Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. He's working. He's working the audience. We learned a lot about chickens a bunch today. Oh, you did? He he raises chickens. Oh, okay.
I think the backyard chicken or his already coming? Yeah. I think it's coming back. Okay. He lives out in the country, so he can have a hen. Yes. I mean, he not a rooster.
Mr. David, how are you? Good. I was telling we got leaps on chickens at lunch today. Are you following the city of Okoi? Yes, I am. Did you get a copy? I have a See if I
could get the DOA petition. I We have the Do you do? Yeah, dude. Oh, awesome. I would love to see that. They're making some pretty good arguments. I Well, that's what I was curious if you're following it. I thought that they made some interesting arguments too and
one of them is kind of similar to ours in that they said you can opt out of yeah I thought would have carried the problem but department of commerce said it doesn't so that's what I'm interested to read this what's the argument
I don't know what department of commerce I've only seen the city but I'll forward you the I've only I've only got my information from reading it It's I think is making some very good arguments. They're not the constitutional arguments that I was
discussing with you, but they make some very good arguments about Department of Commerce's authority to be doing this. It was actually a question I was going to ask cuz I saw that. Would the Department of Commerce have
scanned to send them a 14-day notice and then file a suit? I don't think they do because they're not a person or a business. That's one of AO's arguments is that if it says anybody can enforce
the law, it's got to be he probably thought it was going to be some person or business, not exactly. I think the reason that the city's annoyed and probably other jurising the law without any clear authority to do so.
Yeah. I curious about their arguments. No, I think they make some good arguments and they're effectively engaging in rule making without doing rule making like they're just declaring things to be more restrictive or burdensome.
I mean, for example, I would argue that if your comp plan is not self-implementing and it says you're going to regulate some future LTC amendment or that's the part that would be more restrictive, it's a future LTC amendment.
Department of Commerce has taken the position that even if the comp plan authorizes you to do some land, but that's more of a number right now. So, Department of Commerce taking the position that even if you're
policy is less restrictive over that doesn't offset something that's more restrictive. So, like say your comp plan allows more density, but it says you only get that more density if they're saying, well, those three conditions are more restrictive, so you
can't do it. Even though it's a lot more dense. Well, that was always wondered like for instance, what would happen if we said you must say 25% of the tree canopy, but
we're not going to have tree fees. Department of Commerce's position is that's still more restrictive. But argument is you're you're effectively engaging in rule making. You're you're interpreting the law.
Yeah, you're ready to come which requires you to engage in rule making to do that. Didn't know if I was waiting on your original and they're not doing I'll be interested to follow the meeting. So yes, I I think they make some very
good arguments. Anious to see how Okay, I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. If we could stand for a moment of silence and the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic Republic for
which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And Clark, we have the roll call, please. James here. Christopher here. John
here. Matthews, Derek here, Chris Williams here, chairman Charles here, and could we have the proof of publication? The items are advertised times on June
25th, 2025, July 23rd, 2025, August 20th, 2025, September 3rd, 2025, and September 17th, 2025, or by the certified mailing. All right. Thank you very much.
We have no minutes to approve. So, I'd like to welcome everybody today that's here today. We're the planning commission. We're appointed by the board of county m county commissioners. We meet twice monthly. We serve as a local planning agency. We hold public hearings and transmit to the board of
county commissioners. Our recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments, land development code amendments, resilience, and conditional use amendments. The uh planning commission is the final decision making body for special exceptions, variance requests, and
certain alternative standard requests. However, if you have a concern about any of the decisions that are made today, uh you may be you may appeal them to the board of county commissioners. Anyone is in opposition to any land development code amendment, resoning, conditional
use, or any item where the planning commission makes a recommendation to the plan to the board of county commissioners, it would be important for you to attend the appropriate board meeting. For those of you who aren't familiar with the format of the meeting, um we
have three sections: continuences, consent items, and regular items. We'll go through each of those sections uh at a time. Starting with continuences, it's been our custom to if there are continuences requested by the applicant
or staff to approve those uh requests unless they're extenduating circumstances. Consent items. Um uh we have uh consent items that come on the um agenda that where we have not received any
objections from the public or questions from other people. And if they're on a consent, we'll go through them one at a time. If you hear a consent item that you want to have discussed today, raise your hand when we bring it up and we'll pull it from consent so it can be discussed and put onto the regular
items. Those are the items that we will uh vet today. And uh we'll the applicants will come up and make a presentation and anybody here that wants to speak on those items can come up and and speak. Applicants will have five
minutes to make their presentation. Questioners will have three minutes to uh give us their concerns and then the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and and respond to those concerns. uh there if there's been any requests at
least 24 hours prior to this meeting in writing for additional time uh that's when we can offer additional time if needed. Do we have any anybody made such a request? We do not have any requests, Mr. Chair.
Okay. All right. So, uh, for everyone that's here, this is a good time. If you have a phone with you or something that makes noise, please put it in the silent position so we don't interrupt anybody when they're speaking.
And if uh you plan to give testimony or come up and speak today, if you will stand and raise your right hand and be sworn, this is the time for that. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth? So, I'll help you God.
