--------- Chris said he said it mainly counties Miami. >> Well, that was an initial draft. He said a provision that affects us. >> Okay. >> How you deal?
>> Okay. >> Anyone else? >> Thank you. I'm good. Thanks, Patty. right now. >> It definitely affects Terry. >> Anyone else? >> When we get to >> They're probably going to have to add
some stuff to that to do with that. I've read the best. >> I don't even think it's nearly as bad as >> there may be an early version of it that was pretty bad, but I mean now that I've read the final word here,
Yeah, that's that's pretty much what Clark >> I don't think it's as bad as as some of the sound >> the part that's definitely going to affect you all is the compatibility. >> You know, I talked to girls.
>> It's not like they prevent you from your project based on compatibility. Just that >> you're going to have to document the reasons more. Yes. I mean, Clark sent me an email late yesterday afternoon. He said, "This isn't super bad." He hadn't really looked at the at the House Bill, but he
did yesterday afternoon. His opinion is, like you just said, isn't that super bad? >> It's not a complete preemption. I think the bigger fix problem
>> and then they expanded the local >> expanded. >> So what does that mean? >> Any land own. >> Wow. So, how would that work in the case of a school? I mean, if they've got land that's saying the school has to be. So
you can't you can't just plop something on the ground without permission. >> Um >> but in theory they could put an apartment complex on property >> regardless.
Now school district that we sue the school district is that >> you heard it first >> public and private >> um I thought it was
>> public school district >> so somebody can build apartments on that church property in in the city there they've been pulled on to forever mean Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Here it comes. >> There we go.
>> They got to be an applicant. >> I think I'll have to put my word out. Oh, the church has to be the applicant. >> They have to be the applicant, right? >> The church has to be >> church has to remain on the property. Okay. >> I mean, they have to remain on the adjacent property. >> Okay. So, it has to be a church there.
It's not just property owned by a church. >> Yes. Church has to remain on the property. And they have to be they have to be co-licant or they have to be the applicant. >> I have to go back and look on that. >> Okay.
>> You have to understand that our recognization. >> Oh yeah. Okay. All right. Great. Okay, >> let's see. >> We missing >> Matt. >> Derek and Matt's going to be late. >> I guess I got to go through the whole
call to order thing, huh? like is this on? So, I'd like to call the meeting to order. Please could stand for a moment of silence and the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Clerk, could we have the roll call, please? >> Mr. Jamie Gerardi >> here. >> Mr. Christopher P >> here.
>> Mr. John Moody >> here. >> Mr. Matthew Muntz. >> Mr. Derek, Liam Divine >> here, chairman Charles Gray >> here. >> All right. So topics for discussion planning commission workshop fasco 2050
comprehensive plan update and you're going to be doing the presentation. >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning members of the local planning agency planning development economic growth
department. Today's local planning agency comprehensive plan update session will focus on the Pasco 2050 chapter Pasco serves which is essentially the public facilities element of the comprehensive plan. This chapter, like all the chapters of the comprehensive
plan, has been worked on by numerous industry stakeholders, the county attorney's office and county departments, including in this case by the planning, development, economic growth department, uh, public works, Pasco County utilities, and solid waste, which were significant participants and
contributors in the development of the chapter. In addition to this, the planning development, economic growth department facilitated the reviews for these teams and industry related stakeholders in order to capture their input and facilitate the development of the draft. Moreover, it bears noting that we received significant community stakeholder feedback on the question of
public infrastructure needs within the county through thousands of public comments and surveys via the Pasco 2050 project website as well as over 10 community workshops and open houses across the county over the last two years. Um, we are presenting well two and a half years. We are presenting the
Pasco Serves chapter today. Though our plan is not to go line by line through the chapter, but to present the big ideas for the chapter and provide you all with an overview of new policies that were added to the proposed comprehensive plan update and an overview of any deleted policies because either they were completed, made
obsolete by state law changes or were no longer necessary. Uh, with me today is Hayatt Misili, principal planner with the planning services. uh division of the planning development economic growth department. Uh Hayatt is the project manager for the comprehensive plan update. She will walk us through the
chapter overview. You have with you in your materials, the draft chapter, a redline version of it, the policy change tables that illustrate the various edits made in Pasco 2050 as compared against the current comprehensive plan and the data and analysis information that supports the goals, objectives, and policies of the proposed chapter.
Uh if there are any questions we will be available for that discussion as well as our counterparts from public works, Pasco County utilities and solid waste. Finally, this is the first workshop in a series that we are planning for this spring where we will be discussing the last chapters of the comprehensive plan.
Uh in the fall we talked about uh the first few chapters um which uh were included uh Pasco lives well you'll mention them right um upcoming sessions include discussions on Pasco moves which will be the transportation element Pasco
invests uh which is our CIP element Pasco partners as it relates to the the uh interlocal with schools and lastly uh Pasco grows which is the future land use element The planning development economic growth department has been working with various stakeholders
through the winter until now to advance uh the work in these chapters for the comprehensive plan update and to be bringing them to you all for these spring workshops. And with that I will hand the baton to Hyatt for the presentation. >> Thank you very much.
>> Good morning PL commission members. It's great to be with all of you today. >> Good morning. >> Um good morning. Okay, so before we jump into today's chapter update, I'd like to take a brief moment and step back and
look at the big picture. Now, this slide should look pretty familiar to you all. So, these are the 11 chapters that make up the Pasco 2050 comprehensive plan update. Each one focuses on a key topic that shapes our
county um how it will grow, move, live, and um thrive in the decades ahead. Uh at our last workshop in November, we revisited five chapters. Pasco adapts, Pasco Conserves, Pasco Plays,
Pasco Works, and Pasco Partners. These were originally presented in August and in September along with Pasco lives. We walked through all the revisions that were made based on our comment and today
continues that same collaboration process. Um and I will be focusing on Pasco serves which is chapter number five in the comprehensive plan. So as with previous chapters, I will begin with an overview of the proposed
tech changes and then open the floor for your uh feedback and questions. We also have with us today staff from the public utilities, public works and solid waste departments who have been instrumental in refining this chapter and are will be
available to um assist with any questions. With that, let's see how Pasco serves our community. So the public facilities element of the existing comprehensive plan was
renamed Pasco serves. This chapter is mandatory per chapter 163 of the Florida statutes. Pasco serves provides the planning framework and long-term strategies needed to ensure that essential public facilities such as water, sewer, solid waste, drainage, and
related infrastructure are available, coordinated, and adequate to support existing and future development while also protecting public health, welfare, and natural resources. So, what's changed in this update? We
have organized and streamlined the structure of the goals, objectives and policies. The chapter now has four goals, 23 objectives, one of which is new and 116 policies including 11 new policies. We have made extensive
housekeeping changes. We consolidated overlapping policies, deleted outdated policies, and also policies that are already addressed in the LDC or in other chapters of the comprehensive plan. We updated language for many policies to clarify intent and remove any
redundancies. And we standardized the level of service statements um as well as moved um level of service state uh tables and any policies related to the LOS um to the Pasco Invests chapter which covers capital improvements.
the 2012 10-year water supply facilities plan was embedded in uh or it is now embedded in the comprehensive plan. So we deleted that uh because it was really out ofd. We also ensured that the goals, objectives and policies are aligned with
the newly and updated with the newly updated and adopted storm water management uh master plan. We also made edits per statutory requirements particular particularly the requirement to evaluate the feasibility of subject
to sewer conversion for large subdivision which I will expand on in the next slide. Um overall these updates make Pasco serves um easier to navigate, more consistent and uh better aligned with state requirements and also with the overall long-term um goals of our
county. I'll walk you through the new policies next and then um we'll open it up for your questions. So this slide highlights the proposed new policies within the Pasco serves chapter and they are organized by topic.
We'll start with the potable water. So there are five new policies in this section out of a total of 34 policies. Policy serves 1114 is not necessarily new um but we made a key update. We strengthened the existing
language um which was carried forward from an existing policy uh policy WAT2.1.4. This update clarifies that central water and wastewater systems systems can be extended to serve the property
surrounding the I75 county road um 41 interchange. But these systems cannot be extended beyond that area to serve the northeast rural. Um the intent is to limit an intended growth and of course
preserve the rural character. Policy serves 1.3.1 adopts by reference the 2025 2035 10-year water supply facilities work plan which means the work plan is formally incorporated into the
comprehensive plan and can be updated independently without triggering a comprehensive plan um amendment every time it gets updated. Next we have policy 1.3.3. Um this is coordination for alternative
water supply sources. This policy directs Pasco County to coordinate with um Swift Mud uh Tampa Bay Water and other portable water suppliers to develop and implement alternative water supplies. Policy serves 1.5.6.
Again, this one is not entirely new either. um language was added to ensure that nutrient loading and long-term environmental impacts are assessed and mitigated while continuing to promote um expansion of reclaimed water uses in residential areas.
>> And last, >> back up which one? >> Sure. Uh that's 1.5.6. >> And then say again what the goal here is. We added we added the last sentence which pretty much says that yes, we can
encourage expansion or a connection of um reclaimed water to residential areas but we need to ensure that nutrient loading um and long-term environmental impacts are assessed and mitigated. That should be on page 14.
>> I found it. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Should I continue? Continue. >> All right. Next is uh policy 1.5.8. This is a new policy that reinforces the county's commitment to water conservation by implementing a range of
programs and strategies. Um for example, we have we've added tiered um water rates um campaign education campaigns and temp Tampa Bay water rebates as well as leak detection. Can >> we explain what we mean by tiered water
rates for portable water? >> So tiered water rates is pretty much um like tier one PE people residents will be paying based on their usage of the of the water. So tier there will be tier one, tier two, and tier three.
>> Okay. What does that mean? >> I can I can have um Garrett explain this one a little bit better. >> That's not necessarily a change though, is it? Because I mean, we paid on a on a tier basis right now, I believe, for for water usage.
>> I will defer to Garrett since this is his wheelhouse. >> Okay. Hey y'all. My name is Garrett Vanlant with Paso County Utilities. I'm policy analyst. Uh so we have a tiered water system where consumers have certain uh sizes of pipe that go to their area.
Some consumers use more water than others like large um industrial facilities etc etc. So it depends on how much water you're using and the size of your pipe that goes to where you're using it depends on the rate that you pay. And uh all the counties do this and
we compare our tiers with other counties tiers and how we can get the best uh value to our customers. So it's kind of a balance between consumption uh and cost. >> Still not understanding. >> Well, I can follow up with you with more information from our customer service
team that could go into more detail, but that sounds good. Are you you're I'm trying to understand what a line size has to do with how much we pay for water. >> Well, it's
I don't know. Let me get back to you on I can give you some more detailed information. I'm not currently like really in the know about that aspect of it, but I can I can talk to my people and get more information to you about that. I'm sorry. I don't >> My understanding is based on gallons used. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's like the how much you use. Some people are really industrial
or using a lot of water and some are just residential areas. So, they pay different rates depending on that and it depends on like the cost of getting that water to that place. Some facilities, you know, you need to have more water in the pipe to get it to them. You don't want water age to be bad. Um, so there's a complicated element to it, but this is
a pretty common pretty standard across all counties how they do it. You're asking us to adopt a policy, but you can't provide us any detail on what or how this policy works. >> Well, I mean, I can follow up. I'm not an expert on this personally. I'm here
from representing a lot of utilities staff, but I can Yeah, we can get you some information later on. >> Okay. >> Yeah. should probably should have probably asked him this more of a general statement kind of I've got experience with >> neighbors in our our neighborhood that
have widely varying uh utility rates for for water. Um so leak detection is a pretty important process that and yeah I' sense in some of my neighbors a bit of frustration with kind of being able to access that. So that's more of just kind of a broad statement than anything.
But yeah, leak detection is a should be a big part of this. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think Mr. Moody's uh statement basically is that it makes it difficult for us to approve something if we don't really understand it. >> Right. um uh we don't have somebody here
that can explain it then it's you know how do we vote to improve it. So that's >> we can we can definitely get back to you with more um with more explanation of the tiered water system.
>> Is this going to be like prior um chapters where this is the first draft and then you're going to bring back final versions later.
>> We I mean we can f we are on a tight deadline right now but we can definitely follow the same process that we had been doing. We'll gather your comments and then refine and make the edits and then bring it back with other chapters. >> Demonstrate >> demonstrate the change,
>> right? Just like we did with the other ones. >> So because otherwise I'm not sure how Mr. Moody's question would be answered later. Okay, we we will come back. So, we'll gather as much comments as we can from
you today and then we'll make the edits and then come back with >> the other thing that >> with another version >> note is at the outset of the presentation. >> Okay. >> You said you moved the level of service standards all to >> Pasco Invests. Yes. >> Chapter. But
these things need to be presented together. Right. We're adopting policies. We're looking and evaluating policies regarding the provision of utility services. But where there's no discussion of what these level of service stand, we're going to
talk about those in a vacuum somewhere. That doesn't seem to make much sense. >> That was the intent of bringing both of the chapters at the same time, but we are still doing other revisions to Pasco Invest. So, and county attorney has not reviewed Pasco Invest just yet. So what
we can do when we come back with this chapter, we will make sure that we have invest with it. That way you can go back and forth and see the edits that were made. And I will point out when I'm presenting invest, I will point out the policies that have been moved from other
chapters to that chapter so it's more clear and transparent for everyone. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Hi, are you done with your presentation or are you still going? Oh, I it's up to you if you want to discuss more depable water. >> Sure. Because Mr. Moody asked a
question, but I wasn't sure if you were done yet. >> No, I'm not done yet. >> Okay, then go finish. >> There's more. I have three more sections to cover. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, the next section is about wastewater. There are four new policies out of 30 in the wastewater section.
Policy serves 2.1.8. That's the floodp proofing of sanitary sewer facilities. This policy was originally proposed in the Pasco adapts under the uh resilience goal, but uh planning commission members recommended that we move it to this
chapter because it's more appropriate in this chapter. So, just to refresh your memory, this policy directs the county to update utility standards to require flood proofing of new sanitary sewer facilities. Next is 2.2.6.
Uh this is the subject to sewer conversion feasibility policy. This policy was added to comply with the recent statutory requirement uh to evaluate the feasibility of converting from septic to sewer within a 10-year planning horizon horizon for development
of more than 50 lots and more than um one on-site sewage treatment and disposal disposable system per acre. The next policy is 2.2.7. This policy pretty much links the feasibility findings from the subject to sewer
conversion to the five-year capital improvement plan. Um, so substick to sewer projects are uh scheduled and funded. This pretty much closes the planning to implementation gap. 2.2.8 Eight is a brand new policy that
allows the county to consider distributed wastewater treatment units provided they meet environmental standards. This was added to ensure consistency with the state law following the enactment of Senate Bill 796.
And we have a um a definition a proposed definitions of these distributed wastewater treatment units. Next section is the solid waste. We have two new policies out of a total of 17
policy serves 3.1.4. This new policy is to maintain and update the solid waste master plan. Policy serves 3.3 3.3.4, excuse me. Um this was added to ensure
continued administration of small quantity generator program to keep the program active and aligned with uh broader waste management and public health goals. And the last section is section um about the drainage and groundwater recharge.
There are two new policies out of 35 policies in this section. Serves 4.4.3 4.3 new language was added for the expansion of the county's aquatic weed control program and also
ensuring um FWC coordination. And then we have policy serves 4.4.5. This policy directs the county to develop low impact development design standards to reduce runoff volumes and
improve water quality. Why are we doing that? >> To reduce runoff volumes. It It's something that is being encouraged. Um and also a lot of our neighboring counties are doing it. The LI standards,
they're developing standards. Do >> you have any proof that they work? >> I do not. >> Exactly. the LA standards. >> There seems to be this mistaken belief that we can put a rain garden in your front yard and I'm going to solve
hundred-year flooding problems because of a bunch of people that believe in a green fantasy. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's the truth of it. And I actually have a lot of expertise in this area. So if anybody wants to get in here and debate me about these low
impact development issues and storm water, I'll show you otherwise. >> Okay. >> So you don't agree with having this policy to develop these standards at some point? >> Well, one, it's been a policy that's
been in the comp plan for a while. We've got it's it's embedded in the land development code. It encourages low impact development. >> And it doesn't fit with our new statewide storm water quality rules. >> Okay.
>> Okay. It doesn't fit with our flood mitigation rules and it hasn't been proven to work. >> Okay. >> So, John, what's your suggestion then? >> Well, I'm suggesting that
We approach storm water from a position of reality >> 4.4.5. >> What I don't see in here is a storm water expert coming to tell me about how this is going to cure our storm water wos. I open up Facebook every day and
see thousands and thousands of residents complaining about flooding. The stormwater engineer had a conflict from 9 to 10 and she will be joining us at 10:00 via teams to answer and contribute to this discussion. So Joyce
Gulas will be available shortly. >> So we'll come back to that when uh when she's online. >> That all right, John? Well, I guess we don't really have a choice if we don't have anybody here to talk about it. >> I'm here to talk about it. >> It was something that was in the
resilience plan. So, >> rearranged my schedule to get here today. >> Mr. Moody, do you recommend that we just strike it that we don't need it? It's new policy. It's not something that's existing in this chapter. Can I ask a question?
>> Just go ahead. >> What would low impact development design standards look like? I know you don't have the design standards now. This is promoting it, but what what is something like that? >> Um I can >> what would that look like? What kind of
features is that? >> Like material. >> There are several examples that um I can pull up and show you Liam. >> Okay. only because I think about like lot coverage. If you're thinking like on a
small scale for a residential lot, right? Somebody pays a big giant driveway and then puts a pool and then has pavers on the side and then starts really loading up their lot. Is that something in that these design standards would address or is it just having some
sort of green rained or or flower garden that is supposed to soak up the water? >> That's pretty much it. It's more about permeable pavements, um, green roofs, tree preservation, um, ensuring that we have living shoreline. So, it's
>> green roofs. Good. Let's talk about green roofs. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I plant a garden on top of my roof. >> Yes. >> And it rains on my garden in the roof. And the water went where?
Well, where'd the water go? So in a green roof scenario, the water is collected on non-residential structures. So you're not going to really put a green roof on a resident. Typically, you're not going to put >> I don't care what roof it is. When it lands on a roof, where' the water go? >> The water is collected within the basin
and retained on the roof and then slowly dis uh dispersed into the sewer system. So it's it's a retention strategy. It doesn't um keep the water on the roof because that would be a bad idea.
>> So, it's a detention strategy. >> Oh, yes. A I'm sorry. Yes, a detention >> strategy. And that's where the fallacy comes in. It's not a didn't reduce the amount of water going into the drainage system. >> Correct. >> It added a bunch of weight to your roof.
>> It it it adds weight to the roof. That's correct. Um, but it retards the water from entering the general storm water system. And some some water is consumed by whatever the plants are there, but they're not we're not talking heavy volume of consumption.
