of our materials for the whole um appeal submission package. Um and so it's my understanding that the ROR's traffic
engineering who did the study uh compared the levels for this type of street with this many homes and what the average rate of travel there is for vehicles and compared it to Renest [clears throat] Drive. And that's where that number is coming from. And so that's why it's 60% more because if you
went into the average neighborhood where you have 253 homes on a street, >> you're not going to have as much traffic as we have. >> Again, your slide your slide up there says that Meadow point 2 consists of approximately 253 single family homes. Does it say Me 2 and Meto.3?
>> Yeah. And I do understand it's a sum the summary. Yes. It's my understanding that the study that's within our package is for 253 on Renest Drive and Redest Strictly. >> Okay. >> And I apologize if it's slightly confusing on that slide.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Gracie, do you have anything? I mean, I'm not opposed to the to the gate, but I still don't think it it solves the issue of speeding necessarily through that area because, you know, without some other use of
tables or or speed bumps or whatever. I mean, I still don't understand why that can't be done in areas between neighbor, you know, between yards and the like in some of these houses, but >> I I don't know that that necessarily >> limit >> Yes.
solves the problem of of this feeding through that through that area. I mean, I do see a couple stop signs in there at a couple of three ways or four ways, but um I'm not opposed to the gate, but I I still don't know that it completely solves the the issue of the speeding in
there. So, if I could just offer a suggestion, if you're going to continue the matter anyway to so they can submit an alternative standard application, you could ask that our traffic ops department take a look at the roadway and see.
I mean, because you're only going about with their opinion as to what can be done on this road. I don't know that our Patrick is our traffic ops department taking a look at this roadway to see what traffic call mean >> is or is not possible on this road.
>> They were part of well there is history I'm I'm sure I do not know. Um I think traffic operations has been around this project for a while. They obviously were part of the review for the gate itself but in terms of looking at the full segment of Renest I don't know for sure.
I think they were involved in previous conversations as was I think the fire >> they looked at like are there places where speed tables could be put in or stop sign like have they looked at it from the types of questions the planning commission is asking right now have they looked at it for that purpose >> um I'm not sure if they have or not but
I think that would be the next logical assuming we are looking at traffic calming I'd be talking to traffic operations I'd be talking to the fire departments um our emergency services crews to see >> I guess my point is if you're going to continue it you could direct direct staff to to further investigate that
issue. >> Yeah, because it seems like speeding is maybe the biggest issue. And you know, that's you know, we got to look at the best way to handle it for both two and three. >> Well, can we put up a can we pull up the
aerial photograph of the neighborhood that shows both Renest and Beards Lake? you draw that down in that. >> Yeah, I was going to say so as far as the school's concerned, this was part of the wiregrass development and it's been I don't know the exact date, but I do
know that Mansfield wasn't even built when we purchased these schools. So, I think it's been common knowledge that there was always going to be schools there. The other issue that I've heard brought up was school safety. We have a traffic safety committee that's with the county and the school district and they address issues as they come up and to
our knowledge this has not been a safety issue. So just for the record, we don't >> this intersection or >> this just it addresses any kind of unsafe conditions that students would be involved in and they they meet with the county regularly monthly
and this I checked with my colleague and this is this area is not something that's brought up as a safety issue. >> Richard, I do have one more question for you. >> Yeah. Um, do bus driver so if a gate has I know that emergency vehicles have the ability
to basically get through almost any gate. I mean we the county requires that emergency vehicles can get through just about any gate. Do school bus drivers have that same ability or no? >> I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I could try to find out.