All right. Thank you very much. So, before we start the meeting, we're on open the meeting for public comment on anything is not on today's agenda. Is there anyone here for public comment? I would just like to note for the record, we do not have anybody signed up
for public comment or for WebEx. Okay. Thank you, Brianna. All right then. And I think we can begin. We uh think we're ready to go. All right. Good afternoon, planning commission members. Giana German, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. The first item that we have in
continuence is item PC1. It's PDE26-7666. A zoning amendment in the name of Murphy Road MPUD master plan unit development in the name of Oakley Pasco County Property Trust for a change in zoning from RMH mobile home district and AR
agricultural residential district to an MPU master plan unit development to allow for the development of 672 single family detached units and platted town homes and associated infrastructure on approximately 118.82 82 acres located
in southeastern Pasco County. And this is coming with the request to continue the item to November 6th, 2025 planning commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City. All right. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to object?
All right. Go ahead and continue. Item PC2, you will be sitting as the local planning agency for. It's PDE26-0031, a comprehensive plan amendment CPASS2419 in the name of Lantern Road MRS providing for a smallcale comprehensive
plan amendment change to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 8 changing AR agricultural residential to res 1 residential one dwelling unit per gross acre on approximately 19.69 69 acres of real property located at the north side
of Bllandon Road, approximately 2,150 ft east of the intersection of Blandon Road in Trialby Road. And this is also coming with the request that the local planning agency continue the item to the November 6, 2025 planning commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.
All right, the applicant present. Anyone here to object? Okay. For this next one, I would like to note for the record that the appealance public notice affidavit was sent to the clerk's office. Uh item PC3. It is
PTE26-0455, an appeal of a determination by the development review director in the name of appeal-2025-00005 for Meadow.2 Community Development District, CDD. And this is coming with a request to continue the item to the November 6, 2025 planning commission
meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City. All right. Is the present? Anyone here to object? I'm here. Okay, great. Um, there's no one here to object. So, uh, you you you don't have to come up.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Um, let's see. There's one more, right? Yes, sir. Uh, item PC4 is the last item on continuence, and you will be sitting
as the local planning agency for this one as well. Uh, item PC4 is PTE26-00002, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the land development code amendment. Section 522.9
connected city master plan unit development district. Section 901 infrastructure standards. Section 901.1 transportation corridor spacing, bicycle facilities, and section 901.8 pedestrian facilities and appendix A definitions.
This is coming with a request that the local planning agency continue the item to the October 16th, 2025 planning commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Newport Richie. All right. Does anybody here have any questions about this?
See no one. All right. I think that's the that's the extent of the continuences. Um, do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to continue PC1, 2, and three to November 6th in Date City and PC 4 to October 16th in Newport
Richie. All right. You have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all signify by saying I. I I a sign for a negative. Motion carries.
The first item that we have on the consent agenda is item PC5 and you'll be sitting as the local planning agency for this one. This one also has a companion reasonzoning item PC6. Item PC5 is PTE26-0311, a comprehensive plan amendment CPA2509
in the name of double branch amending map 2-15 and sheet 14 changing AG agricultural to EC employment center on approximately 49.58 acres of real property located at the west side of Mckendry Road approximately
3,560 ft south of Tindle Road and Mckendry road intersection. Um, this one we now have individuals signed up for comment as well as for item PC6. Uh, PTE asked that we pull this item. You pull PC5.
Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So, that'll Mr. Chair, if you're going to pull PC5, you probably should pull PC6. PC5 and PC6 are companion items. PC6 is the companion MPUD. Okay. So, the applicants present.
Okay. Anybody here to object on that? just for my future knowledge. Okay. Thank you. You want to speak on that? All right. Um, so those are going to the regular items. So, um, PC7, I guess we're on to.
Well, Mr. Chair, PC7's also a regular item. So, you could take up PC5 and PC. You could just go to your regular agenda. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh, the individual that we have signed up to speak does not wish to object. They just wish to make comments. Would
you still like the presentations and these items be pulled for PC5 and PC6? If yes. Okay. Yeah. Good afternoon. Brian Younger with planning development economic growth department. Apologize.
There we go. Okay. Good afternoon to you. Today I'm presenting PTE 2600017 Cass 25004 double branch. The proposal today is a comprehensive plan amending the flu from AG
agricultural to EC employment center. The purpose of the project is to increase the employment generating land within the area and align 374 acres of the proposed flu with the existing double branch MPU zoning district.
The project is located on the west side of Mckindi Road, approximately 3,560 ft south of the intersection of Tindle Road and Mckindry Road. There is an accompanying reszoning petition number 7881 double branch MPU
substantial modification. The project is located on the South Market area within the urban service area. Here is a context map to show where the property is located. The property is it
says subject site in red. Here is the aerial view of the subject site. Here is the map of the transportation network map showing the roads around the proposed project. Here
is the existing future land use currently AG agricultural and the proposed future land use is EC employment center. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan
policies and today comes to you with our recommendation. We recommend the local planning agency to find the proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan. I'm here if you have any question for me. All right. Thank you. Any questions?