>> Not created nor destroyed. So the water didn't just disappear, >> right? >> And that's what I'm talking about. The fallacy of low impact development. Liam, I just wanted to correct something. What
you were referring to is not lot coverage. It's the impervious surface ratio. And I would point out that as we're cramming 3,000 foot square house square foot houses on 45 foot wide
lots and then putting swimming pools and sidewalks and driveways and I guess maybe later this afternoon boats in their driveways too that yes, we're creating storm water problems. You know, when I was a kid, Timber Oaks
didn't flood. We didn't have to pay millions of dollars to dig out the golf course to control the storm water runoff. It was after we let all those people build their fourc car driveways, add the swimming pools, add the brick pavers
along the side of the house, and basically cover their lot to 95% imperous surface that all of a sudden we started having these drainage problems. Yet, we don't have an imperous surface ratio embedded into our land development
code to stop these problems. Rather than pursue the fallacy of low impact development, how about we adopt a policy that will actually fix the storm water regulations that are now more than 16 years out of date in our land
development code. In our land development code, our storm water regulations say that our rules are the same as the rules that were in place at SwiftMUD on in December of 2011. It's 2026 and the rules have changed five times
since then. When are we going to fix that? Instead of dreaming up fallacies, >> the land development code update follows on the heels of the comprehensive plan update. that's coming in uh within the next year or so. Um
the other thing that we should mention about low impact development is that it's not totally a volume issue. It's uh there are a number of issues that are covered under low impact development. I think in most residential properties, you're probably going to see things like
bioails and andor rain barrels uh taking place. um on non-residential properties you might see larger activities. The low impact isn't necessarily a storm water volume retention detention question. It's also an effluent management
um surface uh uh debris control question. >> I don't >> not >> but I've heard the rain barrel fallacy for years. >> Well, >> and it defies common logic.
Go measure, multiply an inch of rainfall over the area of a roof and let me know if you can fit it in a 55gallon drum because you can't. >> You can't. But the what I was going to mention with regard to rain barrels is that it isn't a storm water volume
question. It's how much reclaimed water am I going to spend on my um flower beds in front of my house. So, it's it's an offset to the homeowner, low impact to the homeowner at that point to say, "I'm going to use my drip hoses to water my
flower bed instead of pull on the county reclaim system," which apparently has been having some outages um lately and um not have to pay the extra price associated with the gallons used uh during that. So there's there's a couple
different aspects of low impact. To the extent that we can better tune the land development code to address the storm water volume, I agree with Mr. Moody that that must happen. Uh that's a necessity. Um there are other low impact things that can influence other elements
of suburban life. Um that can also be low impact. I do think that the language presented here can perhaps be um adjusted so that it doesn't say shall develop low impact development design standards.
>> Um so >> can I just make a recommendation just to get past this? >> Yes, >> we haven't even let finish her presentation yet. >> I actually thought we were holding questions and comments until after she finished the presentation. Um, but can we just change it to say shall develop
to just say shall evaluate the efficacy of >> that way? We're just >> Yeah, you can do that. >> We'll evaluate this whether they're good or bad. >> Well, we don't have standards to evaluate their efficacy. So, we need to
>> Well, it works. Yeah. >> All that's all I say is we're going to see whether they work or not. Mr. Moody's right. They don't work then then we don't do anything. If stormwater department thinks they work then we do
do something. But >> you okay with that Mr. Moody? But just as evaluate the efficacy of them. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think John's comment about lid being directly in opposition to new storm motor rigs is pretty important
too. I was going to we can talk about that more offline just for my own education. I' >> like to talk more about that. We don't need to spend that time now. >> Our >> All right. Continue. >> Okay. So, our storm water engineer um
Joyce Gulas is online right now. If Mr. Moody has any questions, Joyce, can you hear me? >> Well, since we have a lot to get through with this chapter. >> Okay. Unless somebody has a problem with just just changing develop to evaluate the e efficacy of I'd rather not have a
>> two-hour debate about the efficacy of them here. >> Okay, sounds good. Okay, so I am on the last slide. Um this is pretty much just showing the proposed new definitions in the chapter. And
this pretty much concludes my presentation um or overview of the Pasco serves updates. Now um I'll open the floor for any additional discussions. >> I have a question by >> Yeah. Um
so hi um policy 2.4 >> objective >> objective 2.4 Sorry. >> Um, it says limit urban sprawl by regulating the provision of public wastewater service in
rural low density residential areas. AGR and then it says lands in RDR and then it says and lands with a minimum density of 3D STR.
I'm not understanding the the inclusion of the third one. Like why is why is SDR considered sprawl? >> Which policy? David, sorry. >> This is objective serves 2.4
page. It's my page 24 of 62 on the red. I'm looking at the red line one. It's on page 23 of 61 on the Are you on the red line, Mr. >> I'm on the red line, but I I don't
>> page 23 of 61. >> I So, >> it's it's 2 point objective 2.4. >> Yeah, I think that's organized like that to facilitate existing utility um policies.
The way this policy is written is that it's capturing all of the agricultural densities, the res one density and then the density between one and three. So right now in the comprehensive plan I
believe um you must hook up to utility at three. Between one and three you have the option to do well and septic or hook up if the if the utilities are available. and then less than one you may do well in septic basically. Um so
this is just trying to capture that range uh between one and three. >> So I'm reading it literally to it says limit urban sprawl >> by regulating this. So I'm so I'm going to regulate where I put wastewater
>> in the following. So I'm this I'm saying I don't want to have urban sprawl. So, I don't want to have public wastewater in these land use categories because they're going to create sprawl. That's how I'm reading this. First one I
get, AGR. You don't want to have public waste water in AGR because it would create sprawl. RDR I get. Although I have a question later about RDR, but >> for sake of this policy, I get it. Yeah, >> it's the third one I don't get because
how is the provision of public wastewater in lands with a min minimum density of 3du per acre creating sprawl? >> I think it's that and lands designated as >> it doesn't say between one and three.
I I'm evaluating the question at the moment. I'm just trying to look at the next policy. Which one? less than three dwelling units per acre. >> Well, that's a bigger question because we don't have groves in front of us. I don't even know if we have such a
language category anymore. >> That's a do we >> the res? >> Well, RDR, >> we haven't heard grows yet, so I don't even know what landing categories we have left anymore, but do >> we have presented the flu? So RDR goes
from goes up to 2.9 >> 2 >> 21 to 2.9 >> is is the new residential rural residential >> uh rural density residential future land use >> RDR goes up to what now? >> 2.9
>> 2.9 >> So this policy could actually say um including AGR flu designated areas. >> What does STR go to? STR picks up from three and it climbs to 18.
>> Okay. Well, there's no way that's all >> correct. >> So, how why is it in this policy? >> Uh because there's a there was a caveat written in here to to capture up to three. So, SD uh properties that are
designated SDR3 in the comprehensive plan would be part of that um cloud of uses. But I suggest I think what happened here was uh last summer the the workshops and open houses identified that RDR should actually go up to 2.9
and so this policy could probably end at RDR. Period. And the second half of the sentence here could probably just go away since it goes now to 2.9. >> That's not strong. Okay. Well, yes, I think it should end
at RDR, but then I have a follow-up question, but I don't think there's any way STR should be included in this policy. >> I think you we would delete it from this policy. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> So, my followup question relates to RDR. Um, so I'm not entirely clear. I guess I need somebody to explain to me in English when we are requiring or allowing water
and sewer in the RDR flu >> if the density >> because the policies kind of go back and forth. Yeah, >> on that category. And so I need I want you to explain to me in English
so I can figure out whether the policies match what you're telling me in English. >> Yeah. So if the density is between 1 and three, the actual density of the development is
going to be between one and 2.9 I should say to keep it within RDR. >> So say their flu is RDR. >> Yeah. >> Okay. comes in their RDR and we have to decide whether they're allowed to have >> central water and sewer. Yes. What
>> what's going to guide that decision? >> Can you find me the utility policy that has >> the with it? that there's the existing utility policy that talks about um the connections
>> required, isn't it? >> Can you find me that one? So, highest finding the policy number because I don't know it off top of my head. >> 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 correct. >> Is that it? >> Yeah. Well, 2.4.3
to me is clear. Okay. That's when you're three or higher, you should have it. Okay. When you're 2 point when you're AGR, you're really not supposed to have
it. Okay. It's this area in between RDR where I'm not as so clear. And I realize what I'm reading what 2.4.2 says. I just don't know what it means. means. And so I'm asking Terry to explain to me in English
because I don't know what it I'm reading it. I've read it five times and I don't know what it means. So as as I noted the current policy is that if you are between the densities of one and three you have the option to connect if the utilities are present. So
if you have RDR which goes up climbs up to a highest the highest density of RDR is 2.9. If you're between one and 2.9 and utilities are present you you may connect according to the current comprehensive plan. And so that's what we're essentially uh working toward
here. Um with the exception of the northeast rural uh area in Pasco County where there the density and RDR is capped at one. So you would never fall within that uh
one to 2.9 range in those locations. Okay. So part of the problem is since we have not considered grows I don't know these rules. So in RDR this goes to commissioner Moody's point considering these things in isolation. Well, well, we did present the future
land use category last summer in the summertime, uh, right before the open houses. >> Okay. Well, >> so >> you memorized it, right? >> What? >> All right. So, RDR is capped
at one in Northeast, but everywhere else it's one to three.91 to 2.9. >> Can I ask a dumber question? So David, I understand where >> you
it seems like we have policies that are diametrically opposed to each other. In one policy, I'm going to encourage study and then encourage septic to sewer conversions for places where the density is one
dwelling unit or less per acre. And at the same time, I'm going to limit providing sewer service to low density development. Why in the world would I ever stop
somebody from going to centralized wastewater treatment? And I have another policy over here that actually encourages the septic to sewer conversion. Just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
>> Well, the septic >> septic >> I understand. I understand not encouraging sprawl development, although I have my own personal opinions
on what really constitutes sprawl. But that just doesn't seem to make any sense. In in in one policy, I'm going to get you off the septic and put you on the sewer if you live on more than an acre. And in the other policy, I'm going to limit you from connecting to the
sewer if you live on an acre. >> I can speak on that, Mr. Moody. So, in the se to sewer conversion, that's in the basin management action plan area, which is the Wikiwatchi basin, and that's like a statemandated situation. House Bill 1379 says that we need to look at a plan to connect these 1 acre,
a lot less in just the certain BMAP area. And I think uh this other policy you're talking about maybe more for more rural areas that aren't in the BPAP that aren't covered by the separate sewer policy. I don't care about the BMAP area. >> Well, we do. We need to >> I understand you need to comply with the
BMAP. >> You're insinuating that a septic system that's not in the Wikiwatchi BMAP isn't a problem. And at the same time, I'm encouraging aerobic treatment units. And I don't discourage the aerobic
treatment units. I'm just saying you have these policies are diametrically opposed to each other. Why would we do this? >> I think it may be an issue with >> anybody on a septic system if they can get on to sewer to get on to it.
>> It's just there's not a lot of places where it's feasible. We have subjects where feasibility studies identify certain areas that is more feasible than others, but this is we're talking about multi-millions of dollars CIPs to get water manes out to some of these rural areas and it just gets to be a big deal. I understand that and maybe it won't
prove to be feasible, but why would we have policies against it? >> I'm just Yeah, we're trying to comply with the BMAP for that one 72 policy. >> Complying with the BMAP. I 100% support complying with the BMAP. I have to lecture my clients every day about
complying with the BMAP when they don't want to pay the $10,000 for the aerobic treatment unit. And I have to remind them how we all like to go kaying and down the Wikiwatchi River. Do your clients live in Spring Hill? Because we have a septic upgrade incentive program that pay
$10,000. Just so you know, just so you can talk to your people about it. >> Yeah, >> lots of those. >> Yeah. Good. >> Well, Commissioner Moody, I I'm fine getting to your conflict, but I hadn't really gotten my question answered about
the applicability of 2.4.2. I I don't I'm not saying that answers your question, but I'm not sure the 2.4 2.2 reads the way that Terry just said in English because it
you're basically saying that if you're an RDR, if the utilities are there, you can you get the right to connect. If they're not, we won't extend them. Is that what you're saying? >> Say that again. I'm sorry.
>> What you told me was that if you're an RDR that if the utilities are available, you have the right to connect to them. If they're not, we're not going to extend them to you. Is that what you're I'm
>> That's not what 2.4.2 says. So that's what I'm trying to figure out. The confusing part of 2.4.2 is that it says >> only if the proposed service is consistent with the comp plan. Well, this is the comp plan. So, I don't know what part of the comp plan I'm supposed to look at to figure
out whether it's consistent with the comp plan. So if if you have uh provision require the provision of plans with a minimum density of one doesn't only want the so if you're in uh uh
if you're in an RDR area um where your the overall density is less than one we're not going to extend sewers to you. Um and then if you or utility I should say um if you are one and there are some
areas that are currently res one on the map like along little road for example there's obviously utilities in the west market area present um there there could be an option to extend utilities into those neighborhoods where the density is
likely one and greater uh for RDR. Um and then in the of course as in the northeast rural um which maybe we should just instead of saying goals objects and policies just reference that policy from grows um RDR is capped at one and
there's general discussion among other grows policies uh to preserve the agricultural character of northeast rule by not extending the utilities and thereby creating temptations to sprawl into northeast rule.
Okay, let's put northeast rural aside because I realize it has its own rules. Let's just forget about I'm just talking about outside of northeast rural. I guess part of my other confusion is this this policy says with a minimum density of one
designated on future land use map as RDR. Well, you just told me that RDR is not a minimum density of one. It's >> a minimum density of one to 2.9. >> No, I think So I wasn't sure if this was intended to only apply
if it has an actual density of one. So the existing policy was referenced in res one residential one cooling unit perverse acre >> right >> and then since RDR spans from 02 to 2.9 that's why we put that minimum density
of one per acre or one unit per acre. >> Okay. But RDR you just told me allows more than one. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. That seems to be internally inconsistent to say lands with a minimum density of one
designated on the feature landing map as RDR. If it's designated on the feature landing map as RDR, it wouldn't have a minimum density of one >> minimum actual density. >> On the ground density, >> yeah, on the ground density supposed to
be But I think we're losing the forest from the trees here. I I I think the policy should match what you're actually trying to achieve. Like I I don't know what your actual that's why I asked you to explain it to me in English first because I don't think this
entire policy matches what I want to know what the rule is going to be for for for >> RDR in general. I mean I I I get when it's when it's above RDR. Okay, I get
it. Okay, when it's SDR and higher 2.43 43 is very clear for me. When it's SDR and higher, you have to have public water and sewers. Okay. If it's AGR, 2.41 is very clear. Okay. I think I'm
clear on what it happens in Northeast Rural. I am not at all clear when you're outside of Northeast Rural and you're an RDR whether you are or are not required to connect to water and sewer. because I
don't know what this policy means. >> Yeah. >> That's correct. So, >> and and and part of the confusion here is because you guys >> you played with the land use category. Okay. So
this policy was originally a res one requirement >> and now it's not >> because res one is RDR is within the RDR flow >> right but when you played with landings category I'm not sure if the policy
still applied with this higher density under the land use category >> right which is hence the call out on the one dwelling unit per acre so you so What's happening here is the inverse of what we've been dealing with for a long time. We've dealt with the gaps between
res 1, res 3, res 6, and we come forward and for somebody to do a 4.5 dwelling unit per acre development, they had to jump all the way up to res six in order to be able to do that. Um and the new flu are proposing to close the gap so
that everybody understands what range we're actually operating in. Hence RDR being from 021 up to 2.9 now because we're trying to close the gap between uh AGR to res one and then res one to res. I think the the current policy was
trying to create this sort of limited exception where you would allow water and sewer in res one and it seems like it was mostly focused on maybe conservation subdivisions and and >> in rural character areas
>> and rural character areas but which I don't even know what those are but but putting that aside now you've lumped RDR into it which goes up to 2.9 and I'm not even sure that polic policy still applies when you're dealing with 2.9
or whether it should still apply at 2.9 >> if well it would apply. >> Yeah. >> If you if you have a density of 2.7 you're permitted or required uh based on the existing language of the comprehensive plan to connect.
So in closing the gaps on the on the future land use map, you have to actually look at the actual density on the ground. Now so when you're looking at a development, what's the actual density if it's if it's existing? What's the actual density of that development in order to determine whether or not it's going to fit this policy?
Therefore, you have to have that minimum. >> Planning commission, we don't have d always have density on the ground. We have we proposals that come to us. >> Correct. And we need to know if if it's RDR
or somebody's asking for RDR, whether it's going to have either allowed to have or required to have water and sewer, >> right? So, if that development is coming in and they they're requesting an RDR flu
amendment, an amendment to RDR flu >> and it's vacant land. >> It's vacant land and they come in and it happens to be 2.3. They're going to be able to look at a policy and say yes or no as to whether they're required to have water and sewer. >> Yes. >> What's the answer?
>> If they're if the density is 2.3, let's say, then yes, and it's available to them, they have to connect. If they if the density is actually 089, >> speculative RDR, they're just asking for RDR.
Well, if it's speculative, then it would be they would be informed that if your ultimate density is going to be less than one, then you can do well in septic. If it's going to be greater than one, you have the option to connect if it's available to you. That's current
comprehensive plan policy, >> but we won't know until they actually go to pull a a building permit at that point, right? Well, >> you'll know it's site plan >> or site permit. >> You'll know it's site plan >> unless they reszone to something that
allows that range in RDR. That wouldn't require a site permit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. If that's the rule, >> what you just said in English, >> right? >> That's what I think the policy should say because that's not what this says.
You're basically saying that if the if the actual density that they achieve in RDR is less than one, then it's not going to be on it's going to be on well and septic.
If the actual density is going to be greater than one and the water and sewer is available within some I don't know what what available Is there some distance that it's got to be available? >> Well, yeah, that's in the top 10
already. >> Yeah, that's up there. >> Well, then you should refer to wherever that just wherever that policy refers to that. >> That's um that's in table serves one and 113 page six.
>> So, referred to table serves one. That's portable water. Sewers table serves too. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> What I'm basically asking you to do is rewrite this policy so that it has objective criteria
for wins. Somebody who's an RDR has to connect to water and sewer. >> Okay, >> we can reward that. >> And I probably would remove the
reference to conservation subdivisions and rural character areas unless that's unless you feel like those need to stay in there. I don't I don't see the purpose of that. >> Yeah, that's
>> we'll take a look at it. >> I understand why that was why that's in there for the Northeast Pasco area, but I don't know why it's in there for that policy. Okay. So, now we can probably get to Mr. Moody's point. What was the policy that you said was in conflict with this
>> septic sewer? >> I was making the point that in another policy we're going to evaluate and promote septic to sewer conversions. >> But which policy number is it? 2.6 >> 2.6 >> 2.2.6.