>> Could you figure that out? Because I'm just trying to figure out if this gate was installed whether a school bus could get through or not. Yeah, >> normally emergency vehicles access it through a a squelch button or like a SOS on the siren, >> right? I'm guessing that they don't, but
I that the school bus would be blocked, but I'm that I'm trying to >> I'm just trying to figure out whether I mean because even if they I guess to >> I would think not either, but I'll check. I guess to the even if you do figure out a way that me three residents
can do it. I guess the question is >> would the school bus be able to get through? >> Yeah. >> Do you do I'm going to just call this gentleman back up for a minute. Evidently has something important he wants to say. >> Thank you, sir. No, I have the answer to that question. Um uh we did reach out as
part of the um the pre-permit process. We met with um emergency services. Your name again, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Uh, Robert Signaretti, uh, 30716 Nickerson Loop, Wesley Chapel, Florida. Um, we did meet with, um, emergency services to see if they were okay with with the, um, with
the plan and as as well with the school board and the school safety officer, as that gentleman um, had uh, referred to. Um, what they told us is the only bus that technically would come down there is it with somebody with an ADA accommodation, but because it's within
it's outside of 2 miles as the crow flies, they don't have a bus need to go down that road. Um, we did say though that if that if that was a showstopper, we would be okay giving them some sort of clicker or something to open the gate as well. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. But there could be kids that are outside of the two mile radius that might go >> and they're driving cars through there. >> Yeah. >> Can we zoom this map out a little bit so that it shows both Renest and Beard because there's this there's a principal
difference between these two streets. And I actually feel bad in some ways for Patrick because I hear this. It gets a pushpull when we come in here with MPUDs. And I've said this before and I'll say it
again today and I'm going to point out the difference. Renest Drive has a whole bunch of cars, a whole bunch of houses whose driveways back up. They have to back out of their driveway and back into the street on
Renest Drive. Now zoom to beard sleep down on Beardsley. There are no houses with driveways to Beardsley. It is a This is what we mean by
continuation of the street pattern. I've said this before in here, especially pertaining to MPUDs. We don't use this section of the code, continuation of existing street pattern, to take somebody's residential street and turn
it into a cutthrough. We've destroyed countless streets in this county with that section of the code. Fox Hollow Drive, Jasmine, Regency Park Boulevard. >> Yeah, >> I'm sorry because these are on my side
of the county, the west side of the county. We've destroyed people's lives and we've turned these neighborhoods in they're decaying because they're miserable places to live. Nobody wants to raise children where they can't play
in the yard because they risk getting run over by a car. This This section of the code needs to be clarified and we need to apply the policy where we allow people the right to
peacefully enjoy their property and we use roads like Beardsley to connect neighborhood to neighborhood, not somebody's residential street. And I don't think Patrick's done anything wrong. I think he hears it from me in here. He hears a different opinion
from the chairman of the county commission. But I'll say this, the code says that you'll use this section of the code to connect streets for proper traffic circulation. I don't find this to be proper traffic circulation. If they have
to have air ambulances airlift people out of their residential street, then clearly there's a problem with the traffic circulation. That's not proper. So, I'm not sure that this section of the code has been properly
implemented. That being said, I don't blame Mr. [clears throat] Dutter because he's getting differing he's getting pulled in different directions by different factions. And I think this is something that should be
workshopped and there should be an amendment to the land development code to clarify what we mean by continuation of the existing street pattern. But this one just goes to all the arguments I've been making in all the
previous MPUDs as to why we don't want to do that. So I just don't find that this is proper circulation. I'm not sure the gate I'm with Chris. I'm not sure the gate is the best answer and maybe a speed table or a speed bump is a better answer.
Um, so I'd probably be in favor of a continuence to allow the applicant to one seek the alternative standard. And Patrick, I hope you'll consider what I said when if if and when they do that.
And I also hope that I also hope that all the parties me 2, Meadow 3, and our county review staff all sit down in a room and figure out
how they're going to make this workable because I don't want to hear any more stories about people having to be airlifted out. That's just think about that. That could be your kid. Mhm. >> It's a residential street and we're
going to sacrifice lives and peaceful enjoyment of property for some what I'll call poorly conceived and poorly written section of the land development code. But I don't blame Patrick. He's charged to enforce the
land development code and he didn't write this section. And I know that I I've heard the board try to demand connections through residential streets, but I hope they'll reconsider that. And look at streets like Beardsley. Look at streets like Starky Boulevard
that connects one neighborhood to a neighborhood. Dubilis connects neighborhood to neighborhood, but nobody has a direct driveway to Dubilis. Nobody has a direct driveway to Starky Boulevard. Nobody has a direct driveway to River Crossing Boulevard, but it
connects neighborhoods to neighborhoods. That's the way that this section of the code needs to be enforced. >> With that, I'd move to continue the case. >> How much how much time would we if we were to continue it? What would be? So
Patrick, how well number one they need to file an AL standard application and then Patrick would need time to I guess react to it. >> Sure. >> And then you need time for traffic ops to
>> so take a look. >> Well, data uncertain requires them to renotice it. I don't know how how difficult that is. I I Patrick, in your opinion, how much time would that take?