I do have one question. Yeah, I have no objection to the plan amendment, but I guess it's relates to your in your planning discussion. You have some comments about trails and transit
and the way those are worded, it sort of makes it look like there really aren't many trails and that there are no no transit, but then the companion zoning has a plan attached to it that shows transit stops
and shows trails. Is there a reason you're not recognizing what the zoning requires them to do? Well, regarding the uh transit stops, um the closest one I think was to the south, not too close to the project. That's why we're not showing it um on
the project. Um the trails, yes, um is going to be discussed further on the MPUD, but there is a recreational trail that is provided along the northern border of the wetland connecting with the double branch parkway. I get that you're saying what ex
existing but this is a planning discussion about these facilities. I just would think that you would recognize the fac the trails and transit stops that the applicant is actually committing to provide through the MPD approval. I it just to
me it seems misleading to say no bus stops when the applicant is committing to provide bus stops. Understood. Shouldn't you at least recognize that is my question? Agreed. Yes. And if the board wish we
can uh make the amendment for um the next okay hearing. So is there anything you want to amend besides my stops David? Well you wanted to comport with I guess my my concern is that planning
staff went Mr. Vermillion spent a lot of time negotiating a plan with the applicant that provides for trails and the parks department did a sign amount of sign significant amount of effort negotiating plan that provides for trails and transit. I just think that should be recognized
somewhere in the agenda memo. Yeah. Uh Amy Tol planning and development we can make that adjustment. The the agenda memo is just currently identifying the facts on the ground, but we can also add the future uh obligations at the developer to align with what's in the
MPU. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. All right. Thank you.
Move to recommend approval of item PC5. One second. Do we have any You need to see if there's public comment and let the applicant make a presentation first. I don't know about the presentation part. Barbara Willilhight, 8627 Grand Boulevard, Newport Richie. I joined for
the applicant. I joined this wonderful team because Joel doesn't like us anymore. And so here I am um the face of the land use attorney for this wonderful project. So, we're not going to make a presentation. Staff has made the presentation. The team, the wonderful team here is available for questions.
Um, we'd like to let the neighbor uh make her comments if that's okay. Okay. So, listen to the com as there some is other than just one person. There's only one individual signed up. Okay. Would you like to come forward? State your name and your address and
then feel free to comment. Sure. So, we can get it on the record, please. Thank you. Um, I'm Dr. Judy Horvath. I have the property at 9249 Mckindry Road which is adjacent to the miller's property and I spoke to a couple of these wonderful individuals here and then also
previously on the phone and I don't object to the process and to the variance and to the zoning that they're requesting. What I'm my concern is since we have an ecoin sanctuary on the property that's adjacent that we have an adequate barrier or trails I
heard the term trails coming up something where um we don't have an impact to the a portion that we currently have which is why we bought this property 15 plus years ago. So that's my concern to make sure that those um planning directions directives
that have been brought into play for an adequate buffer for agg where we have horses which need peace and quiet and we have community individuals coming with special needs that come to see horses to feel better as a therapeutic type of process. So my concern is just to
emphasize that we want to ensure that those buffers are in place and they're part of the planning process when they're moving forward with the project. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from anybody? Okay.
Now I'll move to recommend approval of item two. Barbara to respond to that. Barbara, do you want to respond to that, please? Yeah. Or staff, anybody that wants to respond. Go ahead. Are you still legal? Definitely not. Not not legal. Not
practicing law. A mere development consultant. Um Joel 2, uh Palm Marber, Florida business consultant for the applicant. Uh I'll reiterate what I heard Mr. Wolf uh tell the neighbor. So I'm speaking for him. Um, as he
explained, uh, we were obligated from the beginning when we did the original development agreement with the county. The county actually required us to process this EC land use amendment for this additional land. So, we're we're complying with an original obligation
that we promised the county for the employment center. That's number one. Number two is based upon the current planning and engineering, Mr. Wolf explained that it is like a 98% probability that that southernmost parcel adjacent to the neighbor will
actually be a large storm water drainage area and won't have a use at all. And as explained, if something happens through the engineering that that changes because there's also very either no access without going through a wetland
or difficult access that if for some reason that plan changes then through the site plan process, they of course will reach out and engage with her and work out appropriate buffering uh for the use. But the odds are very minimal
that that southernmost part will be anything other than master storm water drainage to handle the part north of that that is more developable. So that's that's the factual situation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Any questions? Now, given that we don't consider buffers in a comprehensive plan amendment, that might be more appropriate in reszoning, I'll still recommend re make a motion to recommend approval of item PC5. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. Oppos like sign. Okay. Motion carries. Good afternoon. William Permillion, Planning, Development, Economic Growth. This is the companion item PD 267881.