>> But in the other policies, we're going to prohibit people doing one acre or more density per dwelling unit per acre density, I'm sorry, le one acre or less density from connecting to sewer. They
seem like they are diametrically opposed policies. Either we want the people off the septics and on the sewer, we don't want them on the sewer. this visibility referring to that special area >> and I don't think why would we ever have a policy that would limit a developer
from connecting to a sewer >> if they want to spend the money and bring it in and connect them to the sewer. Why would we stop? We seem to have this belief that if we allow you to connect to water and sewer, that means you're going to develop at a density greater than we
want you to or may want you to. Well, you have the ability through your through your future land use categories to determine density. I don't know what that has to do with utilities. >> I I think it's um at least from
observation over the years, I think the the fear um if we can use that word is that if the utility is present, then there's uh then the market will essentially demand a flu upgrade. to take advantage of the existing
utility. I think that's been the fear of the commun of the various communities in in Pesco. >> Well, then we'll have to decide as a county whether we want to sit here and give people flu upgrades because that's what we come here every
two weeks for. Um I mean I sorry >> legally I'm not sure that that's a conflicting policy because it just says we'll consider the feasibility of it then say we're going to do it but okay so you're going to consider the feasibility of it and then you got
another policy that would prohibit it. So then why are we wasting time considering the feasibility if we've got another policy that would prohibit it to begin with and again I'm not sure other you know other than somebody's irrational >> Mr. I mean to answer your question, the reason why we are considering it is
we're mandated by law to consider it. That's that's the reason. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, then what I'm suggesting is that we might want to drop the policy that says we won't allow you to connect to sewer. Why would we ever want to why would we
ever want to discourage somebody from connecting to a central sewer system? >> My understanding is there could be conveyance issues. There could be wastewater treatment capacity issues. There could be standard sanitization issues. I know that, you know, not only do you need to connect somebody to, you have lift stations that carry their
waste all the way to >> Now, you were talking about wastewater treatment capacity issues. Okay. So, if I'm close to town, I can put in 24 or 36 dwelling units to the acre. How does that affect the wastewater treatment plant capacity?
Whereas, if I'm out in the if I'm out where John lives, where people live on more than one acre, how many possible homes am I connecting to it at that point to affect the wastewater treatment capacity? Doesn't even make any sense. >> Well, to answer your original question, the reason why we're considering
feasibility is we're mandated to do that. So, >> I absolutely think we should look at the feasibility. What I'm saying is we shouldn't have the policy which is the antithesis in that we're not going to allow you to connect at densities
of an acre or less. >> Is that necessary? >> I'm not I'm not sure the 2 well he hasn't rewritten 2.4.2 yet so we don't know what it's going to say. Um but I don't know that it the intent of 2.4.2 is to prohibit connections. It's it's the intent of
2.4.2 is to say when are you required to have connections to central water and sewer? So at what at what levels of density are you is that a requirement? >> Yes.
I don't know that it's intending to get to or that doesn't necessarily create a prohibition on connections. >> No, it doesn't. >> Well, we're doing that in the northeast rural area. >> Okay, that's a different policy, but um May me ask a question and
>> and maybe this is you know a question for David um suppose in policy serves 2.2.6 Six feasibility study is conducted. It's titled septic to sewer feasibility study
and it and a particular area is identified um to do to do the uh septic to sewer conversion and then you have these other policies like Mr. Moody is uh potentially identifying here like 2.4.2 and others.
Um would we say that because the study has identified that this particular area needs a subject to sewer conversion that it's consistent with policy serves 2.2.6 six and thus consistent with the comprehensive plan.
>> Not not necessarily ignoring the other policies, but understanding that those policies are are applicable on a countywide. And here we have a very specific and particular. >> I mean, I think to make them internally consistent, you'd probably have would have to add an exception in the northeast rural one for
connections required by policy 2.2.6. >> Okay. And the other thing I'd point out about all this is we're talking about density. Since we're allowing ADUs in any residential district,
then the density is really double what we're talking about. Even though we created this policy that your ADU doesn't count against density, the actual real density on the ground will potentially be up to double what
the future land use category allows. So now when I'm on my one acre and I go build my ADU, now I've got two septic systems on the acre. I don't want to discourage those people
from connecting to sewer. And if we actually want them to construct the ADUs, a lot of them are going to go out and find out that they actually don't have enough room on their property to put the well and the septic and meet all the required separations and they're we would encourage them to
connect to sewer. >> I understand that may be a cost for them. I just don't want to prohibit anybody from doing it. I don't think there's a prohibition in 2.4.2. There there may be a situation. There
may be situations in which we need the utility extension unless it's required for them to connect. I don't know what kind of scenario that might what's a good example of that kind of scenario. But um but I don't think anything's necessarily
prohibiting them barring discussion on northeast rule and I don't there's not that many RDR areas outside of northeast rural and the rural character area which is largely
RDR or res one. Um the only other major RDR areas in the county are located on Little Road just south. Uh well, Little Road and Jasmine and that whole area there. Um and then Aaron Cutoff and kind
of by Aaron Cutoff and Conor Boulevard north along Aaron Cutoff. That's another major RDR area. Um, if we have the map, yeah, we could show the map really quick. >> Well, there's a lot of places that,
>> but those are locations where utilities are present. >> There's a lot of places where regardless of the designation, the density on the ground meets the definition. The for instance,
where I live, my future land use is res 3, but everybody lives on a lot that's one acre or larger, >> right? All right. And all the lots are built on. So we can have the res three under it all we want when it's really resz one in.
>> Yeah. >> In actuality I >> I think if you were in a scenario in which let's say you had SDR flew over you but your actual on the ground density your de the development that you live in is like 2.1 just because that's
how it got developed. um you could still connect no problem because you're not RDR, you're you're an SDR. And even if you are SDR and you had 10
acres and the one house on it, uh because you are in the SDR, which means you're likely in the urban service area somewhere, um you could connect. I bring this up because if you listen to the commission,
they're now floating the idea that maybe we need to be done with 45 foot wide lots and we need to have a lot more acre lots. They're looking at it for tax purposes, but
I'm not sure that we don't necessarily want those subdivisions on sewer. That's all I'm getting at is I want to make sure that we don't have a policy that discourages or prohibits anybody from connecting to a sewer. I don't care
where they are, whether they're in the northeast rural area or the urban core. >> Usually there's a circle, but I like highlight. >> It's hard to see the uh
Okay. And even though I don't know why we've come up with this new term, distributed wastewater treatment units, we've always known as aerobic treatment units, >> even though they'll get 80% removal.
That's still not advanced wastewater treatment plant standards. So we're getting a much better >> Mr. Money. So distributed wastewater treatment units aren't urbic treatment units. They're like a new type of wastewater treatment facility where you have a bunch of septic tanks that are
tied into a single sort of functioning distribution system. We're not we haven't seen any in the state of Florida yet, but two years ago the the legislature passed a bill that would allow this to be expedited the building of these. Our understanding is there's only a couple companies that can build
and operate these. And we put that policy into this Pasco serves to get ahead of the curb and say, "Hey, we're gonna look at these on a case by case basis and approve them." >> I don't we can come up with whatever fancy name we want to call for and what it looks like. >> I mean, we didn't make that up. It's a
state law that was passed. >> Looks to me like it's code for package wastewater treatment plant that we connect your septic to. So, what I >> it's similar, but it would be developed at the same time as a package plant. You know, you can plug into it, plug out of it. is sort of a system that a developer would put in uh for their entire
neighborhood and it would control the waste water etc. Yeah, it is that. But it's nitrogen reducing and it's a new type of technology. So, it's it's different. I I'm telling you it's fundamentally different than a package plant and this is a state law that was passing. It's like Senate Bill 980 or something like that two years ago and you could read that and I can give you
some more information on those. But it's it's different. Uh it really is. >> 645. >> 64. Is that what it is? 645. Okay. Yeah. 64 645. So, it's it's a new thing. It's not the same. And this is something we're trying to get ahead of. So it's not not we're not making up anything related to that. >> We're not saying you are.
>> I don't know. I might do this old school really quick. Just point to the map. Um but yeah, going back uh to the conversation on RDR and the locations of RDR. You have the area, the Shady Hills.
Well, if you can see my the mouse there. Uh, Shady Hills rule character area is right here. The little road piece that I talked about. Uh, here's the Aaron Cutoff location. This is like Angus Valley and uh, Dayflower in those areas.
Um, here. And then you have uh, one uh, res one territory east of Zephr Hills and south of Zephr Hills. So, there's not a lot of RDR outside. Most of the RDR is rural character area and
concentrated in northeast rule. But a key point to make though, I'm sorry. Uh key point to make is that within this I lost my mouse again. >> There it is. Uh in this area here, some
of these uh neighborhoods are part of the rural neighborhood protection area. So they're they're in RDR as well. Aren't we bringing water water and sewer up Shady Hills Road? >> Yes. >> Okay. And isn't that an area
we might want to think about providing sewer service to? >> Mhm. As as a consequence of the upgrade, we are pulling back the or that project. We are pulling back the real character area boundary off of Shady Hills Road to allow for the corridor to participate in
that sewer service more effectively >> or utility service. >> Terry, I want to revisit 2.4 now that we've just had that conversation. So, I'm still not sure we got it right because even number two,
it says lands with a minimum density of one dwelling unit per acre designated as RDR. Well, you just now told me that RDR goes up to 2.9.
And if it's a 2.9 is that sprawl? >> No. >> So >> not according to the >> So there's two problems. One >> additional parameters of the understanding of >> not all land designated RDR are is one
dwelling unit per acre. I guess I don't I got a problem with the language says lands with a minimum density of one dwelling unit per acre designated RDR. Well, if it's RDR, the minimum density is not one dwelling unit per acre. >> Yeah, probably. Yeah, we could do that.
But more importantly, this isn't a policy about sprawl and RDR has some densities that are not sprawl, >> right? And I I think that's where so in our current comprehensive plan, this goes back to how it's been understood
over the years. Residered uh SPR density outside of northeast rural. Um but because it's a max at that point, anything greater than one is not SP. So if somebody were to come in at 1.7 for
example, it would not traditionally be understood as sprawl density. >> I I understand how this happened. Okay. But the language is not accurate though because I understand that you want to limit sprawl when it's one dwelling unit per
acre or less. How am I doing that if I allow him to build a subdivision with a distributed wastewater treatment unit? >> But you Let me finish my thought, please. Okay. But you've thrown RDR into
the mix. Okay. And RDR is not You've just told me when it's greater than one, it's not sprawled. >> Yes. So, either you need to take it out of the
mix or or I don't know what you need to do, but you need to fix your language because it doesn't belong in this. >> Maybe you need to break apart and have two different rules for it when >> two are you referring to 2.4 the language of 2.
>> What's the point? We're trying to limit sprawl, whatever evil sprawl is, and we're going to do it by holding them hostages with utilities. But at the same time, we're going to allow you to develop at one dwelling unit per acre,
and you can put in the distributed wastewater treatment unit. So, have I limited any sprawl? I haven't done anything. >> Well, I think >> so. What's the point? But the isn't the distributed unit, whatever it's called,
specific to the was it the Wiki Watch or something? The basin, whatever that basin is. >> No, not that one. >> Not that one. All right. Well, maybe we shouldn't be allowing them to do that. I don't have to answer that
question. My point is is that even Terry admits that there's densities in the RDR that are not sprawl. and he's thrown it into a policy related to sprawl. So >> again, we have to look at the actual
density for existing development patterns. >> But if you're proposing something new, >> this is the planning commission and sometimes we get speculative RDRs that come in here, >> right? somebody comes in with a speculative RDR, this policy would say as written
that it couldn't have public waste water or that I should limit public wastewater to it. >> Well, I don't we don't really bring in speculative residential future land use um amendments. They're usually identifying
the density. They're telling us what they want to build >> usually only in PD. Did you tell me that somebody doesn't just come in just ask for RDR? >> I mean people come in and they ask for res and we ask them >> RDR flu amendments,
>> right? But when when it is common practice >> without a reasonzoning they just want a flu amendment, >> right? But we wouldn't advance them until they told us what are they what are they going to do? >> It's not binding on there's no legally binding. They may say, "Oh, I'll do >> that's" and they ask for the problem.
Say, "I'm going to develop at SW seven units to the acre." And we say, "Oh, that's great." >> That's exactly been the problem. >> They come back three years later and they say, "Well, I I've got an entitlement for nine dwelling units to the acre because you gave me res 9." >> Yes. That that's been the problem. Ex an
existing problem that we were trying to rightsize in Pasco 2050. The way we've been handling it is typically if somebody wants, you know, pound town homes, they're going to jump all the way to res 9 um and maybe their density is 7.6. So we
have them tell us, you know, what's your actual density that you're proposing here? They're like, well, we really want to do 7.6. At that point, we typically control them on that density with the MPUD, thus bringing both items together to the local planning agency. What happens when
when they get that comp plan amendment, they haven't come in for an MPUD simultaneously and then they sell that land to somebody a few years later. >> The deed restriction route has been used in the past as well. I would argue you're going to get more speculative
applications for RDR now that you raised the density of it because you're not going to be able to say we're not going to permit it any more of it because it's you used to be able to say that because it was limited to one unit per acre and you could say that sprawl I don't want any more of it. But now that it's going
up to 2.9 you can't say that anymore. So you probably get a bunch of applications for it and they may be the speculative map amendments. So you're going to yes you're going to have to encounter this question about
whether it's going to you should have water and sewer in it. This policy as written appears to limit it. >> Well I mean we've committed to providing clarified language on 2.4.2 given the
debate and discussion here. >> My point is that you also need to modify 2.4. >> Yes. That's all I was trying to say because it it also has the same problem. >> Yes. And we we've committed to making
strikethroughs on 2.4. The language of objective 2.4 >> for the three. >> Okay. And there's also a similar problem in the water section which is 1.4. >> Yeah. The language is going to have to follow parallel in those policies. >> You know, there's a similar policy in water as well.
>> Yes. Yes. Okay. Same in solid. >> Okay. Same in solid waste >> or waste water. >> Waste water. >> You said solid waste. Okay. >> Any other questions?
Um, it's not so much a question, but I just want to make sure that nobody has an issue with it because it's a significant change in policy for Northeast Rural. Um,
this one about the I75. >> Oh, yes. >> Um, I got to find it. So 1.14 >> this is the one that's aimed at Evans 80 basically says that if we provide water
and sewer at that employment center it can't be extended any further. Is that basically what it says? >> Well I think this is partially new. So this is this is new language. Um, this is an attempt at addressing
various commentary that has occurred at public hearings um and at workshops and open houses concerning potential utility extensions into northeast rural. Um, so this is
uh purely proposal at this point. So to the extent that we want to have a deep policy discussion on that, that's welcomed. and any adjustments that may be necessary for for the county proposed by the LPA would be welcome as well. >> Just wanted to put the conversation on the table.
>> Is the intent that if they develop their own system at that interchange that it's just not it's not going to be extended beyond the interchange. Is that what the the purpose of this is? that and or the potential of extending a water line,
let's say from uh 52 south, 52 and 75, wherever the utilities are there, straight north up to the that interchange, assuming you built a line that went straight up to I75 and Blandon, whatever that line, whatever territory
and land that crosses the agricultural lands would not to the to the point that we were talking about earlier would not change their flu suddenly and develop by connecting to those uh utility extensions.
So both, but they can use a distributed wastewater treatment unit and do it anyway. And there's nothing that says that they can't build a community water system, water supply
system out here either. Just seems like we're trying to use utilities as a ways to limit growth, but we've got all these other things. Maybe the and I'm not questioning the wisdom or non-wisdom of the legislature by doing these things, but if we if we have
to allow these other things, then what's the point of these policies? Because you can go right around them using the others. Just not sure. utilities as a growth management tool
withholding of utilities. >> I mean I mean it it's it's been the underpinning of a lot of policy associated with urban. >> Well it has until it has until the legislature just said you can go >> Yeah. >> The wisdom has been you can't have a
package plant. Okay. Okay. Well, you can have a dist distributed wastewater treatment unit, which is code for package plant, whatever you want to call it. Okay, that's the legislature saying, I don't care what this county says, you can go do this. So, you can still
develop out and away. That's why they did it. And so, given that they've done that, this tool of using utilities to limit growth has been taken away from you.
I will say this on the issue of distributment units. They need to be remotely controlled and as of right now the utilities does not have the ability to remotely control with the knowledge to do so. So I think this is sort of like a you know if we do have this or if we can work with a developer to do this
and so also there's this issue of if a DWTU is installed and it fails because it's not a standard could we take the wastewater could we treat it properly so there's those issues with DWTUS we don't see foresee them being developed and they're rare use cases and they're not
being developed across the state and we don't currently have the ability to control them or to to sort of manage them in that capacity. city. So, uh, just to answer your question about DWTUS, they're not necessarily a replacement to a package plant, it's a little more complicated because they
require more connection to the utilities. >> Just because somebody isn't using it today doesn't mean they won't. >> That's true. That's why we're putting in our comprehensive plan. >> They gave them the opportunity to use it. They're going to figure out how to use it. >> So, I mean, these were already allowed.
The recent Senate bill just allowed it to happen a little quicker. And so we're not >> and they're going to figure out how to use it. >> Yeah. >> That's why they did it. >> So just a little bit about that. But yeah, we currently they would there's
some sort of issue where they would have to be remotely controlled by the utilities. We don't have that technology or the knowhow to do that. So there' be sort of a program that would be in place to to do that. So we're not right now equipped. So if if there was one that wanted to come, we couldn't approve it at this time. It would be have to be a conversation with the developer about
how to how to accommodate that request, which is why we're putting it in this this Pasco service to sort of get ahead of that. >> Okay. May I ask a quick clarification question? um to I mean to the extent
that the legislature did pass the law that enabled the distributed uh package plants, whatever they're called, um does that necessarily preclude the county from be becoming uh
I suppose more uh well I don't know if restrictive is the right word because the the state legislature has actually allowed this to happen in that location. We can't ban it from happening, but does that bar the county from actually continuing to direct
>> development according to the tools that it has available to itself. >> Does it necessarily ban uh >> I mean the preeemption? No, I just I don't know what >> I don't know. I haven't read the bills over either.
>> Okay. I'm just saying they're giving you're trying to use our past policy and these amended policies are still trying to use utilities as a growth limiting tool. But on the other hand, we're
having to whether we like it or not because the legislators authorize these DWTUS or whatever they're called. That's a way around all of this and people will use the way around it if
you're not going to provide it. So why not? It may not be feasible, economically feasible for somebody to connect and use county utilities. I'm just saying I don't think we should be attempting to
use hold hold growth hostage by withholding utilities when there are now obvious ways around it. I think it's pointless. And again, I don't know why we would
want to discourage anybody regardless of what density they develop at from connecting to a centralized utility system. again may not prove economically feasible right now with known known technology but these things change. This
is we're looking at a planning horizon out to 2050 right now. There's going to be a lot of developments between now and then. >> I suppose the other piece of the equation might might include um capital improvement programming. I mean to the
extent that the county will spend the dollars, multi-millions of dollars to potentially extend utility lines and do we want to send them here or there? >> We don't generally do that. We let the developers pay for them. And why would we want to stop a developer from doing it if that's what they want to do it and
they think they can sell their lots at whatever price it takes to pay for that? Well, was talking. I didn't even know it was a bill until he said that earlier. That's where it was coming from. Sorry, I didn't know that.