>> So, I I'm not sure how I I'm assuming they might have their package together. I don't know if they're going to be adding any additional information to their package, so I can't answer how long >> they're minimum need to analyze the old standard criteria. >> Sure. So, >> they sort of almost did that today. So, I don't can't imagine that would take
them very much time. >> Two months to be safe on the staff side of things. I mean, realistically, and we know this is obviously a priority. We're going to look at it as soon as we get it. Um, but just building in some extra time to work with whoever who knows who else we need to work with, I think two
months is safe. >> Would the applicant be okay with that? >> Lindsay Mazinsky with Kolinsky Van Wik. Yes, we would be okay with that. >> Yeah, I think I I hope you see that it's obvious. We're trying to get you some
help and uh I think everybody here is concerned about the safety issue. So, um but let's get to something that we can really sink our teeth into and that we know we're actually making [clears throat] an improvement there. We're not just going to shoot from the head. >> Well, hopefully if it all standards
>> Well, I mean, I guess it is >> then they'll have to It does raise an interesting issue which is In theory, if they filed an all-standard application, there's a theoretical world where Patrick approves it. So,
it in theory would moot the appeal. >> Correct. >> As long as it solves their problem, you know. >> So, I guess that the the continuence would be for 60 days unless
Patrick approves the appeal and it's approves the old standard and it's that it renders the appeal move. >> So moved. >> Okay. Second. >> Have a motion and a second. >> Are you moving that approve? >> Chair, just to be clear, [laughter] um you're going to
>> I'm recommending that >> to the 18 planning commission in Dade City. >> I'm sorry. What is that? >> Uh just to be clear, you're going to continue it to the 18 planning commission in Dade City. >> Yeah, that's more convenient for these people. Yes.
Well, if if Patrick needs 60 days, do they need time to put together their application for the >> That's why we asked the >> next one would be 25 city
again just just to and I don't think affect anything alt standards require noticing 30-day noticing requirement. I think that'll be baked into the 60 days, right? As soon as they submit their application, they can do their noticing. Oh, >> well then, well, quick question.
>> There's another requirement, then we can do. >> I said before I made said motion, I didn't really like the idea of a gate. I hope they'll figure out if they can evaluate whether speed tables or speed bumps or some other type of traffic
calming device is applicable in this situation. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the gate is the answer, but you're going to need some time to get with your traffic ops people and whatnot to get them involved in the conversation. I assume
>> yeah, I think the February dates. >> Yeah. >> You know how long that might take. I'm just want to make sure that there's I don't want to force this back here in too short a time, but I don't want to drag it out either. I think Mr. Gray is right. These people deserve some certainty about their street.
>> Yeah. Yeah, like I said, as soon as the application is submitted, we know it's a priority. Um, I'll probably have a conversation with them after this meeting before the application is submitted to just give them the background. So, I I don't expect a staff response to be longer than 60 days. Then
also, we have the getting it on the hearing uh agenda and getting it through civic clerk process too. Um >> so for that 12ish >> assuming we say 60 but then for some
reason we need additional 30 that doesn't require renoticing right it's just another continuance >> I think if it's less than 60 days you don't need to get continuence I mean I mean >> is the applicant opposed to just continue to the February meeting >> because we've got the holidays and
everything else. I think there's just too much time. >> Lindsay Mosinski with Klinsky Van W. Um based on my interpretation with the timing, uh since the alternative standard request would need to be noticed for 30 days, it might make sense if the county has the time to do that in
60 days at a hearing and then the continuence of this appeal would be maybe the 30 days after that. Just what I'm proposing if that makes sense. In which case, if something's agreed upon and this appeal could be withdrawn
before we hit the >> all standard is issued. >> Correct. >> He said that this >> the only thing I would ask is that we make part of the motion that if for some reason the all standard is denied that you just let them amend the existing appeal to include the all standard denial so they don't have to file a new appeal.
>> So move well. >> Point of order. I think you need to withdraw your original motion. >> Withdraw my Okay. make it as part of the original motion. >> I make that part of my original motion. There you go. >> Okay. And you second that. >> You got that at the clerk? Yes, I still
got that [laughter] clerk's office. >> Okay. >> I just want to reiterate, I mean, please try to work with traffic cops. I know Patrick, you'll try to do everything you can. I mean, because I I I don't think that putting a gate in the middle is going to solve all your problems. I mean, >> I don't think the people that live on
the east side of Meadow Point2 aren't going to speed getting to the gate going out to the west end. Um, so I mean, yeah, you keep the people that cut through traffic out and and maybe people going through me.3, but >> just to I'm sorry, just to follow up,
the school buses are non-emergency vehicles that don't have access to those devices. >> And David, I am not voting on this, correct? Or am I? >> Well, actually, you do because it involves access to a school. >> Okay. Thank you.
Okay, >> I'm glad I stayed. >> So, we have a motion. We have a second. [laughter] Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed, like sign. >> Okay, motion carries.
Okay, here we have a solution for you. >> Motion to second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> a motion to change the clocks back to daylight savings. [laughter] >> [music]
>> carries these pollutants directly into our environment. Storm discharges are illegal. If you suspect an illicit discharge, please contact Pasco County Department of Public Works at 7278-34-3611.
>> [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Heat.
[music] [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. >> [music] [music]