This is a substantial modification to the Pasco Town Center MPD. Part of this substantial modification is changing the name from Pasco Town Center to double branch. So from hints forth in the presentation when I say double branch I mean Pasco Town Center and vice
versa. Okay. Here's the location map just south of State Road 52 975 corridor in the exchange. This substantial modificate substantial modification like Joel mentioned
previously was mandated by the third economic development agreement amended approved by the board December of 2024. This specifically increases the industrial entitlements by 2 million square ft to a total of 6 million square feet and increases the office
entitlements from 725,000 to 1.725 million ft of office as well as changes the name. Here's the location map showing just on the south side of State Road 52. It is
within the connected city special district boundary, although not opted in. The current zoning reflecting MPD and the future land use of employment center. So for the context map
here, I put on the vision road layer for the connected city boundaries because in the GIS department, they had the layer set as connected city as one MPD. So the whole area is just green, which isn't true. However, on this map, you can see
several vision roads and in the vicinity of this project, you have the Abbey Crossing MPD, Marada, Kinton, Arley, Remington, and then Nest Hockey to the south. Here's the MPD master plan, which shows the vision road network within the MPD
plan from north to south, which are obligations of the third economic development agreement. This is the connectivity plan that Mr. Goldstein spoke about. Um, you can see here the the several trail segments that
both run along the master roadway plan as well as meander outside of the rideway boundaries with some starring to indicate neighborhood parks and community hubs that are obligated through this MPD substantial modification. Could you also point out the bus stops since we discussed that?
Yes. So there are also transit stops located with this within this MPD which were a part of the original approval of Pasco Town Center that there were to be transit stops here to facilitate between the residential and the employment generating that's going on within this
master plan unit development. There is one variation that is related to the connectivity plan from 9051 which um parks, wreck and natural resources was kind enough to help out with and facilitate uh in their
recommendation of approval in this variation request. This is specifically from the minimum size, minimum dimensions and open play areas within the mixeduse development. The specific requirements of this are found within conditions 12 and condition five.
The the justification overall being without reading you the three paragraphs of justification that are in the agenda memo is that special consideration needed to be taken for overall park space due to the mixeduse development and the residential typology that's
found within the MPD as well as being supported by the overall connectivity plan to get people from north south east to west employment to residential to support commercial. Okay. This comes with a recommendation of approval to the board of county
commissioners from staff. I'm here if you have any questions. All right. Any questions for Will? I thought of one question. I'm not sure it's for you or just kind of a side question. I drive through that intersection of I75 and 52 almost every day. Is is
what's the long-term? I mean, is there any plans by DOT to try to, you know, that that southbound I75 on-ramp is gets pretty backed up in the morning? Sure. I was just curious what the long term is for that intersection. Thank you.
That's a great question. So, right now, the DOT has approved the project. The Flying J trip circulation is being adjusted, so we're going to mitigate those conflicting tractor trailer turning movements across the highway. And also DOT, I met with DOT two weeks
ago. The the ramping to get on and off of I75 is going to be um is engineered and they're going to implement a capital project there shortly. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Isn't there also a planned parallel road to the north
of this that is supposed to help Oh, that's a good point, too. It's on a DOT initiative, but with I75 Gateway, the Hines family, uh they just broke broke ground yesterday. They're going to build what's called the Aussie Murphy extension underneath I75 and connect
Pasco Road where the target facility is. So that'll provide a vehicular bypass to the congestion down on 75 and 52. Nice. When did um so they broke ground any they it's probably going to take about three years or four years, but um
they're they're they're in with DOT now getting approvals. Is the u the cross county trail going to go un through that underpass as well? It is. It is. And uh the alignment between 52 and getting up to that
crossing is already um you know embedded in the I75 gateway plan and that's part of the crosssection going underneath I75. Okay. Two travel lanes for vehicles and the orange belt trail. Super. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Anything else? I don't have anything to add for the applicant. Not a thing. Okay. Did you ask public comment again or does she want to speak again or no?
I think she's you done. Okay. All right. Well, can I ask her a question? If you ask her to come up. Yeah, she's got to come up to the podium so we can catch her on the record if you want to. Yes. I was curious about the type of buffer
you thought might be appropriate for your facilities. Um, I'm thinking that natural buffer is always better. So, trees, you know, obviously are more appealing. They absorb sound sometimes better than having like just a brick wall or something. But something that would be
appealing and also just, you know, I want to say a wall or a fence if if that the trees aren't in the budget, they don't grow quickly enough, then probably a walls or a fence. So, I think whatever would be the most appropriate that we could put up quickly because trees could take a while to
grow. So, all right. Thank you. Thank you. And then to staff, is there a buffer that's required? So, odd, oddly enough, the the parcel that this lady owns when we talk about
the future land use amendment actually isn't a part of the MPD and it will retain its current zoning. So, the buffering requirements that exist today would still exist then until they came in for reszoning. Right. So the MPD boundary actually stops to the north of the property, the
Miller property which she's talking about. The MPD boundary is actually the northern boundary of the Miller property which is what this imud is obligated to buffer for. Yeah. Put that on the map so I can Sure. So I noticed at least on this
preliminary site plan that there was multif family slated to border that property but you know I know this is early stages and I know Mr. Tu mentioned it's likely that's going to be retention areas but right at least on this plan does show multif
family bordering. So well right so that the property Mr. two was mentioning would be to the south of that what's indicated as multif family on the MPD plan for the retention area. It's just actually not a part of the MPD boundary.
Okay, I got you. Yeah, Joel too again to clarify that because the current plan as I said is likely storm water drainage, it's not even necessary to reszone that EC parcel that part yet because if it's just storm
water drainage, you can do off-site storm water drainage. So, back to my prior point is if for some reason that changes, they would actually have to come back through a zoning modification to add the parcel. So that you'll have a bite at that apple, uh, so to speak, if
there was actually a use proposed for the parcel adjacent to her. Otherwise, it'll just stay in its natural state or simply be storm water retention and and no use really to buffer. It is a little confusing because it's in the plan amendment, the parcel is, but that
parcel is not in the MPD model. Y got right. Thank you. Okay. Was that it for comment? All right. Move to recommend approval of item PC6. I'll second. Have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed like sign. All right. Motion carries. and welcome today, Mr. Hernandez. Long time no see.