>> Can we move on now? Are we >> Yeah, I've made my statement and yeah, I'm telling you just go consider it. You can put whatever you want here, but I just don't see the point of it. That's all. >> Area, what what what's your feeling?
What is there a point in your mind? >> Well, um, specifically as it relates to I75 in the County Road 41 area. Um, I don't know that I'm not a developer. I don't I haven't done any proforma uh costing or whatever to understand the
the economic implications, but just by looking at the map, it doesn't appear to me that there's enough land to um for a developer, let's say, to develop
and pay for the extension of a utility from State Road 52 all the way north to County Road 41. uh that that would be cost prohibitive to make that kind of extension. So to the extent that you want an interchange, a limited interchange, we we don't have
that many of them in the county. To the extent we want that to develop as an employment generation node within the county because it's at one of these interchanges, the county could be looking at at some point. I'm not saying they're doing that now. It's a matter of policy and decision. Um but to the
extent that the county might extend utilities to create that capability at that interchange um at that point we have to think about you know what do you do with land that's in between the northeast rural territory
basically and historically it's been the case for right or for wrong but nevertheless it's been the case that we won't extend utilities into northeast rural one because it's not the urban service area it's the actual rural area and to all of these restrictions on
densities less than res one that we've been talking about this morning. Um, so that would be my concern that if if there's a strong desire at some point in the future and there's a consortium that comes together to extend some kind of utility up to this node, this
interchange, how do you preserve, if the county still wants to be preserving this, how do you preserve the agricultural character of Northeast Rule um, while these utilities pass through? That's just the philosophical question
that we're trying to look at. and provide an answer to. We're trying to plan for the future. That's the whole point. So, we need to have some kind of an idea in hand for a potential eventuality. I guess unrelated unrelated questions. >> Yeah, sure. Of course,
>> Jerry, in the northeast parole policy, um it's both in water and sewer, but there's a there was a change added that there's an exception for um I'm looking
at 1.1.13 B2. Um there's there's B1 talks about conservation subdivisions. B2 says zoning classification MPD in areas with a minimum density of one
dwelling unit per acre in RDR which I guess for northeast rural is accurate it is one dwelling unit in >> but then somebody added and in areas with a maximum density of 60u in SDR are there
are there areas yes >> are there STR areas in >> there's three specific I don't know if we have that map available pointed out on the map. There's three current res six
converted into SDR in pass 2015 areas. If we can zoom in on put Patty on the spot. >> You don't have to point them to me. I just I didn't wasn't aware that we had any >> SD there's three. Um there's one at
Blandon which is kind of where the mouse is right there. Then there's one. Okay. That's that one orange piece right there that you see. Um then if you scoot the map to the east, east. Yeah. And go north a little bit.
>> Is SDR changing in any way in this comp plan? Remind me. SDR is being capped in Northeast Rural at six because there's existing res six in Northeast Rural. At those locations, they're they're getting they're just going to keep the status quo
>> in the rest of the county. It's going up though. >> In the rest of the county, yeah, it's going between 3 and 18. So, um we have been working with stakeholders to create what we call a backslide pretor. Silly language, but anyway. Um the idea
is identify on the future land use map the existing flu density that people have today so that that is their starting point going into the future because you don't want to take take their >> northeast rural it's captive
>> at six >> because that's what it is today >> that that's where they're sitting at today at res six um key point key thing that I want to point out is that not this is luchi area 30198 um not all of that today it's in
northeast rural all of it um but it's also in the east market area so in Pasco 2050 the Luchi area specifically is coming out of northeast rural because it belongs to a different market area and there are redevelopment objectives related to Luchi that are not rural in
scope so and the 301 corridor itself is also coming out of northeast rural because it's not if you drive 301 the actual corridor itself is not rural in scope. Um, but this this uh this orange piece right here, this SDR is in
northeast rule. So that's going to be one of the areas that are going to be capped at six dwelling units because that's what they have today. >> Okay, thank you. >> Answers my question. Thank you, >> Terry. I'm gonna We're gonna take a break for about five minutes. Okay.
>> Yes, sir. There's something There's no Well, yeah. Golf and stuff on the course or not. It wasn't How are you, sir? >> Doing well. How are you?
>> It's good to see you. I'm doing excellent. >> Yeah, I had a meeting uh meeting earlier this morning. So, >> yeah, >> I get reminded of that all the time >> break
time. Oh >> yes. >> So for the conference you you were talking about written um two vehicles instead of one, right? >> Yeah. Others do one. >> Yeah.
That's what I was wondering if we're going to do two then. I could I could have picked up one of them, you know. >> I don't know what I'll do. Um, we'll just Uber from the airport or we >> Doesn't make sense for me to rent a car for a day and then have to get it back
to the airport. Yeah. So, but I'm pretty sure all the tours and stuff will or pick up at the hotels. >> Me, too. >> Yeah, me too. We booked that one. We booked the tour of the um
UA campus as well. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I told her we were in for that. We'll be there. >> We're inviting David. >> How's the golf going? Comes a ghost.
>> Right. >> I don't know. I can't stand in the afternoon anymore. >> Yeah. Nice. Perfect. >> That's pretty savings. We teed off at 9:00. The guy in the group behind us couldn't
stand up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Embarrassing. >> Feel better. >> It's been bad. Bad girl. Yeah, I hear it. It's like a
>> Yeah, high pitch. >> Yeah, they might I had my house done recently. They cleaned out all the >> all the duct work. Just trying to reduce the line at the get out.
>> Yeah, exactly. >> Yeah, I need this. Unbelievable what accumulates. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah. Yeah, thank God. Yeah.
>> Keep going. Keep going. brother. >> Yeah. Younger. Yeah. >> No. Market's down% >> respond very well to drum pow yesterday >> in Georgia. I didn't know
>> there's no other result you could actually >> same. >> Yeah. >> At the end of the day, I don't think the keeping interest rates was steady was a surprise, >> right? He was just a little more hawkish in his tone than people expected.
>> Of course, they're each going to take their political digs at each other, but When you want to go back and touch on the line >> blowing up world's oil supply out there. Okay, I guess we'll get started again.
>> Um, I understand that we have uh the person that we need to speak to about storm water question online. >> Yes. Uh, storm water is available online. >> You want to just take care of that now? >> Yeah, if we can repeat the question for them.
>> Okay. John, >> I just wanted to know. >> So, do we have >> back to the policy on >> I thought we had resolved this and that we were going to evaluate its e efficacy, but >> yeah, we're just going to change the language to evaluate.
>> Is that right? So, we don't have any questions, right? Yes. Okay. >> I mean, unless you have other move on then. are there. I mean, uh, we're done with Oh, this is the table that we were referring to earlier. Um,
>> no, not that one. That's not it. I'm sorry. There it is. There was a question earlier about the proximities and how do you require what's that distance proximity requirement? >> Okay. But didn't we do we come up with language to inter This this is existing
in the comp plan. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> John, did you have any questions? >> No. >> Okay. >> We can move on then. >> We're done with our presentation. If there's any other questions from the
LPA, >> any other questions from anyone? >> My only thing and I didn't pay too much attention to the slide and it was kind of ended quickly was your last slide. Was that definitions? >> Yes. Can you just pop that slide back up real quick?
So, when this was on the screen really briefly, I was just wondering what um certifications were and why conditional uses weren't added to development permit. You guys, right? >> Yeah, we did.
>> Well, wasn't a conditional use of zoning permit? >> I I was >> So, we got this straight from the >> statute. >> What? What? Go ahead. >> Oh, I was just thinking that maybe conditional use needed to be added because call out special exception. and
variances which are all kind of zoning permits. So, um >> yeah, >> I was just wondering if that needed to be added. >> Yeah, we can add it. >> That was my only comment. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other comments, questions?
No, I would like to point out just real quick in reading the definition of DWTU that doesn't sound like a package treatment plant. That sounds like an aerobic treatment unit which is remotely
controlled which I don't care. Neither here nor there. So I've got a larger question or comment that is really related to kind of multiple. So water, waste water and solid waste potentially. I mean it's
doesn't necessarily fit within the comp plan but it's more of a question of how we account for POS for example or emergency chemicals that you know potential to be significantly costly um to our so is that just kind of is that
regulatory criteria that's driven or how are we looking at emergency contaminants PES you know for example taking that which is going to have a huge impact on the cost of utility operations going forward sub subject matter experts. Cool.
>> My understanding is we're developing testing for POS and they're developing contaminants in the wastewater and this is a regulatory requirement. Yeah. So that's that's my understanding of it. >> So based on federal criteria because there is state
>> I think it's a state or no actually is federal. Yeah. This is EPA. Yeah. Yes sir. >> Okay. Because there is no I mean all the state criteria is provisional at this point. So it's only it's it's very limited as an enforcability. >> Yeah. My understanding is we're we're u
getting into the point where we can test those things. We currently aren't testing for POS in the wastewater, but we do want to start doing that. So >> is that something that's kind of in your plans going forward to Okay. >> Yes. Yes sir. >> Yeah. Because I mean it obviously you have appreciation for how huge of a cost
that might be. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. We're having those discussions internally at this point. Yeah, the same applies for waste water and solid bioolids, everything. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Good morning. I'm Tim Treshler. I'm the senior program manager for Solid Waste.
>> Hey, Tim. >> Uh, Solid Waste is currently monitoring uh the regulatory environment for PAS. There are currently no specific regulations that impact us, right? But we'll be we we are continuing to stay apprised of of what the federal government and then the state uh FD
stance will be. >> All right. What's next? That's it. What is any decision been made on workshop schedules moving forward or something? >> So, we're currently looking at April 9
and April 16. Is that it? >> April 9th. >> April 9 only in the afternoon. And >> yeah, it's next Thursday. do morning and after.
>> Okay. So, uh, normally the the planning commission schedule um would be a little bit more spaced out in April, but because of renovations and whatnot happening in Dade City, the April 2nd meeting got bumped to April 9. So, now we have backto-back weeks. But on April
9, um, it will be only in the afternoon. Uh and then April 16, we're planning for a morning workshop and plus overtime if we need it uh for the for the afternoon. Um and then we are according to Patty, just for the record, we're waiting for
confirmation from two more members to have that quorum. >> Yes. And as soon as I get those, then I can get um what? So uh tenatively the April 9 and 16 meetings will be on Pesco moves the
transportation element. >> Cherry could you repeat the April 9th time that you were >> afternoon afternoon session. >> Okay. >> Um and yeah the April 9th and April 16 workshops are tenatively for PESCO moves
>> and what the April 9th is what's subject on April 9th? Pesco moves the transportation element. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, we're going to do two workshops on that element. >> Yeah. We'll be looking at on the first workshop. It's a introduction to the vision roads um and
>> the preservation table. So, it'll be a show by Nick County Engineer. Um and then having understanding the map and what's happening in the map. Then we're going to at the next session talk policies. All right. Thank you.
>> There's nothing else uh for this. >> What session? >> Is there like a grand overall schedule like where we're trying to get? I know I heard Hyatt you refer to earlier that >> yeah, we're on a short time frame which all of a sudden this thing sat around for six months and now all of a sudden we're going to be pushed to here we got to cram a bunch of workshops in and take
forget about your regular workload and stuff. But what are we trying to work towards? >> So the the tenative schedule at this point is uh workshopping as I mentioned uh moves invests partners and grows over
the next three months. So in April it's going to focus on transportation. In May we're going to be looking at um some workshops for uh investment partners as well as uh grows. So the board of county commissioners has a workshop at the end
of May. So we'll be looking at um fitting those those in there. Uh revisions that may be happening say in serves and whatever we might talk about in the next workshops those will be presented along the way to um verify
that and demonstrate that whatever changes the LPA has asked for will we're done basically. And then in June, >> oh yes and and then the tenative schedule of course after that after the workshops will be bringing the full comprehensive plan to the local planning
agency in June uh with potential transmitt by the board of county commissioners in July and eventual adoption August September. David, has our have our SP 180 issues
been resolved? >> We're still evaluating that. We have some reason to believe that the Department of Commerce may have changed their position since the city of AOE lawsuit, but we're still trying to
verify that. >> But there was no nothing significant in the legislature. Legislature did not amend Senate Bill 180. >> Okay, that's what I was. >> Okay. Well, anything else?
I motion to adjourn. So moved. >> Second. Second. >> Third. >> Favor. >> I done I >> I It's one of my favorite songs. >> Doing that all the time, too.
>> Yes, I do. I like that voice. Okay. >> You guys Part: 2
Yeah, >> my college days were spent driving back from Orlando down state with the fishy bar where there's nobody lanes. was nice. >> Stark was such a speed trap. They made a
>> They built the road around it. Now alternate 301 goes around start >> as long as you got it ready to go. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Oh, it's okay. Yeah, I think >> surprised there's
going to be a ton of opposition. Oh, you are >> here's here's the process. All right. Well, thank you. >> It's funny how they're carving out. >> Park anything else anywhere else. Well, I don't know if
>> well either way. That's why I asked So >> it solves the problem so small that sign was there. conversations perhaps national bar. Did it disappear?
That's what you're calling cars are used. I Attach it. This is just what people ask. like to call the meeting to order.
>> So, if we could uh stand for a moment of silence and the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. Madam push for roll call please. >> Jamie Jordy >> here. >> Christopher P >> here. >> John Moody >> here. >> Matthew Ms. >> Derek >> here. >> Chris Williams represented by Liam Divine >> here. >> Chairman Charles Gray
>> here. >> And the approval of the minutes. Do we have minutes? >> No minutes. >> Okay. >> All right. Like to welcome everybody that's here today with the planning commission. appointed by the border county commissioners and we meet twice
monthly serve as a local planning agency and we hold public hearings and transmit to the board of county commissions our recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments land development code amendments resoning and conditional use requests. Planning commission is the
final decision m making body for certain appeals variance special exceptions requests and certain al alternative standard requests. Our final decisions may be appealed to the board of county commissioners. So if anyone is in
opposition to any land development code amendment, reszoning, conditional use, or any item where the planning commissioner transmits the recommendation to the board of county commissioners, it's important for you to attend the appropriate board of county commission meeting.
And for those of you who are not familiar with the meetings, we have three sections. We have continuences, we have consent items, and we have regular items. We'll go through the uh continuences first. Uh if there's
something on continuance that you want to have heard and it's relevant, please raise your hand. But it's typically our uh tradition to grant continuance requests by the from the staff or from the applicant unless they're
extenduating circumstances. We have consent items and we'll go through the consent items one at a time. Any uh any consent item that we uh raise, you can uh notify me that you want have want to have it heard and
we'll put it on to the regular items. Just raise your hand when we go through it. Otherwise, we will u pass all the consent items at one time. And then we have the regular items. Those are the items that will be fully
discussed today. Um, applicants will have five minutes to make their presentations and questioners will have three minutes to ask their questions and then the applicant will have time to come back up and respond to those questions.
Do we have anybody online today? >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Uh, we do have one individual signed in online for WebEx. And just for housekeeping, we have nobody signed up to speak for general public comment. >> Okay, great. So, um,
just as a note, if you have your phone with you, please put your phone on the silent position so we won't disturb anybody when they're speaking or trying to hear. So, before we start the regular meeting, is anyone here here to speak on an item that is not on today's agenda?
Don't see anyone. So, we can get started. Thank you. >> Oh, we did. We didn't do that. >> You're keeping me honest. All right. Can we have that in, please? >> Items were advertised in the Tampa Bay
Times on February 4th, 2026 and March 4th, 2026, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site. >> Thank you very much. Okay. >> Good afternoon, planning commission members. Giana German, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. Item
PC1, you'll be sitting as the local planning agency and this item has a companion PC2. PC1 is PTE 260286, a small scale conference of plan amendment CPAS-2503 in the name of Old Dixie RV Resort PD providing for a conference of plan
amendment to the future land use maps 2-15 and sheet 03 changing from res 6 residential six dwelling units per gross acre to PD plan development on approximately 12.56 acres of real property located in on the west side of Old Dixie Highway approximately 0.25 25
miles south of the intersection of Gulf Way and Old Dixie Highway and a text amendment creating sub area policy flu 7.1.87 Old Dixie RV Resort PD and a map amendment to the future juice map 2-9 adding sub area map 2-987
Old Dixie RV Resort PD and this is coming with a request to continue the item to a date uncertain. >> All right, is the applicant present? Anyone here to object? Okay, let's go to the next one. Item PC2 is the companion piece to PC1. It's PD
267895, a zoning amendment in the name of groundf flooror storage LLC, an old Dixie RV Resort MPUD master plan unit development to allow for a resoning request from an R4 highdensity residential district to an MPU master plan unit development district to allow
for the maximum development of 52 RV spaces res and excuse me 52 RV space resort and associated infrastructure located on the northwest Pasco County a budding old Dixie Highway on the east side approximately.56 miles north of New
York Avenue and Old Dixie Highway intersection containing approximately 12.56 acres and this is also coming with the request to a date uncertain and that is the remainder of the continuence agenda. >> All right, are you the applicant? Okay, so anybody here to object? See no
objection. >> Move to continue PC1 and PC2 to a date uncertain. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Post like sign. Motion carries.
>> The first item on the consent agenda is PC3. It's PTE 267917. Special exception in the name of Love Property, John T. Love, and Laura M. love for a reduced rear yard building line setback for an accessory dwelling
unit and ADU in an ER a state residential district located on the west side, excuse me, located in west central Pasco County on the north side of Lake View Drive, approximately 200 ft west of Oyola Drive containing approximately 1.56 acres. And this is coming with the recommendation to approve the special
exception request with conditions conditions as set forth under the recommended condition section below. Authorize the chairman to execute the one original order provided and direct board records to distribute as set forth under the distribution section below.
>> All right. Is the applicant present? Anyone here to object? See no one. Next >> item PC4. You'll be sitting as the local planning agency. It's PTE 260435. It's a comprehensive plan amendment CPA2601
West Market Area R future land use density text amendment providing for a text amendment to the future land use element appendix section flu A-6 and a text amendment to the glossery and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency
providing for a repealer severability and an effective date and this is coming with the recommendation that the planning commission find the proposed amendment Excuse me. The local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the board of county commissioners. >> Mr. Chair, I have a question about this
one. >> I'll pull this one. >> Okay. So, PC3 pulled >> PC PC >> four. >> And that's the remainder of the consent agenda. >> Move to approve item PC3.
>> We have a motion. >> Second. >> We have a second. Further discussion on the motion on PC3. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppos like sign. Okay. Motion carries. >> Mr. Chair, would you like to hear item
PC4 or would you like me to proceed with item PC5? This is on the regular agenda. >> Um, let's do PC4. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, I think five has a companion, right? >> Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Joseph Ryold, Planning,
Development, Economic Growth. This is CPA 2601, West Market Area RO, retail office residential future land use density text amendment. Proposal is a text amendment to the future land use element, appendix
section A6, and a text amendment to the glossery. Purpose is to establish new density allowing up to 32 dwelling units per developable residential acre for redevelopment development and repurposing projects.