Hello. All right. So, um, this item, Denise Hernandez, uh, code compliance department. This is your last item on the agenda, I'm hoping, and it is CC260001. This is land development code amendment 80 which is um really this is a glitch
amendment to be honest with you. So these uh amendments were presented to the horizontal round table interested parties meeting on September 17th 2025 by my esteemed colleagues Elizabeth Bolair and Sam Bounty with the county attorney's office. I was on vacation so I wasn't able to be there. Um so first
uh we're going to start with the first section and these are truly glitches and as I'm here with code compliance it was because this is an item that came through our code compliance department and we found that there were some issues with the land development code that needed to be addressed. So the first section is we're making some
modifications to section 530.5 which is parking or storing of recreational vehicles. And this section uh just clarifies that parking or storing of recreational vehicles in the ride of way is prohibited in all zoning designations. Um let me show you the strike through underline section uh the
or the red line section which is your first attach your attachment one on your um packet. So basically the same language with some clarification because we now have um other things that occur in the ride of way such as multi-use trails and bicycle lanes and those type
of things. But as you can see this section used to reside under C which only applied to residentially zoned property that's less than 1 acre or ER. So now it applies countywide. So no recreational vehicle shall be parked or stored on the rideway. No portion of any
ri any RV shall extend over or interfere with the use of any sidewalk, multi-use trail, bicycle lane, and or rideway intended for vehicular traffic. So, we're just moving it from a subsection that only applies to to residential districts into the general broad range
and um updating it to include that, you know, we now have uh multi-use trails and and those other things that occur in the ride of way. So the next section that we're modifying is um very similar except that now we're
uh talking about commercial vehicles. So it's 530.16. Uh this is in supplemental regulations in 530 and this is parking and storage of commercial vehicles and commercial equipment in certain residential areas prohibited. So now we're now adding MPUD
master plan unit development district to the list of districts where commercial vehicle parking is prohibited. So going to the strike through underline section of that. Um so basically we're just clarifying that no commercial vehicles and no commercially related equipment shall be permitted to be parked or
stored in any areas of uninccorporated county including county-owned rideway. As you could and as you can see we're adding MPUD master plan unit development district. There is um just want to clarify that um the second piece that's kind of snipped there. uh always
clarified that except when such commercial vehicles and equipment are being utilized as part of a business lawfully operating in the said zoning districts. So as you know MPUDs uh do have residential and and commercial components. Um this these com this
comment that's coming in the next uh slide came from the horizontal round table because they wanted to make sure that this was not going to affect businesses. So, we added this underlying um red area that shows an E or the new E. Nothing in this section is intended
to prohibit the lawful use of commercially zoned property as approved in the applicable site plan or on designated commercial areas within the MPU. So, the horizontal round table felt that this um section was needed to this language was needed to clarify the
general intent. So, those are the changes that are being proposed with this. Again, it's a minor modification. We're asking that you find the proposed ordinance amendments consistent with the Pasco County comprehensive plan. And these are scheduled to go to the board of county
commissioners for first reading on the 21st of October at 1:30 in Newport Richie and uh for adoption on November 12th at 1:30 in Dade City. And that's all I have for you today. Any questions? Yeah, Denise, can you back up to the last?
Absolutely. Do you want to see 530.16? Did you Okay, sure. I was just a curiosity question. I'm in the 123 line down. It says R-2MH rural density mobile home
PUD planned unit development and then you add MPUD. Yes. Do we have a PUD plan? So they we did um and that's a that's an excellent question. So the PUD district was a district that was sunsetted on or around
2008, but there are still PUDs that exist out there that are still PUDs that have uh been have been platted, have gone through all the site plan review, etc. Um so that's why that section is still um included in there. I see. When we sunset it, we didn't take
away their existing PUD zone. Some substantive difference between the PUD. Yes. Very, very big difference. Um, so basically a PUB district, planned unit development district, is a district where you're approving the zoning and
the site plan at the same time. So the zoning and the site plan came in together and it was being approved by the back then DRC and BCC. Okay. And then back to the So you didn't have in PUDS, you didn't have bubble plans. You had the entire
site plan and even the plat and everything was all being done in one swoop. And then back to the RV parking, this is more a question for David. In an effort to avoid drawing a potential legal challenge,
is there a place in the code of ordinances that might be a safer place to add this prohibition of RV parking in the right of way? I'm not opposed to this.
I'm just saying this is in the land development code. So someone could make the SB80 claim whereas if it was in the code of ordinances just under parking then maybe you have some safe harbor.