The location is ROR flu designated properties located within the West Market area. Here we have the map of the county with all the different market areas. Here is specifically the west market
area. And then here in the kind of red orange color we have all the RO designated properties. So the pro proposed amendment is for redevelopment and repurposing projects
within the west market area. Um it applies to previously developed, underutilized or obsolete sites. So that'll be your brown field, gray field, and infill sites that have exist existing infrastructure.
It does not apply to undeveloped vacant parcels. >> So can I stop you there because that's the root of my question. Um, so if you had a say a 30 acre tract that was otherwise vacant,
but let's just say it had a quarter acre that was had an old farm building on it. Do you consider that to be redevelopment or vacant? That would be a redevelopment
if it had existing structures on it. >> So even though 95% of the track was vacant, if it just had a small old farm building, you're considering that redevelopment.
>> That would be redevelopment. But there also other qualifying factors. Um so in RO you're going to have C1 properties, C2 properties, different zonings. So, in order to have multif family residential in the West
Market area, um it has to be C2 and then you have to apply through a conditional use process to for that opportunity. So, it's on a case-byase basis. >> Yeah. I'm I'm just asking what what qualifies them as redevelopment for the
32 units per acre because when we did the mobility fee regulations, we didn't if it was largely vacant. In other words, if it was most if it was,
you know, say not the majority of the site was vacant, um, and it maybe just had as very small one house. We have lots of large tracks in the county that were basically a tracks
that maybe had an old house on it or an old farm building that for the that were predominantly vacant tracks. But we didn't we not have not historically considered that to be redevelopment
because it had a single house on it or a single farm building. Historically, we consider redevelopment to be there was like a it was actually fully developed with a commercial building or
uh an entire residential tract of houses or something that are now being demolished. So, I'm not sure I agree with the answer to your original answer to your question to the question,
Terry. Do you agree with that answer? >> David, can I ask you quickly? Your example is that it's a 30 acre tract with a farmhouse building. If it's a 30 acre tract with
>> a 2,000 square foot commercial building on it. >> Well, I I don't I don't I don't know where we draw the line. I mean, maybe that would would be redevelopment. I just >> My problem is that the way they've defined redevelopment, I don't know where that line is drawn. And so when we did the redevelop when we did this in
mobility fees, we actually used a percentage of the of the land. We actually >> having structures on it >> with that had structures on it that had impervious. We actually came up with a specific percentage of it that had to have been developed so we wouldn't have
this fight about how much of it had to have been developed for it to be considered redevelopment. We we didn't leave this to chance later. We we came up with a percentage and and there is no percentage in this. It just so I don't know where you're drawing this line.
Um so the redevelopment uh definition that's proposed here to to be included into the comprehensive plan says the substantial improvement, reconstruction or replacement of existing developed property including the demolition of obsolete or deteriorated structures, reconfiguration of sites, modernization
of infrastructure or other activities that reinvest in and revitalize previously developed lands. there there are sites along so this particular upgrade to RO is dedicated specifically to the west market area and
specifically you're going to have most of the that RO along the US19 corridor and and a bit along the state 52 and 54 corridors. Um with regard to those particular sites that are on 19 and 52
and 54, there are not very many uh if at all. I'm trying to remember right off the top of my head. Uh vacant parcels uh that um would kind of meet the criteria that David is referencing. I mean there's no there's no farm houses basically in
these areas. Um I know the 75% vacant parcel mobility fee threshold that was established a couple of years ago. So that that is there. Yes. Um we did not include that in this definition. um thinking to prioritize actual
redevelopment rather than putting a a threshold on it. If we do have a a parcel of land that's underutilized within on the US19 corridor and it's sizable enough to accommodate uh
potential increase in density, um this would be the place to to to see that density. >> If you're comfortable there's no situation I mean I I'm I've seen your map. I if you're comfortable that there's no parcels
or this is going to be abused by what's effectively vacant farmland that just happens to have an old structure on it then I'll live with that answer. Um >> can I
>> but I mean Mitchell Ranch >> I mean recently >> yeah I mean >> in that's a good example. Mitchell Ranch just happened to have a house on it, but the majority of it was just vacant land. >> So in his definition of redevelopment,
he says it's the improvement, reconstruction, or replacement of existing developed property. So when I go to the glossery in the comp plan, development is the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation,
the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land. So I think where I'm going with that is in your example of the 30 acre tract with a farmhouse, the area of the tract
which contains the farmhouse has been developed, but the rest if there's been no material change, I'm sorry, material change in the use or appearance or structure of the land is not developed.
>> Yeah, but somebody could argue that it's all one tract of land. Especially if it's all one parcel. It's a one partial ID. >> They may argue that that partial ID has been developed.
>> So how can we fix it? >> Well, maybe tie it to some sort of density. >> I mean, you could say some percentage of the parcel has been developed. I mean, which is what we did with mobility fees. But Terry's telling me
that all the based on the map that he's showing me that that all of those parcels don't have this issue. I I don't know because I'm not I haven't studied the map like he has. I mean, if he's right, then maybe that this isn't an issue. I don't know.
Um maybe there aren't any partials like Mitchell Ranch and this map that >> that have it, you know, that are largely vacant with a single farmhouse on them. I don't know. I am aware of some that might meet that definition along say US19.
I can think of a couple up in Hudson that would, you know, they've got a small building up front by the highway, but the rest of the land in the back is in its natural state that it's been that way for 40 or 50 years. >> But which >> I'm just saying that we, you know, we
all have a picture in our minds when we say redevelopment. We generally think of it as old commercial, old industrial building >> that needs obsolete, needs to be torn down, >> old condos. >> We don't typically think of Mitchell
Ranch as redevelopment. Okay. So, but the way this is defined, it >> Mitchell Ranch arguably constitutes redevelopment. That's that's the issue. >> I agree with you. >> And so, >> that's the concern. And
>> when he answered my question originally, he basically said Mitchell Ranch would be redevelopment, >> right? And what I'm suggesting is >> that area of the land which is >> not developed even though it may be part of the parcel perhaps should not qualify
as redevelopment. Yes, it may be redevelopment where I tear down an existing structure or an existing parking lot, but if the if the back 15 acres was never touched and it is in its virgin state and it's hard to say that that's redeveloping, that's new
development >> or even if it's being used for a purposes. >> Well, I mean, >> not in its virgin state, >> but the problem with drawing the line that way is that I don't necessarily want to penalize I mean, >> I get your point, but let's just say it is a true
commercial development, obsolete partial that's got, you know, 50% of the site had an old obsolete industrial building. Say the back half was largely vacant and they want to redevelop it at 32 units an acre. I
don't want to say they can't do the back half at 32 units an acre because that was untouched. I mean it I would still consider that a redevelopment site because >> 50% of the land's being used >> because because they they truly did
develop that site with an obsolete industrial building. I'm just trying to make sure this isn't abused by what is largely a vacant track with an old farm building or an old house. I mean that that's
>> so can you state that you know at least 25% of the parcel had to have been developed >> well >> in order to qualify for >> could it be the word >> nonresidential is that your concern your your example
was a farmhouse or an old house whereas if it's a nonresidential structure like a restaurant or a the water. >> I think it should have something to do with the percentage that has pressure on it. >> Then I would fix that
because residential could also include a multifamily building which then I think would fall under your envisionment of something that's developed. >> Um I do think that if it's multif family or commercial that it's
less likely to to be abused. Yes, that's your requirement. >> So single family, non res non single family, residential >> I mean D, do you have a solution to this problem or
what David? >> I mean I mean if you're representing to me that none of these sites are We we have we have a combination of things that happen along the north US19 corridor in
particular. Um there are some sites in which they're totally wooded um large tracks of land. Um I'm looking at one right now for example that's approximately 10 acres undeveloped. There's nothing on it. It's just trees. So those types of
sites do exist. um on the US19 corridor that would be considered uh green field development assuming they somebody comes in and wants to build something on it. Um to the extent that there has been a plat processed
and nothing has occurred because there are some places along 19 in which there's been some kind of subdivision established. You can see the the parcels on the map. Um my understanding is that that would be considered a a form of development because development order
has been processed essentially and land has been split etc. Um and so there you could consider the part of the definition here before underutilized >> uh sites. Let me back up for a second because I don't know the purpose of if
if the purpose of this policy is you just want to intensify these this corridor in general then maybe I don't care. I mean I because but but you stated that the purpose is that you want to encourage it only for redevelopment
sites. So >> to to facilitate the economic burden of having to deal with existing infrastructure structures etc that are that may be on the site. And that's what I was getting to next which is that there are also sites on US 19 that have
you know 10 20 acres and they they had built a pad at some point. Maybe there was a building there once upon a time and the and the building went away and all you're left with is a pad and and an old parking lot. Utility connections are present because you could imagine the
connections that were going to that building that doesn't exist anymore. And so that was part of the logic is okay, let's take some of these sites also which are under underutilized uh vacant at this point and incentivize them for redevelopment. So any kind of
tear down, ripping up, redoing of the site is added cost on the redevelopment. And if you can incentivize things and allow for a bit more density on the mixeduse parcel, um that's what we were that we were going for.
>> I mean, I'm just saying if you're trying to incentivize that type of previously developed property which you're describing, I'm not sure this definition gets you there. Would it Terry would it be problematic
if if the general situation is that most of the properties in these RO corridors are already developed and they're getting older and starting to
blight and we want them to redevelop. Is it really much of a problem if we just allow all the ities in the RO to go to this proposed density if there's only a few that aren't developed today. Does
it really make would it really move the needle? >> I mean, that's where I was going, Mr. Rooney, was that I mean, if if you're really just trying to incentivize these RO properties in this
corridor, Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe just let them all go to 32 units per year. >> Right. I think what I'm asking is if is if there's not enough completely undeveloped parcels to make a difference. Does it really matter if one
or two that are vacant today get to take advantage of the increased density? I mean certainly certainly the the vast majority of the parcels along 19 as I'm kind of been surveying this as we talk here
would fall under this I see what your point is like if there's not that many the vast majority >> undeveloped parcels so if one of them managed that was undeveloped and managed to come in and develop at this density does it really make any substantive
difference that they did Probably not. >> If if the majority of the corridor was undeveloped, I could see why one might not do that. But if the vast majority of the corridor is already developed, what doesn't really make much difference. >> I guess it would only make a difference
if you were trying to encourage the them to go to the the true redevelopment site versus the vacant site. >> Yes. I think what Terry's trying to say is that there aren't that many vacant sites
to begin with >> in these particular areas. You have a recommendation, Terry? I'm sorry. >> Terry's telling me it's not an issue. I'll drop it. I'll fine. >> And it's only in the west area we're talking. >> Yeah, I do. Um, David Angel, planning
and economic development director. It it's, you know, the the board's view is is that we should do things to redevelop 19, um, have more productive uses there. So, I wouldn't exclude vacant parcels on 19 because they're just as important as
redeveloping an existing facility which has a um an ancient building on it that needs to be rehabilitated. >> Totally agree. Yeah. >> Yeah, >> I agree with that. >> Well, then maybe you should >> I think we should define the ge the geographic area that this applies to.
It's just says West Market. Maybe we can provide a more precise definition. >> It's basically the Well, you can just increase tensity at 32 for RO period, not just for redevelopment projects. Correct. You're going to say that >> in the West Market area. >> Honestly, if that's how market is there, there's
>> if that's how this put in here, I would never would have raised the issue, >> right? >> But you had an exclusion for vacant parcels and said this only applied to redevelopment. >> Yeah, you take that part of it out.
>> Yeah, you could fix that. If if that's the desire, then we can fix that language and make it just applicable across West Market RO in the West Market area. >> Right. The idea is to get that corridor looking shiny and new again. >> Right.
>> So we can fix that language to that effect. >> Good. >> That's good. >> Yeah, I understand the idea of trying to encourage redevelopment, but like you said, most of those parcels are developed already. So by definition, it's going to be mostly redevelopment.
All right. Thank you, Terry. >> So, you're just going to make it apply to all those partials. Then, >> if that's Yeah, if that's the desire of the local planning agency, then we don't see why why we should uh counter argue it.
>> Okay. >> I think that solves the problem of trying to figure out what's redevelopment and what isn't. >> Again, if it was 90% vacant in that area, that'd be a different story, right? >> But Most of it's not vacant. >> So,
if we were to make a motion, do we want to make it on the text of the proposed amendment? >> I have some question. So, I don't know if you're done asking that question. Ready to make a motion? But do you know how many acres is RO in the West Market
area? >> Hi, Miley. Plan development economic growth. It is 5,572 acres approximately. >> Yeah. give or take if you got >> three. >> Yeah. >> Did you set her up for that question?
>> Um, a little bit. Um, and I'll explain my thought, but I was trying to I asked her earlier today on if she had the acreage for the total acreage of RO and then what would actually fall into this
as redevelopment or repurposing. Um it seems like we might be going in a different direction because I wanted to know how many increase of units that would be from 24 to 32. Um from a student generation point that could be potentially a lot of students um in that
area. So I was trying to figure out what that acreage is. Um so I can figure out some of those numbers of how many students could potentially be generated from going from 24 to 32. >> Gotcha. Um, I would also note that there's not a current um, Ukliden zoning
district that goes up to 32. So, I don't know if the intent is to then require those applicants to go through the MPD process to allow that or if there is another means via conditional use. I know historically past conditional uses
um, were or didn't become less restrictive than the code. So, I don't know if um the intent is to allow those conditional uses to go up to 32 since the West Market area does allow conditional uses for multif family
without any commercial integration or affordable housing elements. >> Sure. So, the certainly MPU is always an option um that can be used for redevelopment. um
the vast majority of the ROI in the West Market area is under a C1 or C mostly C2 zoning. So the conditional use um that the C2 would allow would basically follow the future land use uh allowance for density. So if it if it
increases to 32 and you have C2 zoning, if ROI increases to 32 and you have C2 zoning, uh, and there's a redevelopment that's taking place, you could take advantage of the 32 dwelling units per break or through your conditional use process. Um, so likewise with an MPU, it
would be the same same scenario. Uh, you would just be following the future land use um density designation. As far as the MF1, MF2, and MF3 options of the utility or Uklidian zone, um, yes, I
think MF3 can max out at 24ish in that in that area. >> Um, >> but we also know that in the land development code, the uklidian zones need to be um updated following PESCO 2050. So, that's going to be one of the projects that will be happening in the
land development code update. So, um, my question is, was there a reason why this couldn't wait until 2050? Because it sounds like the timeline for 2050 is approaching quickly of how you how fast your timeline is or how like how fast
you would like it to be. So, is there a reason why this needed to go now instead of waiting until 2015? >> Yeah. So, this has been uh moving through the system the last couple of months. Um it didn't follow we we opted to not follow the pass 2050 timeline at the
moment uh mainly because of legislative activity happening in Teleahassee on this particular question. Um also it's been stated objective for many years uh in the county to try to facilitate redevelopment wherever we can within the West Market area. So we we determined
that we should advance this given that we had a couple of projects on the horizon that might be able to take advantage of this and potentially even bring affordable housing into the area. So, we wanted to try to smoothen that out without dealing with the headwinds of legislative or non-legislative
endeavors coming from Tallahassee to to put it broadly. >> David, >> so sorry. Can I hire Can you just repeat that number for me? 5,000 >> 572 >> 572. >> It's a maximum of 44,576
dwelling units. if you had eight to every acre, which is of course never going to happen, but >> So, Commissioner Moody, if you wanted to alter the text, I think what you would do is you would >> change line was to say just say for
projects within the West Market area, the maximum density allowed shall not exceed 32 dwelling units per developable residential acre. You would strike the next sentence and then you would strike the definitions of redevelopment and repurposing.
>> Terry, did you have that down? >> Um, >> we got that on video. Would there be any desire to keep the definitions of redevelopment and repurposing even if they didn't necessarily apply to
this >> particular text amendment? >> We could we could keep them uh and then >> either continue on with as part of this amendment just doesn't pull bearing now on the ROI and west market issue.
>> Um or we can tap it in the future. >> Tack it on to 2050. >> What are your thoughts, David? >> I mean, if you if they want it would be odd to keep it with this amendment if it's not being used in this amendment. It's probably better to put it with
2050. >> Okay. >> Okay. We could do that. >> Okay. Continue. Well, somebody would have to make a motion to that effect if that's your >> Yeah, >> if that's your request.
>> He was somebody want to make a motion. >> Well, should we finish the presentation because you were partway through your presentation, right? >> Well, it was really my question and he answered my question. >> Yeah. Well, then with that, I would move to approve the proposed text amendment
striking the words for redevelopment and repurposing from the first sentence and strike the last sentence from the proposed text amendment and
eliminate the two glossery terms, redevelopment and repurposing. You have a second. >> Second. >> Does that sound like that would work legally? David, >> it definitely addresses my concern
because >> my concern was with the definition of redevelopment. So that eliminates the definition. >> Further discussion. All in favor signify by saying I >> post like sign. >> Okay. All
anything else? >> That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh next we have item P5 on the agenda which you'll be sitting as the local planning agency for this item and this item has a companion MPUD which is P9.
P5 is PTE 260006 a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAS-2502 Caliente Resorts providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 20 changing from comm commercial to res 24 residential 24 dwelling unit per gross
acre on approximately 4.93 acres of real property located on Grand Via Boulevard approximately.3 miles east of the intersection of Caliente Boulevard and Landelakes Boulevard and this is coming with the request that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan
and recommend approval to the board of county commissioners. And there's a presentation by staff. >> All right. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. >> Yes, >> Dorine Roy, planning development and economic growth.
>> Okay. Thank you, Dorine. Uh item P5, Caliente Resorts. >> D before you start, um Mr. Chair, there's a companion item reszoning. Did you want to open up the public hearing for both items?
>> Yes. Time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> Very good. uh PDE 260006 CPAS2502 Caliente Resorts. Uh the proposal the petitioner is
requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from comm res uh from comm commercial to res 24 dwelling units for gross acre on 4.93
acres being a portion of parcel 012618004. 4 000000 0000 M0 flu the flu change from comm to res 24.
The purpose to allow for 96 condominium units. The location of the proposed project is on the northwest side of Grand Via Boulevard, approximately 1,750
ft from the intersection of Lando Lakes Boulevard and Caliente Boulevard. There is an accompanying MPUD 20240062 to substantially modify the existing Caliente Resorts MPUD
which will be processed concurrently with this proposed amendment. The property is located in the central market area and outside the urban concentration area. This is the context map.
Transportation network map. Existing future land use proposed land use. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive policies. Policy flu 1.43, 43 policy HSG13
policy flu 187 policy flu 1101 policy flu 813 the recommendation is finding the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend
approval to the board of county commissioners I'm here if there are any questions Any questions? >> Just one quick one, Dorene. I don't know anything about this. A citizen text me and asked
about a road that was supposed to go through here to Aaron Cutoff and was supposed to be split between Kiente and Wilderness Lakes. And they claimed that the CDD fees were up to do this road and never finished it. Does anybody know if
there's any truth to this? >> I think I'll defer that information to my colleague in the MPU. >> Okay. Do you know which road that is? >> You mentioned Aaron cut off.