I mean I do think it could have gone on the code of ordinances. Um, I mean, but it's also kind of a land development regulation as well because as a site plan comes in, we would if somebody showed RV parking in the rideway, we probably shouldn't be
approving it because it would violate this section of the code. So, but if you had a countywide ordinance that said you can't park your RV in right away, then wouldn't be the same thing. Yeah. I'm just saying that the people in development review aren't necessarily reviewing against the code of
ordinances. So they wouldn't necessarily What I'm getting is if you're in I may phrase it a different way. If there is a countywide prohibition of in the code of ordinances of parking an RV in the right
of way, then one then the county probably would not agree in a site plan approval or an MPUD approval to approve RV parking in a rightway if there's already a law against it. Right.
That's a Pat, this is a Patrick Dutter question because I I don't know whether when they're reviewing a site plan, the parking on a site plan, if they are looking at if they're only looking at what the land development code allows, if they're also
looking at what the code of ordinances allows. And if I may to clarify some of that, there is some prohibitions in the code of ordinances. However, code of ordinances, those prohibitions have to do with class of parking violations and
they all refer to passenger vehicles. This is for recreational vehicles. So, that's my that's not saying it couldn't go in there. It's just where it exists already. It it relates to um violations and it has to do with passenger vehicles, not with recreational. raises
a good point is I think they have to amend the co land development code anyway because otherwise it would be in conflict even if you added this prohibition in the code of ordinances you'd have a conflict between the two if you didn't amend the land development code right but then you would
just take all of this out of the land development code so that you don't have a conflict I mean if the I understand you're raising a Senate bill 180 issue but I'm if if the only issue was enforcement our code enforcement folks can enforce either want. They don't need doesn't
matter whether it's land development code or court or they can enforce. That's why I bring your point. I understand I understand you're trying to protect us from a Senate Bill 180 issue. Um but this is the least of our problems
under Senate Bill. I mean I I I'm if somebody tries to challenge us under Senate Bill 180, we're going to raise all the same defenses we would raise on any challenge under Senate Bill 180. So, a hurricane victim can park the RV in the right away if
if the was going on for a while. Yeah. I mean, it's for a limited window of time. Okay. Um but arguably, yes, if they were trying to rebuild after hurricane and they needed to temporarily park their RV in the rideway, they might
be able to invoke the that preeemption. The preeemption. Yes. But my argument would be that maybe they need to do that to have a place to park their RV while they're rebuilding and that maybe that is an appropriate use of
180. I mean, I would argue maybe if that is that if that's what they need to happen to get their property rebuilt. That's probably a legitimate use of Senate Bill 180. I think after her Helen and Milton we had this issue and the BCC
told the people you can't park your RVs in the right of you could park them on your front yard and you could park them and there was a state law that allowed them to park their RVs on the front yard while they go through the rebuilding effort but the board made it very clear that they couldn't park them in the rightway or block the rightway with
but what I'm saying is is that to the extent this is more stringent and to the extent this regulation would prevent somebody who's trying to rebuild after hurricane. I would argue they should be able to invoke the exception. If if I may also um as it's written
right now, all those prop for the most part, all those properties that were affected by hurricane mil um Helen and Hurricane Milton um they already cover they they would have already had to have that. So if you see C and this is sub six. I probably should have put 1 2 3 4
and five as well. But it does say on residentially zoned property. Residentially zoned property by definition in our land development code are those pieces of property that are zoned R1 R2 R2 MH R1 MH R3 R4 ER. Um so
they would no RV shall be parked or stored in the ride ofway. So that would have al always they were already prohibited. They're already prohibited. The only one that maybe wouldn't be is if they were in an MPU. That's correct. And and the code enforcement issue that I'm dealing with is related to an MPU.
So AR and larger than one acre would have been okay previously previously would have been okay. So that's the only people it would affect. Yes, that's that's accurate. And if any of them truly were damaged or hurricane and were trying to rebuild,
yes, they would be able to vote. Chances are if they have more than an acre, they was a question about is there a place so that we don't draw a challenge. I'm not opposed to this. Yeah, I I'm I don't think that's should be a
reason the only the reason just throw it into the code of ordinances. Additionally, I do have both Elizabeth Valer and Sam Bounty with the county attorney's office. They should be on if they have any comments about it uh regarding the the enforcement section,
particularly with Sam Bounty because he's we're dealing with this and in an enforcement capacity. Yeah, because I was wondering the logistics of it too because um you know it doesn't I I don't think there's anywhere in the land ordinances that deal with um vehicles like actual
transport personal conveyances. This is just RVs. That's correct. Yeah. This what the sections I was mentioning. You're right. They're passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicles are dealt with in the ordinances. Correct. As opposed to So, so that's why I was wondering, you know, kind of along his question line of questioning. What is the most logistical
place to keep, you know, in theory, we should have an ordinance on both the passenger vehicles and the RVs in one spot. So, would it make more sense for that to be in the land development code then on passenger vehicles? Well, um, let me tell you and and maybe
and and I don't want to overstep Sam Bounty, who's our county prosecutor. Um, code of ordinances typically, for the most part, the sheriff's office handles those cl those parking violations. Um, I'm not saying that the sheriff's office cannot handle land development code
violations, but typically they handle mo more code of ordinance and Florida statutes violations. Yeah. It's just weird. You know, if you park in the street in a passenger vehicle, department handles it. And if you have your boat parked in the street, then somebody else handles it. Well, in in actuality really, there is a
section in in 900 that does talk about parking the passenger vehicle and the ride ofway when you kind of like and I'm sure John probably remembers this part where you kind of go over the sidewalk. You know how you're parking your vehicle in your driveway and you're overlapping into into the sidewalk area off your
driveway into the apron area? That's addressed in the land development code as well. So, Mr. your daughter escaped. He never got up and answered my question. I still would like an answer which is
if a prohibition on parking only resides in the code of ordinances and not in the land development code, would your department review for that a prohibition on a certain type of parking?
Yeah. So, for example, let's just say the prohibition on no RV parking in the rightway or any of these provisions that Denise has just talked about, if those only resided in the code of ordinances. Mhm. And you had a site plan in Sure.
would you be reviewing it to see if it did or didn't comply with that? We generally stick to the land development code and what's in the land development code. We generally don't look in code of ordinances for those types of things. Um, and when we're talking about parking within the right of way, um, it's it's rare. Well, I
mean, it happens, but I mean, um, specific parking spaces within the rights of way. So, dedicated spaces. Uh, I would assume we're talking about dedicated spaces in the rightway. Well, presume where this would arise is somebody was trying to use the rideway to count towards their required parking
spaces. If if there is dedicated parking spots, we generally let them use those towards their parking requirements. There is no dedicated parking spots. We generally don't let them use um like right of way um like the 50ft rightway as to meet
their parking requirements. What I was going to suggest, David, was you can't circumvent an ordinance by asking for a site plan approval. So, for instance, we have in our
ordinances that you can't let your grass grow more than x many inches t high. You can't go in in the site plan approval and say, "Well, I'm going to let the grass grow 5t high over here in this section." I I don't disagree, but the problem is is that, and I don't want to
get into all the nuances, is that that if Patrick goes and then approves it, notwithstanding that violation of the code of ordinances, it does make it more difficult for us to enforce because now they're going to argue that Pat, well, Patrick gave us stamp of
approval to this. Sounds like Patrick better read the code board, which is what he was saying. They don't care. But but that's my point is that is that I think his department is primarily reviewing the land development code. They're not reviewing the code of ordinances and I'm saying that I think
from an enforcement standpoint we can enforce either it what what is the concern with keeping in the land development code just simply the Senate Bill 180 stuff or Yeah. My my only issue again I'm have zero objection to this whole prohibition
of parking RBs. All I'm asking is is it be is it better placed in the code of ordinances? Senate bill 180 does not at least by my understanding of that bill. Maybe David will have a different
you're correct. It does not apply to it does not apply to your county ordinances. It applies to your comprehensive plan, your land development code and your internal policies about those documents. It doesn't apply to the code of ordinances. So you can simply
put this in the code of ordinances and avoid any possibility of somebody coming and give you giving you a SB80 challenge. Again, I not object to this in any way, shape or form. Well, I mean, I think this has probably made it here because there are problems
and I think we need to get it in part of the code part of the land development code now and if there is some kind of challenge, we can always go the ordinance route down the road. Correct. Yeah. I mean, if it gets ch if that's this if somebody challenges this particular regulation. I guess we could just throw it in the code of ordinance. But
okay, but I'm not going to do that unless I lose my 10 constitutional arguments first, right? So, they got a big uphill battle decline before they're going to get that declared as a violation of Senate Bill 180. But wouldn't it make most more sense to
have mirroring language in both? That way, it's covered in the land development code. It's covered in the code of ordinances. You could I I don't I guess I'm gonna let Denise or Sam weigh in on that. Or you could refer to one or the other.
Have it in there, but refer to one, you know, have it in the code, land development code, but refer to Yeah. I mean, my concern with not having land development code is I think with all due respect to Patrick his staff is going to probably miss it if it's not. No, but you could you could specifically
refer to um you know as according to or the code of ordinance may already have a general prohibition on that sort of incorporates everything in the land code, but I mean I don't know if Sam is on or Denise knows like I'm pretty I'm pretty confident that we
enforce code does enforce violations of the land development code. Absolutely. Yes, that's correct. They don't matt from the county attorney's office. I don't believe that the code of ordinance has in reference to incorporating the OBC,
but I mean I agree generally with what what Denise and David have been saying the land development code that's that's where we currently regulate RV parking and storage. Um we already had a mass prohibition on storing RV in the right
way. We're just bringing we're just bringing it countywide as opposed to specific building districts. So I think MTV are really the folks that are going to be affected. So arguably with all those residential districts, it's not going to be more restrictive. This was already
So So couldn't you just refer to that particular ordinance in this section? No, I think Sam is saying it's it's prohibited in the land development code. Okay. It's not in the I don't think I think what he's saying is the code of ordinances doesn't really regulate this
issue currently. Yes. Right. Ordinances. We do have um chapter 106 traffic and vehicles. It's mostly just regular parking violations. Parking on the sidewalk, um parking in front of the driveway
without the owner's consent, parking crosswalks, but it doesn't necessarily touch on RV parking and storage. Yeah. And remember that our uh recreational vehicles in our land development code are very broadly defined. So these include not only your
typical like fifth wheel, these are also boat trailers, trailers, and this is what we've been seeing. People are parking on on street parking spaces in the ride ofway. Just the trailer that carries the boat. Just plop it there. Yeah. Again, there's no objection to the
regulation. It's only Yeah. Can you provide safe harbor from a legal challenge under that particular Senate bill? That's all. If it gets that far, and I'm not sure it will, um, we probably could just move all of our
parking regulations to the code of ordinances, but they're if they file that claim in Pasco County, they are going to have a mountain to climb before they get that far. That's all I'm going to tell you. That's enough for me. Not saying they can't climb it. I'm just
saying it's going to be a mountain. Why do you climb Mount Everest? Because it's there. I tell you, if I climb a mountain, I want to be on David's team climbing that mountain, not on the team that's against David. I'll let you be my sherpa.