>> Yes. A road that was supposed to go through >> Aaron Cutoff. I I mean I can tell you that currently Caliente Boulevard has an unfinished middle segment that ends just north well not just north
but a bit a bit ways further north from the Caliente site that we're talking about and then it it stops. The ride ofway is all there, but the road ends and it's just grass for I don't know how long how long that distance is and then it picks up again further north.
>> So maybe that's what they're talking about. >> Yeah. But I don't think that would have been a CDD priority or requirement to build because that's on the vision road network. >> Okay. And does there any relationship between this project and that
>> the on the 96 condos? No. >> Okay. Right. Yeah. >> Okay. So, who's here to speak on this one? >> There are individuals signed up to speak on this item, Mr. Chair, both in person
and online. Item P9 is the companion. If you would like to hear that first. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh P9 is the companion MPU to P5. It's PTE 267857. a zoning amendment in the name of Caliente Resorts MPUD and
LOL Properties, Inc. for a reszoning request for master plan units development to master plan development district to allow for the development of 96 condominium units and associated infrastructure on approximately 4.93 acres located on the western side of Calante Boulevard approximately 31 miles
northeast of the intersection of Caliente Boulevard and Land of Lakes Boulevard. This is coming with the recommendation of approval to the board of county commissioners of the proposed substantial modification to the MPD with conditions. >> Good afternoon, planning commission. This is Robert Irving with planning
development and economic growth. So yes, the item before you is PTE 267857, the Caliente Resorts MPU substantial modification. Um, here's the location map showing this in the south central part of Pasco County
and the project overview. The proposal is a zoning amendment from MPD master plan new development to MPD master plan new development. It's a substantial modification to allow for the development of 96 condominium units on approximately 4.93 acres and it's
located on the western side of Caliente Boulevard approximately 31 miles northeast of the intersection of Caliente Boulevard and Landelakes Boulevard. So here's the location map showing the subject site and here's the zoning map. Um, this MBUD
was last approved in 2010 to allow for a maximum development of 738 dwelling units. Here's the future land use map demonstrating the comm commercial as previously presented. And here's the site location and overall context. So that red line is the overall
boundary of the Caliiente MPUD. And so as I mentioned previously in 2010, it was approved for 738 dwelling units. To date, only 430 units have been built, including the RV spaces. And the maximum number of dwelling units
currently in this substantial modification is capped at 526, including those 96. So, this shows an overall reduction by 212 dwelling units. The reasoning behind not carrying over those 212 leftover dwelling units is because there's currently an application in
review for that westernmost piece that you see that's vacant to reszone from the Caliant Resorts MPUD and take it out and be its own standalone MPUD. Um, additionally, as part of this modification, the applicant will be required to construct a 405 foot
northbound right turn lane at the intersection of US 41 and Caliiente Boulevard. prior to the first building permit for the record plat or first building permit issuance. Here's the master plan. It's a little hard to see, but kind of centered in the
middle there, you'll see the cutout between where the existing clubhouse is and the proposed 96 condo units. So here's the binding concept plan which demonstrates the 96 condo units spread out amongst four fourstory buildings
located within the existing parking area that abuts the main lake within the center of Kelly. The binding concept plan shows one vehicular connection onto Grand Via Boulevard and four pedestrian points of connection. Those are those smaller arrows shown.
So then we have a separate exhibit demonstrating the recreation areas within the existing community because part of where the condos are proposed to be located is within a portion of the existing development that currently is occupied by three tennis courts, six pickball
courts and one basketball court which are proposed to be removed to accommodate this proposal and the associated parking area. The existing pool and sand volleyball areas will remain. Um, so what this is showing is that the applicant will be relocating
some of the existing recreational areas to the northern portion of the subject site in that green top hashed area with two tennis courts and two pickle part two pickle ball courts and they will be responsible for relocating the areas mentioned concurrent with the first PSP
PDB submitt for the 96 condo units. The applicant is also requesting a variation from LDC section 907.1 on-site parking to reduce the required parking ratio to one and a half 1.5 spaces per unit for the proposed condominium units.
PD has identified that this proposed devel that this proposal is within an existing development with additional parking in the resort and clubhouse and the need for parking at a ratio of two spaces per unit may not be necessary to accommodate the proposed units.
Additionally, this modification is consistent with the existing parking ratio that was established for the multifamily dwelling units in the previous approval which allows for a parking ratio of 1.5 within that portion of the MPU. Due to the existing development having sufficient existing
parking space available and adjacent locations within the development to accommodate the proposal, PTE is amanable to granting relief to the variation requested and this comes to you with a recommendation of approval to the board of county commissioners of the proposed substantial modification to the MPU with
conditions. I'm available if you have any questions. >> Questions? Anyone? Robert, you're off. All right. Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. The first individual I have
signed up to speak on this item is Joe Hitch. >> The applicant is present first. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Shelley Johnson, 6400 Madison Street, and I have been sworn. Um, we are in agreement with the conditions as presented, but we're here to answer any questions anyone may have.
>> Okay. So, we want to hear the concerns first and then you come back up. >> Yeah. Answer me. >> Thank you, Shel. All right. So, who's the first to speak? >> Uh, Mr. Joe Hitch. He's online for virtual comment.
>> Okay. Joe, can you hear us? Joe, I think Joe's no longer with us. >> We can jump to Mr. Steven Riddle and we can come back to Joe if he's online. >> All right, >> we're gonna do it right now. >> Shel said she was
>> Can't trust her. Good afternoon. Well, >> we need your name and address and we're gonna swear you in too at the same time. >> My name is Stefan Redell. I live at 21221 Kully Rosa Drive, >> Lando Lakes, Florida. I live at Collante.
>> Okay. >> And the pictures when it showed where they're going to put the four buildings. >> Yeah. We have to we have to swear everybody in first. Okay. So, anybody that's going to speak today, can you please stand and be sworn? Raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you go? >> Yes. >> All right. Now you can go. >> I gave you a name and address. Do you need more information from me? >> No, just what your concerns are. >> The picture that showed the four
buildings going up and it had some buildings next to it. I live in those buildings. So from my building to the next the next closest fourstory building is 70 ft. Mhm. >> Colliente right now has no structures over two feet. I mean two stories. There
is nothing that is four stories, three stories or four stories. >> This will be an anomaly in the in the neighborhood. It's not part of the character of twotory buildings in Caliente. >> They are taking as as stated the three tennis courts, six pickle ball, a tennis
pavilion, and a halfcourt basketball. They're going to try and squeeze all of that into what they call an overflow area, which has been used numerous times um when speech has special events. The only place to put people is the overflow
area. Um it the they had in their um application that the underutilized tennis and recreation courts they're used daily. They're they're not under utilized at
all. >> Um they're proposing two tennis courts, two pickle ball if maybe if it'll fit in that area. It it doesn't look like it when you drive back there and see it. Um, I have no
problems with uh a twostory instead of fourstory condominium building. It they're going to build the same condominium building style as what's currently there. Um, Collante on the map showed that it had 25 acres on the north
west corner up there. Um that was re Collante LLC sold that to CA properties which is Carl Anderson and um is there any reason Carl Anderson is still the the uh person that um the LOL properties
is also Carl Anderson. Is there a reason that they can't put the fourstory condo towers on that property that's on the the north west side of there is a road for that a road to nowhere that they built for that purpose. Um I think they
should put the fourstory towers there the four towers. Thank you. >> Thank you. The last individual that we had registered for public comment was Joe Hitch. If you're able to hear us, >> can you hear us?
Can anyone hear me? We're just experiencing a lot of feedback. >> He may have it on speaker on his end. It's not true. Okay. Okay. or Robert want to speak. Is there anybody else that wants to
speak besides the person that's online that can't speak? I see no one. Robert, you spoke to this gentleman yesterday. Robert playing development economic growth. Yes, I spoke with him yesterday and his main concern I believe was to be the height. kind of as mentioned
previously, the height and the character of the overall area not being over two stories and this being four stories was the main concern that he expressed to me. >> Okay. >> Where what do you know where he lives? >> Uh he did not give me that information. >> Okay. >> Okay. So,
give me a couple more minutes and then we'll move on. Miss Shelly, do you want to come on up? >> You can. >> Thank you again. Shelley Johnson, 6400 Madison Street. And I have been sworn um to answer the question. The height is >> that last time.
>> Huh? Yeah. Um the height actually is the existing height that has already approved for the Caliente MPD for the multif family condo product. Um it's always been four stories, so it's just matching what was already approved over the years. Um I know some of the multif family was going to go immediately
adjacent to the single family and this particular site's actually just immediately adjacent to the actual Cali resort, the clubhouse and so they'll have nice, you know, it's nice amenity area obviously. So it's going to be in that type of a style. >> So what amenities will they have there once that fourstory building is built if
that's what happens? >> What's that? I'm sorry I didn't hear. What what are the what type of it seems to be a concern about what type of amenities they'll end up with? >> Well, they're going to they have right now and again, this is from the owner. They have um the six tennis courts or the six the three tennis courts and the
six uh >> pickle ball >> pickle ball courts and then the the uh basketball court and they're highly underutilized. Um and so that's why they're taking them out putting in the density to you know further service the resort itself. I mean obviously it's behind walls. it's not going to be out
in, you know, on the rideway or anything like that. And ultimately move those courts and reduce the size so they they still could have them. They'll still have them, but they're just not going to be as many of them because they're not being they're they're underutilized. So, I know the two times I was out there, they were all empty. There was no one
playing. So, >> okay. All right. Anything else? >> No. >> All right. Any questions for Shelly? Not for Shelley, but maybe for staff. >> Okay. For sta for staff.
>> I I was just curious what the uh requirement is for park andor green space within an NPU. >> So in this particular MPU, um it was actually it had all of its preliminary plan approval other than what we're
doing pretty much right now um in 2001. So it was the the neighborhood parks ordinance, which is probably what you're referring to, actually was not adopted and didn't become effective until 2002. So the majority of it just never applied to as it's built out obviously. Um there is already a lot of open space and
amenities that they've just already, you know, they've just voluntarily put onto the site cuz it is supposed to be a resort with um the sandball courts, the various, you know, um you can see the various pool, they have a clubhouse, a restaurant, a bar. Um obviously they're moving these courts. They have a walking path which if that purple line that
you're seeing on that exhibit um that's actually a walking path that they put through the entire development um which people really enjoy. Um so there's a lot of green space. What we're going to do is that site plan um if we have to get an alternative standard or you know address park issues, we'll do it do it
at that time. But um there's a lot of there's a lot of amenities on the site already. So >> yeah, I understand it's probably grandfathered in for that. Yeah, >> you know, with a substantial modification to an NPUd, wouldn't that now apply?
>> Well, the 96 units would not be exempt, >> right? Just to the 96 units, which is what we'll deal with at site plan. Yeah. >> And whatever means we do, we think there's there's a good amount of with the c the courts and the the sand volleyball and the the path through the whole entire development. It's there's
some nice amenities in there. So, we know we feel comfortable addressing it at that time. >> Yeah. problem is it's potentially taking away amenities from the rest of the neighborhood. So although the 96 units will fall under that then >> are the are the amenities that are there
are those belonging to the hotel and resort or are they for all residents of the development? >> Um all residents. Yeah. And the walking path surprisingly is open to all residents too. So and it's through the whole development. Um again the the the
amount of courts that they have are just underutilized. So you know they are going to move them because we they we did have a couple conversations with a couple of residents who had raised that um and and I know the manager spoke with them that you know and that was the intention is to go ahead and just move them um to this other area have some
amenities around there you can see because they think that you know they'll be utilized a lot more without having so many of them. Can you address the question about why you're not developing the western? >> So that property is um the one that is
currently under a separate MPD. Um it's it's under contract. It's being purchased. So um it's no, you know, this is the last little piece in Caliente that's really there to be built out and then this this this MPD is done. There's no more space. So, >> okay, Shel, on the on the map that's on
the screen, is that residential to the northeast there adjacent to where the pickle ball and tennis court, is that part of Caliante, too? >> Yeah, it's RV resort. So, um the Kelly has RV, it's got condo, it has um existing villa, town home, and then, you
know, single family development and of course the whole the restaurant, the bar. So, it has a real nice mix of uses. But yeah, that's RV at that corner. >> Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure when you're moving that I mean complaint you hear a lot of times with pickle ball is the noise. >> Yeah,
>> you're moving that right adjacent to that existing sector up there that doesn't >> get the pleasure of hearing that all night. >> Yeah, it's RV. I think some of it's a rental. So, yeah. Um I'll defin you know definitely let the owner know that you all had raised that and you know they they do everything
real nice in there with regards to the amen amenities. So, I know the intention would be to to make it a nice another nice amenity for them for the residents to utilize. >> And Shel, real quick, so to the residents point that testified those pickle ball courts where they're going and the test, they will fit in that
area. They've been >> Yeah. Paul Emanuel, who is our civil engineer on this, he actually looked at it and he's he's determined that's where they can go. Yeah. And we did have him look at that. Yes. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Okay.
Nobody else to speak. >> No, I have a motion. >> Are you >> There's a motion for five and nine. >> We do. >> But I'm not sure. >> You should take action separately. >> Okay. Yeah, but it's going to be for
both of them, but two separate >> motions. >> We do still have Mr. Joe Hyde or Hij online. Um, I'm not sure if we're able to pull him up or not yet. Still >> here. Can you hear me? >> Go ahead. Go ahead.
>> Can you hear me? Okay. >> Fantastic. Thank you. So, yeah, we said earlier, thank you for bearing with us here. Echo. I apologize. Um, yeah, basically I think earlier as well. I'm at 6808 Dolly Avenue D 206
and the proposed area 96 units is you know taking six pickle ball courts, three clay tennis pavilion and basketball court. As everyone knows the fastest growing sport America has been for three or four
years. Um those courts are filled every Friday, Saturday and Sunday and most days during the week on pickle ball and a couple days during the week of so a couple questions. One resident facilities are very concerned
going from a usage of six courts down to two is completely unacceptable. And then also the people who play tennis to be hard replaced as clay courts, right? and we're losing a pavilion
that's probably 50t wide by 50t long covered pavilion is a big structure. So we're just concerned as to why that's been shrunk and reduced and why is it being replicated in the similar
quantity that exists today. That's that's the biggest concern for the people that use that as an amenity to the facility. All right. Can he hear us? >> Anybody have any questions of uh Joe?
No. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. No questions up here. >> No, not not from him. I mean, I'd be curious to know from from staff, you know, if if this MPUD was subject to the
new park regulations, how much space would be required. I understand it's grandfathered in by a year, but >> well, by the interpretation of the code, they would have to dedicate an acre of land and then there are certain dimensional standards for the park as
well. >> I'm sure they'll probably seek some sort of alternative standard to that. It was one acre. >> One acre. Yeah. >> Thank you, Eric. >> All right. Does that answer your
question, Eric? >> Yeah. I mean, this is this five acres, but so I guess the only thing that would be required for the existing impunity would be an acre of that. you know, so I don't know how much of this is, you know, I guess they're going to be dedicating about that much to the
uh norththeast there, but that's that's just my concern is it seems like it's taking away a lot of amenities that people are used to in the neighborhood. Okay. Anybody else have any feelings about it?
Any comments? This is your opportunity or your motion. Move to approve item P5. >> I have a motion to approve item P5. Further discussion. All in favor signify by saying I. >> Did you get a second?
>> Second. >> I thought I did. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I >> post like sign. Okay. Now we have a motion on P9.
>> Move to approve item P9. We have a motion on P9. >> I'll second that one, too. >> And we have a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I.
>> I post like sign. >> Okay. Item P6. You will be sitting as a local planning agency. It's PTE 2600446, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code.
Amending section 530.5 parking or storing of recreational vehicles. Renaming section 530.5 parking or storing of recreational land vehicles and recreational watercraft amending section 1001 docks and seaw walls
section 101.4 for visibility, appendix, excuse me, appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion into the land development code, and an effective date,
and Rebecca Bo will provide a presentation. >> Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. Rebecca Bo with planning development economic growth here today to talk about some changes we're proposing to our recreational uh vehicle parking and storage standards.
Our intent is to allow limited driveway parking of recreational vehicles on driveways in residential um lots. To do that, we're amending section 530.5, renaming it to parking and storing of recreational land vehicles and
recreational watercraft. Um, we're requiring some new enhanced standards and making updates to appendix A and some other updates for uh consistency. Could you I'm sorry. Can you repeat your first part again? >> Sure.
Our intent The intent here is to allow limited driveway parking of residential recreational watercraft on residential lots. >> Great. >> Okay. So currently our code um does not allow
this. We regulate on this definition here. It's recreational vehicle. We define it as a non-commercial transportation structure or device that is used or designed to be used for recreational purposes. This is only a snippet of the actual definition which is 483 words long. So it's all
encompassing and it's very broad. Um it pretty much entails anything you could possibly think of as a recreational vehicle. Currently, our code um allows parking and storing of recreational vehicles within certain zoning districts, and they're kind of separated by the size of
the lots. So, um in larger lots, those are agricultural zones or state residential 2 and residential lots 1 acre or more in size, excluding estate residential lots. So within those zoning districts, you can uh park or store your recreational
vehicle behind the front setback or 5 feet from a side or rear property line. Smaller lots are considered to be residential lots 1 acre um or less or an estate residential lot regardless of its size. And current standards require uh
recreational vehicles to be parked behind the front setback five feet from a side of rear property line behind the um principal building line which is defined as the line parallel to the front door and they have to be screened from abunding properties.
Our code also includes other standards that prohibit parking within the right of way. Um you can only park you can't park it or store it if it's there's no primary structure there. Uh, we do allow driveway parking for short-term loading, unloading, or cleaning. And recreational
vehicles cannot be used for residential, commercial purposes. And if you're parking it or storing it on your property, um, it has to be owned um, by the occupant. We do allow guests to stay in an RV with on within a property. Um, but they have to do so with a permit.
>> For how long? >> I think it's up to 10 days and you can extend it. Okay. Okay. So, in order to allow boats to park in driveways, we are updating the definition for recreational vehicle to recreational land vehicle and
removing all references to water uh related functions. And we're creating a new definition for recreational watercraft, which we're defining as a non-commercial transportation vehicle or device used or designed to be used for recreational purpose on water. This is
also just a snippet of the whole definition which is about as as long as the current recreational vehicles definition. We further um divided this out into two subcategories. So we have small recreational watercraft and large recreational watercraft. Small
watercraft is uh defined as being designed for individual or small group recreational use on nearshore waters. This includes things like canoes, kayaks, and p uh paddle boards. And then we have large recreational watercraft which we define as being designed for navigation on open waters
or for extended recreational use including but not limited to motorboats, sailboats, pontoons, and similar vessels. What we're proposing is to allow um large recreational watercraft to be parked on a driveway in a residential
neighborhood um residential zone or in an agricultural zone as long as it's 5t from a property line and doesn't overhang the rightway and doesn't obstruct line of sight. Small recreational watercraft would still have to be parked or stored um on
the side or rear lots. Some additional standards we're including is that you may not park or store more than one large recreational watercraft. So, if you're park if you have one stored in your side or rear lot, you can't park one in your driveway. And if there's one in your driveway, you can't park or store one in
your side or rear lot. So, one on the property in total. And it has to be parked on a legally permitted driveway. And it shall not displace domestic vehicles onto the yard or into the street. So, if you're already parking your domestic vehicle on the street or in your yard, you may not park a boat on your driveway.