I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed by like sign. Thank you. Thank you, Denise.
And that is the last item that we have on the agenda today. All right. Why don't we start with that one? Okay. Thank you. We have a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All right. All in favor? Opposed? Very good. Deafening silence.
Have a new flavor sausage to bring me Pasco County waterways and wildlife depend on you to keep them healthy. Excess fertilizer, grass clippings, trash, oils, and pet waste wash into gutters and storm drains when it rains. Storm water carries these pollutants directly into our lakes and rivers,
creating an unhealthy environment for fish, water foul, and other aquatic animals. Storm drains are meant for clean rainwater. Most other discharges are illegal. If you suspect an illicit discharge, please contact Pasco County Department of Public Works at 7278343611.
Oh, hey. Oh. Oh, hey. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Go Pasco and Pasco County Libraries are perfect partners, perfect place to buy your bus pass. I'm very excited to
introduce our newest library where you could buy bus passes. We listened to your requests and you could now buy your bus passes at the downtown Newport Richie Library. It's very convenient to
come from where I live to the library to pick up a bus pass. Before I would have to use two buses and now I can use one. The Newport Richie Public Library acts as a information hub to the entire West
Pasco community. We're thrilled to be able to offer the Go Pasco bus passes as an additional service for our community. The bus passes that you could buy at the downtown Newport Richie Library are 31-day, regular and reduced, and the 20
ride. And don't forget, you can get your day passes on the bus. The partnership between Go Pasco and the Newport Richie Library downtown is a great great partnership. We've wanted this for many years. I just love Bill Pasco.
Find your way to Pasco County Libraries with go Pasco at goasco.com. This is a message to anyone who is pimping, selling, or sexually exploiting someone in Pasco County. If you are forcing someone to sell their body for
drugs or money, or if you are giving them drugs in exchange for sexual favors, if you're allowing a minor to stay in your house in return for sexual favors, or if you're setting up sexual dates with a child, if you are pimping, providing a ride or security for someone selling their
bodies for sex, or acting as a manager and keeping all of their money, the law considers you a human trafficker, and human trafficking is a felony. You could be sentenced to 30 years to life. Every law enforcement agency in Pasco County, including the Pasco Sheriff's
Office, the Newport Richie Police Department, the Zephr Hills Police Department, the Dade City Police Department, and the Port Richie Police Department, are working to arrest and help prosecute human traffickers. Pasco County has zero tolerance for human trafficking.
If you take advantage of others, forcing them to work or engage in commercial sex acts, we have a special place for you to live. the Pasco County Jail. If you exploit or traffic other people, you are participating in modern-day slavery. Would you want someone to sell a member
of your family for sex? Is a life in prison worth it? Because eventually you will get caught. We use state-of-the-art technology. We have highly trained, experienced officers. We leverage detailed intelligence and monitor all of the online and social
media platforms that traffickers use. All law enforcement is working together. If you are a trafficker in Pasco County, we're looking for you and we will find you. Pasco doesn't buy it. Don't traffic or sell another person or you will be arrested. Hey, I'm Kevin Jenkins, water quality
supervisor for Pasco County. What you see behind me tends to create a lot of questions for our department. People ask all the time, "Why are you wasting all that water?" or "Why is that thing still running?" The answer is simple. We're not. What you see happening right here is a
state regulated process called water quality flushing. It happens every day to keep your drinking water safe. Our team is responsible for checking more than 122,000 connections all over Pasco County. As you can imagine, it's a daunting task, but it's work we do
proudly and take seriously. We service both residential and commercial connections and flush water manes periodically for preventative maintenance. It helps get rid of impurities, sediment, and biologic growth. This work can be done by a team member or by an automatic flushing
device known as an AFD. AFDs can flush pipes remotely. So, there you have it. And now you know. That's our flushing process in a nutshell. Pasco County works hard to maintain the best water quality. This is just one way we get to that point. To
learn more about this and other Pasco County Utilities information, please visit our website at mypasco.net. Are you one of the nearly 50,000 veterans who live, work, and play in Pasco County? Our team at Pasco County Veteran Services is here to help you and
your family, making sure you receive the benefits you deserve. From filing compensation and pension claims to crisis and aid and assistance, we're here to serve you. So, all of the veteran service officers here in Pasco County are retired from the military. We're all come from
different backgrounds, different branches of the military, but we all bring forth the experience and our expertise just through things that we have gained from our own personal military services. You should come in and talk to a veteran
service officer if you're trying to put together um any type of claim that involves the VA. I just think the team is great here. Very uh caring, that's for sure. And um they put their all to help you.