We did some research on surrounding jurisdictions to see what they allow and how they regulate. And we found that most other jurisdictions do allow recreational vehicles to be parked in driveways under specific standards, many of which we've included in our proposed amendments.
And the recommendation is to accept public comment and find the proposed amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> I'm here for questions. Rebecca, quick question. So, what's the minimum size lot that you can do this on? >> It just has to be 1 acre or less.
>> One acre or less? >> Well, I mean, it would apply to all residential lots really, regardless of its size. >> And including MPDs that have 40 foot wide lots >> if it can fit there standards. Yes. >> Most of HOAs that have separate
governance though. >> Yeah. What's the rationale regarding large watercraft and small watercraft that the large one can be parked in the driveway but the small one can't? What's
the what's the thinking behind that? >> Sure. So, uh, some of our staff was concerned that we would get multiple kayaks or, um, canoes parked on a trailer in the driveway, and there was a concern that that would create visual
clutter >> more so than a boat. >> I mean, if it's still limited to one, it shouldn't matter. >> Trailer with multiple. >> Perfect example for me is You drive through a play an area like
Regency Park, they're all over the place. And that's there's all nothing but visual clutter. >> Or you're talking about boats or trailers with >> boats and trailers. They got, >> you know, utility trailers, boats, cars parked on the grass, trucks everywhere.
>> Yes. >> I mean, it's just I don't I I'm in favor of being more restrictive. And you're you're saying that if they park the boat in the driveway,
they can't park the boat on the street. I mean, I'm sorry, the car on the street. >> Correct. If you already have a domestic vehicle on the street, then you may not park a boat on your driveway. >> Okay. And can they park the car on the grass like they do in Regency Park?
>> No. Can I pave my front yard and turn it into a parking lot? >> It's supposed to be parked on a legally permitted driveway. >> Well, my driveway could be legally permitted.
County regulates that portion of the driveway that's in the rightway, not that's beyond the rightway. And one of the problems that I see of our code is we have lot coverage regulations, but we don't have impervious surface ratio regulations. So
what would stop somebody from accessing a parking lot from their legally permitted driveway and basically paving their front yard so that they could put their boat in the driveway and park their cars on their now newly paved
front yard. I think the answer is that we couldn't reasonably fix that without an impervious surface code, >> which is what we need. >> Yes. >> My opinion, >> we sure do.
>> So, whenever you're done, I have a couple language. >> I to that same point, I agree. What I'm pointing out is that they're a clever homeowner or somebody that just listened to me watching this hearing now knows how to
get around your rule. >> But to Chuck's point, Mr. Gray's point, I'm sorry. >> Um, >> Chuck's fine. >> I think this creates a bunch of visual clutter, too. And, you know, I'm sure there's probably a whole bunch of
nice boats. And then there's things where people buy these project boats that are projects that never get finished and they sit in the driveway forever and they get more mold and more mildew. And
>> I will say that the proposed amendment does include language in there that it has to be operable. >> Yeah, that's a that's an inoperable word in a way. Operable. That's a subjective word. >> Does that mean it floats? >> But yeah, it floats. >> Well, exactly.
>> But I mean, there's no doubt about the fact that if you go by a place and there's boats and trailers and stuff parked in their yard, it's going to devalue the guy next door. There's no no doubt about it. I can tell you that.
Um I see it all the time. And I just think we need to go in the other direction. >> I I think it depends though. I think if you have a nicely maintained house with a beautiful brand new boat sitting in the driveway, I don't think that's >> I did totally disagree with you on that one, Derek.
>> When I see it, I see something that's hey, they have some disposable income there. You know, this is a nice nice area. >> And I said there's there's probably some really nice boats that, you know, I
probably drive by and go, "Wow, wish I had that boat." But I can tell you when you drive into my neighborhood, there's boats out there that don't look like they've been in the water in the last 40 years.
>> Yeah. >> And like I said, they're covered in mold and mildew and Yeah. There's not too many $80,000 boats sitting in a driveway, >> right? >> One of my neighborhoods. >> Hi, David Engel. planning and economic
development director. I guess this boat is taking some water here, but >> I just wanted to give you some context. >> Like the Iranian name, >> we have people uh residential lots with boat parking all over the county. We don't allow it. It's all illegal. So, some of the board members were uh
interested in applying some reasonable regulations to permit boats with certain standards and conditions so we could manage the boat parking in front and the side of people's homes. So, that's the context. Yeah. >> So, the intent is to get them out of the yards and onto the driveways.
>> Is that right? >> I think the intent is to allow people to store their boats at home on their driveways >> because my reading of the text, it looks like that now they will only be allowed on driveways and no longer on the side
or in the back like they previously were. Is that true? >> No. Um, >> still be allowed on the side of the house. Correct. You can, but you can only store one. >> Okay. You can actually store two if you store one on the side of the house and one in the driveway. >> You should just said you can't do that.
>> Correct. The code says the the amendment says we've written them state one. >> Now, does that only apply to the large watercraft or can they have can they have a a large boat in the driveway and a kayak on the side of the house? >> That only applies to the large recreational watercrafts.
>> Skies on the side of the house. So they >> Yeah. >> So they could have a large boat in the front and jet skis or kayaks on the side. >> Yes. >> How about a utility trailer? >> That's regulated under a different section of the code. >> Your business or something.
>> How about an RV? >> They could still store an RV on the um yeah in their side or rear lots. I know where I was asking that before is section H. So, you know, it seems kind of
contradictory because it says above RLVs and RWC's may be parked in areas, you know, that were previously allowed. Um, but then it says in that section, residential driveway, uh, recreational watercraft parking, the following
provisions apply to large W RWC's parked or stored on properties zoned AC, AC1, AR, AR1, AR5, AR5, MH, and residentially zoned parals, including residential lots within MPU zoning districts. Um, does not apply to small RWC. Driveway parking
stands shall be parked on a driveway, shall be stored on a trailer. So it it just seems conflicting. It sounds like that they can only this particular type of craft can only be parked on a driveway. >> You know, I feel like it should say in
addition to >> Okay. >> for clarity. I misinterpreted the the graphics that you showed too because I thought that before this regulation you showed the boat on the side of the house and then
under this regulation you showed all of a sudden the boat in the driveway. So I thought that meant that you weren't allowed to put it on the side anymore. >> Oh, >> I thought I did a good job with the graphics. >> I like the graphics. I thought the graphic was great, but and I but I gave
him too much credit. >> I could say how you'd interpret it like that. I almost didn't use a boat. >> I thought I'd share something with you guys on the day staff presented this to me. I happened to be perusing through
nextdoor.com and found this little love note that a neighbor left for another neighbor. It says, "Move the boat. Its presence diminishes our property values and is an eyesore to our neighborhood. If you can
afford the boat, you can afford to leave it at a marina or a storage facility. This is not Pasco County. Thank you. 27 of your neighbors." >> I will point out that came from a resident in Panellis County. Penellis
County doesn't regulate parking of boats. >> Yeah, they can already park there, >> right? But I think the point is she they're in a deed restricted neighborhood in Panellis County and I think their point is that
Pasco County is kind of junked up with this kind of stuff to Mr. Gray's point and I agree neighborhoods like Embassy Hills, Regency Parks, Jasmine Lakes were once >> very nice. Holiday Lake Estates were
once very nice neighborhoods >> and we've allowed this kind of stuff to proliferate without rigid enforcement and now they are not so nice places. >> Right. >> And it's a shame.
I wouldn't be so against it if it was, you know, places that were an acre or more where they could put their boat behind their house and be out of the out of the view of the public. Um, I recognize
you're in a difficult position as the staff that you've got a commissioner that's asked for this. So I'm not please don't take any criticism that we make of this as personal to the staff
where you personally our job is to make a recommendation to the commission. So hopefully hopefully the commission is listening. >> I just tell them it was your idea Rebecca. >> Yeah. >> Could could you clarify
>> and hearing the way we feel about it. I mean they they ask for a recommendation. They may not like the recommendation >> and technically it's to evaluate consistency with the comp plan. >> Okay, whatever. So, how does that work when I adopt the new comp plan? I guess they didn't think
of that when they wrote the statute. >> Technically, it's with the existing comp plan. Not that the existing comp plan has a lot of policies addressing this issue, but >> well, I just think value of the property and all that. >> I just think if you pass compatibility,
>> if you pass this kind of a ordinance, >> you're just going to proliferate even more of this stuff. It's just it's just going to continually bring down the value of properties. Just telling you that's my business and and >> and I know it. That's just my thinking,
too. I mean, if you want to go out and run out and buy a boat or run out and buy an RV, you better think about where you're going to store it before you go buy it. >> Exactly. >> Okay. And putting it and and then what I find
to be hilarious is it's got to be under our current ordinances. If you park it on the side of the house behind the principal building line, it's got to be five feet from the side property line. >> That's not gonna happen. >> How do we do that with lots that have
seven and a half and five foot setbacks? But boy, they sure shove them. You go down through Regency Park and Embassy Hills, they got those boats shoved down there. They're not 5t from the property line. >> No way. >> Nobody's doing anything about it either. Where's code enforcement? I mean, do
they not do we have like blind code enforcement officers or something? I mean, because it's amazing, you know, and there's even one that lives in my neighborhood and he just manages to drive by hundreds of violations every day and not see any of them. I'm trying
to figure out how that is. Especially all these boats laying on their side in the front yard. >> Cars on blocks. Yeah. Just unbelievable. Yeah, that stuff is cuz they're not operable. Well, we got entire entire trailer cities that have been built in
my neighborhood where we take recreational vehicles. We run down to Lowe's and we buy a bunch of lumber and enclose them with wood. We run illegal electrical to them. We've got five or six of them on the property. I can spot them on the aerial photograph.
We advertise them on the internet for rent. No building permits, no zoning permits, and nobody does anything. I had another question about um language which didn't really have anything to do with the the boats. It just talked about
RVs and using them for residential purposes on a temporary basis. So it was section uh G6. Mhm. >> Um
so the second paragraph where it says an RLV may be occupied temporarily for residential purposes within property zone camp properly zoned campgrounds, RV parks, and RV subdivisions. And it goes on to say, you know, if it's someone
that's not uh it's owned or leased by person who is not a resident and it's up to 10 days, four times a year and so forth. But that language makes it seem like that's only allowable on properly zoned campgrounds, RV parks, and RV
subdivisions because the part above it was struck for AC, AC1, AR, AR1, AR5, ER2. I think when so when I struck the um all the listed zoning categories, I did list
them all in G. So my hope was that I could list them all in G one time and make the rest of the text a little more concise and not have to repeat them throughout every paragraph going down. >> Okay.
But it looks like so it says an RLV may be occupied temporarily for resident purposes within properly zoned campgrounds, RV parks, and RV subdivisions. So it appears that >> I I understand what you're saying. It looks like um in the text that was shown there was like a number two and then we
went on. So I will I will fix that. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean going back to the the whole idea of RV or boat parking on a property. I mean, it makes more sense on bigger lots. Obviously, if you have small lots and people that have crammed
boats on the property line and things like that, that's I think there could be a middle ground here somewhere. I can see where you guys are coming from with degrading property value, but at the same time, you know, we don't want to be the the police that try to tell people what to do with their property either.
So, I like the language that you use talking about make being operable, you know, maybe an addition of something like, you know, operable and generally free from rust and dirt and mold, those kind of things.
because I've seen HOA documents that use that kind of language to um kind of eliminate. Now, I understand you get to a little bit of subject to territory and that's where there can be some issues, but um I think there could be additional language that would help eliminate some of the
junk, right? But if you have a beautiful brand new RV or a beautiful brand new boat sitting there in the driveway, I don't see how that's an issue, at least me personally. >> So, add some additional maintenance standards. I think that would help curb some of the
concerns that some of the other commissioners here have brought up uh about the the junk that we see, you know, and the cars on blocks and things like that. You know, obviously if a car is sitting on blocks, it's not operable, >> right? >> It's not it wouldn't pass a DOT inspection.
>> Well, like the word operable, it may be it you may be able to start the engine just won't go anywhere. Well, I think it needs to be tagged, right? So, if it's tagged, then that means you have to have tail lights that are intact and headlights intact and a windshield that's intact and
>> well, no tires are I can pay the registration to Mr. Fisano and he doesn't come out and inspect the car. I can beat out all the headlights and the tail. >> If I could interrupt for just a moment. >> Well, that doesn't but it's still tagged. But >> it says shall be maintained in operable
condition and capable of safe use on the water or roadway. >> Correct. Yeah, that's language I've seen before. >> I Well, I'm just telling you right now that I'm not going to support anything that's on a small piece of property like that. It's just >> Can I ask a technical question? Because
I'm not a boat owner. >> Yeah. Um, >> is it safe to start a boat out of the water? You can only you should only start it if you're running water through >> if you're running water through it. Yeah. >> The engine. >> So actually flush it have a little flush
asking because if a code officer is trying to inspect the boat and whether it's operable, is the property owner going to be able to start it on site? >> Yes. >> Well, if they have the if they have the
appropriate accessories to do that. >> Yeah. You have to run water through the engine at the same time. >> Really, you can start briefly. >> It looks like two suction cups you put over the intake of the outboard motor and you attach a garden hose to it. So, it allows water to >> So, there is a way to demonstrate its
operability out of the water >> if you have the a proper attachment. Yes, >> I think you can even without it. You can start it for 10 seconds and it won't hurt anything with no water running through it. You just can't let it run. >> Or you can put the submerging outboard in like a garbage can full of water.
Some people do that. Okay. >> Question. I don't know if somebody can answer this. How long has the prohibition of parking boats and other recreational
vehicles in your front yard? How long has that been in the code? >> I couldn't answer that off the top of my head. I'd have to look >> because it's been that way in this county for as long as I can remember. I can't remember a time when it was ever
allowed. >> Yeah, I don't think it's legal, but they've been doing it. >> Well, I know they've been doing it, but I'm saying it's been in the code that this is not legal forever in a day. >> And why has it been allowed to be done?
>> Well, and I guess what I'm saying is if you bought a boat or an RV, it's not like you didn't know. It's not like a new code that we just right >> banned the parking of it last week. It's been that way for 40 or 50 years. Right. So, so I'm um unfortunately somewhat of
an expert on this particular subject matter because we went through this with our HOA but in my neighborhood. But so the language that was one of the languages that was proposed was all RVs must RVs which refers to boats as well must be an operable condition for legal
public operation on the roads, trails or waterways of Florida or private operation on private property. must be presentable in condition, generally free from large areas of rust, dirt, mold, peeling or missing paint, etc. An RV considered inoperative if it cannot legally andor safely be operated because
of cracked or broken windshields or windows, broken lights, flat tires, is in unsafe inoperable condition, etc. So that that kind of language I think you can get there more than not only does it have to be registered and tagged, but it
also needs to be safely operable. And I think that that right there and along with um being free from large areas of rust, dirt, mold, peeling paint, things like that, I think you can probably curb out most of the junk.
>> I share Chuck's concern about the size of the lot, too. I think, you know, this is gonna >> Yeah, I could see that >> this is going to proliferate. And even I mean, John has made all the comments about the enforcement issues that exist out there already. This just proliferates it further if we
>> but technically that's against the code already, >> right? And but happens >> how is enforcement going to catch up with that? How's code compliance going to catch up with that and then enforce this?
>> Yeah, I think that's a separate matter. >> So the the code exists as it does now since at least 2018. Can you can you clarify on the permits? You said there's permits. Uh so specific to a house guest of of the owner, it's
10 days. Is that And from what I'm seeing, it can be uh renewed four times per calendar year. Is that continuous or is that not that it really matters but it's total of 40 days that they could potentially
be living in a RV as a house guest? >> That's how I interpret it. Yeah. >> I don't vote on this item, but I am familiar with that section. I think in the last maybe 15 years, we've never had a RV permit for 10 days ever hold
>> or any RV permit. Yeah. >> Well, why would they get a permit? Because nobody does anything about it if they do it anyways. >> You know, right around the corner from where I live, >> there's a guy that has one, two, three,
four RVs on his lot with people living in them in the front yard. >> Yeah. >> In front of their camouflage painted old home. And the fourth RV's just shown up this
last week and is half parked in the street to where I drive out and I got to drive around the end of the RV that's parked in the street. If I if we had rigid code enforcement that were taking care of problems like this and I thought they'd be on the case
and taking care of the the boats that Derek's pointed out might not be that offensive, then I might be able to support that. But without having that kind of code enforcement that's going to do anything right now to to
with if they're not able to do take care of the problems the violations we have today why do I want to do anything that's going to promote or proliferate more violations and again I recognize you were asked to write it it's not directed at
Well, I'd like to hear a motion for the for purposes of discussion if uh we can I move forward. >> Well, fine. I'd make a motion to recommend denial of the amendment.
it. I'm sure the commissioners will have a very spirited discussion about it when it gets to the BCC and they can take our recommendation or leave our recommendation. They're not under any obligation to follow our recommendation if they don't like it. I'm expressing
what I think and I don't think we should allow it. So, I might would move to deny it and >> I'll second that motion. >> So, I assume you're finding it inconsistent with the compatibility policies in our comp plan. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Okay. So, we have
>> She'd like to take a break and come back with 27 other like we did for >> citing compatibility. The new law on compatibility hasn't taken effect yet. So, you don't have to be more specific than that. >> Thank you. That's right. You have a
motion in a second now. So, now for further discussion. No, >> I agree. I think we're just opening ourselves up for problems. We can't even enforce the problems that we have now. So, Yeah, I think that you know >> so I just want to be clear though there was one additional change on seaw walls
that you didn't cover. >> Okay, >> it's I don't know what that is. It just it's changing a number. >> It's a cross reference. Yeah. >> So >> what is it? So seaw walls cross references um
the hold on it hold on sorry they describe what it means to be living in your um RV within this section and so docks and seaw walls refers back to it so they don't have to restate it again
in that section >> or is there restrictions on seaw walls I'm sorry. >> Are there restrictions on seaw walls? >> I'm just trying to figure out is that is it sort of a is that implement
anything related to the RV to the to the I'm just trying to figure out >> whether they could recommend approval of that change without or if that sort of has to get thrown out too. Okay. So, it's um
enclosed areas built over docks may not be used even temporarily for residential purposes such as those described in section 530.5 C4 of this code which is RV shall not be connected to water, sewer, electrical lines, etc.
Is this just fixing a typo or I don't know what it looks like. >> It's fixing a cross reference. So, currently it's cross referencing the C4 section. So, we struck the cross reference and referenced the new position in the proposed amendments.
>> Oh, >> yeah. >> So, if they don't approve the proposed amendments, then you can't >> right >> you can't use that cross reference then. >> Correct. It becomes inaccurate. >> Okay, then I get it. Okay. So then you can't approve that then if they're denying the they're denying the amendment they can't approve the cross
the change to the cross reference >> right >> okay so that answers my question >> so we have a motion and a second further discussion if not all all in favor of denial signify by saying I
>> I >> opposed like sign >> nay right the motion passes motion for denial passes Thank you. Item P7, I believe we're on mobility fees
now. You will be sitting as the local planning agency for this item. It's PTE 260525. This is the first workshop dedicated to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need for the mobility fee increase to exceed the phase and
limitations in sections 1631 8016, excuse me, section 6 B, D, and D, Florida statutes. Uh staff will provide a presentation. >> Okay.
>> Good afternoon. Um, >> Nick Urang, county engineer. So, first let me just say what a remarkable group of people you are. You you have spent a lot of time thinking about how development should occur in Pasco County today and I'm sure you're worn out. Uh,
I'll do this as quickly as I can. >> Do it again in two weeks. >> One uh one quick comment. The title should be actually referencing paragraphs B, C, and D of statute. I think it it erroneously said B, D, and
D. So >> yeah, >> just interpret that as alphabet would suggest. That should have been a C in between the B and the D. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um, the agenda is very quick for this presentation. We're going to cover the statutory limitations on mobility fee
increases. We're going to talk about the extraordinary circumstances that are confronting Pasco County that justify increasing our mobility fees above the statutory limits. And then we're going to ask you to take public comment and hear your discussion.
>> This is one of two items. This is not an action item. This is a discussion item. The second item on your agenda regarding mobility fees will be the action item. As far as the mobility fee limits go in state law, you are required to justify
your increase based on a study. We've done that and that study is attached in your packet. You are limited to increases that are less than 25% of your existing fee being implemented over a 2-year period. We have some of those and so we're complying with that criteria.
If you would like to increase the fee amount for any land uses in your schedule between 25 and 50%, you're supposed to do it over four equal annual installments. We're proposing to do it over two. And if you um by statute,
you're not permitted unless you have extraordinary circumstances to increase any of your fees above 50%. We have some fee increases that are proposed above 50%. So, we're here to tell you what those extraordinary circumstances are that have led us to present this
information to you. Also, statute says you can only increase fees once every four years. We haven't done it for at least four years. And so, we're good. Local government can exceed the above limits if we have a recent fee study that justifies these extraordinary
circumstances. If we hold two public workshops devoted specifically to these extraordinary circumstances. So you happen to be workshop number one and if the fee increases are approved by the governing body by unanimous vote and
then the fee increases must be implemented in at least two equal annual installments if they are approved in in excess of the statutory limits and we are proposing to do that with the schedule in front of you. Okay, on to our extraordinary circumstances. We have four to share
with you. Extraordinary circumstance number one is we're growing a lot faster than our last fee study said we were going to. Last time we thought we were going to add about 230,000 people. Now we're predicting to add 330,000 people from this point forward to get us up
into that mystical 7 figure total as Pasco County population. That means that we need to build a lot more roads to accommodate those people. When are we predicted to be at a million?
>> Uh 2050. So the comp plan updates that you are so vigorously investing in reviewing are planning for a population of just over a million people in the next 24 years. In addition to that, the people who are
coming here are also taking more trips. So every so often the Institute of Transportation Engineers publishes an update on the estimated trip rates for various land uses. They recently published such an update and and many of the uses that we commonly see here in
Pasco County. They said those types of uses generate more trips than the last study that we published said they would. So not only are we having more people come, they're actually traveling more. >> Can you give us an example of some of those land uses?
I don't have those uses memorized. I apologize. That's probably the one item that I'm not as conversant in, but I do have Bill Oliver here with me who is our mobility fee consultant. And if he wants to take that question, I'll h happily let him or if you'll let us do a little
bit of research, we we'll try and have an answer. Um, the third big extraordinary circumstance is that roads just cost more to build. It's it's the impact of inflation and it's the impact of um of time that the unit prices for constructing every piece of
infrastructure that we build to accommodate growth has gone up. So, it's not that we're building more, it's that every cubic yard of concrete, every cubic yard of asphalt that we're laying, we're paying more per per unit to deploy those materials and build the facilities
that are needed for our community. Uh and and that those costs have gone up by about 31% from just the last four years. The the assumptions that went into our study in 2021. Oh, and I should mention I've got a couple of cute little animations here.
That's why I was I was thinking about that. So, we're the rapid population growth. I I highlighted the Sunlake Boulevard corridor. This is near um Sun Coast Parkway in Angelene. The first picture here is where we were just 5 years ago. And that's this picture here
says this is where we are today. The 2026 aerial photo that's how much of that land has been carved up for development, subdivided into lots and is being constructed as housing. This is one of our rapidly growing areas. And then I also wanted to mention when you get into the um infrastructure costs,
this is the overpass um old Pasco Road intersection. That's what it looked like three years ago and that's what we're trying to make it look like right now. We've got the existing um lanes in the southbound direction on the left side of your screen. We're building the northbound lanes to make it an ultimate
four-lane road, and it just costs a lot of money. And then our last component is mobility fees are a a piece of the puzzle to pay for our overall transportation infrastructure. We also use local, state, and federal gas taxes. We also
use um portion of property taxes in the form of tax increment funding. And we also use um what am I leaving out? Sales tax, penny for Pasco sales tax. the portion of the total amount of our of our projected need that was comprised of
state and federal uh gas taxes in 2021 was 38%. In this updated fee study, that's only paying for 11% of our need. And that means that we need more resources from those other sources in order to properly
fund the overall anticipated need for those 330,000 additional people. So, here's my extraordinary summary. We ought to increase mobility fees because more people are coming to Pasco. They're traveling more. They want to travel on roads that cost more to build
and we have less other revenue to pay for them. We're asking you to accept public comment because this is per statute a public workshop and then we're happy to hear any u feedback discussion you have. again with the understanding that the
next item on the agenda is going to be the um actual proposed fee schedules and amendments to the land development code where we're asking you to sit and determine comp plan consistency. address question. >> Um, I apologize because I have my report
on my laptop, but my laptop batteries just died. But the information about where the trip generation rates, uh, percent new trips, the the travel generating parameters uh, is summarized in a table that's in appendix A of the
technical report that you have with you. Some rates went down, some rates went up. So, it's it's a mixed bag there. >> The overall rate, you know, when you add them all up, how much did it go up?
>> Um, you know, I wouldn't say it's it probably across the board, not much. Um, it's just more like individual land uses. Some went down, some went up, but across the board about the same. But you know the the way the statute's written
if any one fee bumps up by more than 50%. You're there. Um and in some cases uh in particular in the industrial category warehouse distribution parcel fulfillment uh previously those were
100% subsidized zero they paid zero fee. The board of county commissioners gave us direction uh don't give them a completely free ride, charge them half the fee. So there's an increase of from a zero fee to whatever the dollar amount
turned out to be, which is an infinite increase. So just to cover our bases and keep ourselves as clean as we could, we're here for all that over 50%. Okay, Nick.
How long does it take the county to design, permit, and construct a roadway? Three years if uh we don't need right away. Five if we do.
>> Five if you need right away. >> Yeah. from the point where we issue notice to proceed to the design consultant to the point where we start constructing. >> Yeah. >> So, let me let me get a couple things. >> Not counting time of construction. Straight. >> Yeah. And then that and then we have a construction schedule to finish. That's
right. >> When do we collect mobility fees >> at the issuance of a certificate of occupancy? >> So, when they get a certificate of occupancy and someone's now moved in this home and they're driving on the road. That's
right. >> So, I'm collecting the money to build the new road after the traffic's already on the road. >> All of our revenue streams come after the demand has occurred. >> Okay.
>> Yes. Mobility fees included. >> Well, it didn't used to, but >> concurrency has seen its better days. >> So, I I just want to make sure I got this right. So, we collect the money after the traffic's on the road. Then,
it takes us five years to design and permit and go construct the road. All while inflation is causing the cost of that road to go higher and higher and higher and higher and higher.
>> Right. >> All true. >> Okay. So when we raise the impact fees, how are we addressing that basic problem? Because the thing what I see here is this.
This is to me is almost insanity. Insanity is when we do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Okay. And how long has the mobility fee system been in place? David 2011 started I think.
>> Okay. So this is 15 years now. All right. So in 15 years we've been doing these periodic increases and now we want to do another increase. And what makes us think that we're going
to get any roadways any better, faster, cheaper than the way we did before? >> Oh, I'm not saying that I this is going to enable us to do it better or faster. I'm just asking for this increase because if I don't get it, we will lose ground. We're just trying to
>> I think we point is we lost the ground the day we let we collected the fee when the tra the day that traffic got on the road. I think what I'm saying is we need another system
and I'm glad we had we had such I'm not >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I >> this is actually the 20th anniversary of Senate Bill 360 from the legislative session in 2006 >> observation >> when we lost our ability to say >> fair system >> to say no to development >> bit of concurrency is because it was not
a fair system >> a wants to go out in the middle of the county where there's no road no water no sewer and he wants to build 5,000 acres of houses and they say ah concurrency you got to build this you got to you got
to build this road you got to extend the water and sewer out there and you got to do it on your dime and you need to do it before you build this development. And he did. And then rancher B, his next door neighbor, came out. They said, "Oh, got to look at concurrency." Guy says, "Hey, no problem. Already a
sixlane highway here, already a brand new water and sewer line, and rancher B doesn't have to pay a thing." So that was an unfair system. So we created this mobility fee system to address the patent unfairness of concurrency.
But the problem is, I don't think anybody thought about this, that the price of the road doesn't go down while we're in the design and construction and rightway acquisition process. And then when we print trillions of
dollars for fake diseases um and dilute our money even further, then I don't know how we expect to build roads, but Maybe we should take this opportunity to
assemble a working group of professionals like Ali over there >> and his compatriate, >> Mr. Razer and Mr. Henry and stakeholders. And we need to fix a system that gets
roads because I go on Facebook every night and there are hundreds of thousands of people in this county that are furious that they have to sit in traffic every day because we don't have a system that can
get them the roads. The other issue I have with this is how how long Jamie since you're in this business like me does it take someone to plan a project go through the MPUD
process get the preliminary development plan approval a construction plan approval all the other agency permits and then initiate construction construction. How long before we actually break ground are we working on
these projects? >> We got to get zoning. >> Yeah. >> Could be two, three, four years. >> Three to five, three to four years. >> Okay. So, those projects were proformid based on an impact fee,
>> right? So, what do we think is going to happen to these projects that were proform based on the impact fee schedule today? And now, right as I'm about to come break ground on this project, I announce that I'm raising the impact
fees by more than 50%. What do you think happens to that project? Well, if the project dies, then how many impact fees do we collect? >> None. Okay. >> Although you have in theory less impact too. And
>> you know up until a few weeks ago in this country, not just Pasco County, but even here in Pasco County, we were concerned about affordability. Affordability. Affordability. Affordability. Affordability. Well, who do you think pays these fees?
How do we make housing more affordable by jacking up all the fees for a system that hasn't been able to produce roads? And I'm not blaming anybody in this room. None of these people were here. Mr. Oliver may have been around as a consultant, but Nick wasn't here and Terry wasn't here. And
Ali, you're here. You're at fault. It was Ali's fault. Uh, but we got a system that doesn't work. What I want to know is what are we doing to fix the system or attempting to do to
fix the system? And have we given any consideration to how such a dramatic rapid increase in the rate affects projects in the pipeline? Which is exactly why the legislature
was wise to spread that out over a longer period of time because they recognize the lead time that happens for these projects. And I can tell you right now, I've shown the proposed impact fee increase
schedule to some of my clients who said that's it. They're going to throw in the towel. So, those are impact fees you're actually not going to I'm sorry, mobility fees you're actually not going to get.
You got to decide whether you want to get something or you want to get nothing. That's all. I guess Bill, I've got a Bill, I've got a couple questions for you. I mean, you work and you do this stuff for not just Pasco County. I mean, what are you seeing in other count other
counties doing similar things? >> They they are um not, you know, there's a mixed bag. Um, some communities aren't terribly cognizant and not too interested in developing the network. Other communities are and those that are
are keeping up with cost. >> Compare our fees versus Penllis County and Hillsboro County. >> Hillsboro would be a better comparison because Penelis has no meaningful development. >> I don't disagree, but and our fees
compare to Hillsboro's how >> I should mention that. I I I should mention two things I neglected to say. First, um we did a because when we were doing the study, we recognized the significance of the impact that these increased fees would have on the development community in Pasco. And so
we did a board workshop in November to get their feedback on the magnitude of fee increase that they would be willing to support. And that's how we generated the the schedules that are in your agenda today. They that was based on board direction to go that far and not farther. One aspect of that board
direction was based on the comparison of other high- growth counties in um in the Tampa Bay and Central Florida area in order to keep parody with um those counties. And so Oyola, Hillsboro, Orange County were all presented and um
and we're in line with the fees that those communities are charging. >> Yeah. what what kind of feedback did you guys have from stakeholders like the TBBA and other types of organizations? >> Uh generally the the answer is
acceptance. Um I mean should they want would if we give them input opportunities then they say well we would like lower fees. >> Well TBBA >> acknowledgement that the costs I mean they see the same costs that we do. They they know that they're ending I mean one of the big distinctions that David
Goldstein and I have talked about is that development communities are ending up with what are considered excess fee credits because they are spending more to build roads than their mobility fees are generating in revenue to offset those road costs. Reason is we're not
charging an adequate magnitude of mobility fee because roads have gone up in price. We're we're we're we're allowing them to generate these excess credits because we're not charging them appropriately to mitigate their impacts. >> And further, the mobility fee doesn't
cover the full cost of the program. Mobility fees only pay for about 25 to 30% of those costs. Well, well, I was going to ask that kind of maybe there's not a pure answer to this, but obviously we're looking at significant increases to mobility fees,
which is like 25% of that cost, >> but there's other components that make up and fund those there in your chart there. I mean, take the gas tax for example. Um, I mean, obviously gas tax wouldn't look at a 50% increase to generate the same amount of revenue. Yet
all those people I mean those are all the same people that are using all these roads that are costing more money to build. So I mean why are they not sharing the cost? >> And how much does the attorney maxed out we maxed out our local option gas effect. >> So let me ask this. >> Last time we just I'm going to give you
a little history on the gas tax. So in 20 I think it was in 2014 the first time we looked at our mobility fee we intentionally avoided an increase in the fee by raising the second local option gas tax. >> So we already pulled that lever
>> to avoid an increase once, >> right? >> Um but we can't pull it again because we've maxed it out. >> Plus they're plus they're paying through the sales tax commitment to transportation and through property tax increment as well. So all the other options have been looked at. I mean this
is la last resort. >> The only other lever that is available that arguably is available is the tax increment but that's not really available because the legislature is as you know
going after our sales our property tax revenue. I mean it's it's not something that we can realistically allocate more money to. Should we charge a tax to people who drive electric vehicles and don't pay the gas tax?
>> You can, but I'm not sure there's enough electric vehicles on the road to >> I don't know. Amazon's got a giant fleet of them that they like to run up and down my residential street 20 times a day. >> I mean, the legislature has floated a proposal about adding an additional registration fee for electric vehicles,
but I don't think it's enough to money to make up the deficit we're talking about. What what's attributable to that? Um I guess it looks like it's a about a 60 70% decrease in this federal funding. Is
that all because of the current administration? Is it what's >> the the source of that number is the advice that the Florida DOT provides to your NO relative to the magnitude of
state and federal funding Pasco County can expect over the horizon of that plan. Um when we did the last study uh they had said you can expect more money. Matter of fact, they went and they built State Road 52. you know, made they
they've they have uh they've built some significant roads, US41 and so forth, but this time around that guidance was you're not going to be getting as much. We don't think you're going to be getting as much money over the next 25 years from the state and feds where
we're going to spend the state and federal money elsewhere. So, didn't really dig into that. The state statute says you got to follow your adopted plan. That was the adopted plan. So yeah, >> the general rule they rely on gas tax
and gas tax because cars are more fuel efficient. It's kind of a declining revenue source. >> I mean, even for the state of >> unless you drive by the gas today. >> No, because the tax is still the same.
>> Tax doesn't go up. >> All goes into Chevron's pocket. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Federal gas tax is 18.3 cents per gallon. Has been since 1980s. The state gas tax is the one portion of it. There's seven cents per gallon that are indexed to inflation. The rest of it,
the other 20 18 cents of state gas tax is also flat >> and only a fraction goes to capital. >> Yeah. Yeah. The other the other component of revenue at the state level is the dock stamps which is like a state it's similar to a state impact fee. It's the recording on on the real estate
transactions. So, I know we're you've been you've already had a long day. I'm happy to let you discuss as long as you like, but we do have one other item on the mobility fees to cover. >> Yeah, I don't know, Mr. Moody, if you wanted a response to the >> technically he needs to ask for public comment. Sure
if there is any but >> on the time value might >> I >> yeah I'm not sure you need >> I said what I >> wanted to say my point is we know we have a system that is not producing the roads in time
>> that we need them. The public is angry. I'm not against funding roads. Public wants the roads. What I'm looking for is
we recognize the unfairness of concurrency. We tried this experiment we call mobility fees. We're now 15 plus years into it. We haven't got any better results.
And what I'd like to see is us attempt to sit down with a big brain trust of people. I don't have the answers and try to come up with something better. Well, John, you know, I think that I
think that's probably the best idea that I've heard, honestly, because if we I think if you if we have a problem and we identify the problem, let's see if we can identify a way to fix the problem, not keeping keep doing the same thing again,
>> we're just kicking the that's that's the >> that's the one of the biggest complaints I have about government in general is that it just once they get something in place, they just keep spending the money and it doesn't always go where it's supposed to go and fund
what it's supposed to fund. Let's We got a lot of smart people around here that can maybe come up with some ideas and I certainly think that's a useful exercise to Commissioner Moody's point. I a
handful of things that we're already doing. We are aggressively pursuing both design build contracts and expedited procurement processes to get projects from design to construction contract more quickly. >> Right. What I'm trying to figure out is
we need to figure out how to get the dollars in your hands if it takes I understand why it takes so long to design and construct a road. >> So I have I have three. Let me let me give you the other two because I think I will touch your point. And but the cost while you do that, while this is going
on, the cost of that road is going up up up up up. >> Go ahead, Nick. >> We got to be able to get the funds to you quicker. You know, to the day you break ground on the MPUD, it's probably another year before you're collecting
revenue on the first house. And you haven't collected all the revenue out of that MPU. If they got a three or four or five year buildout time in the MPUD, there's got to be a way to get the funds into the system faster to try to I'm not
sure we can ever outrun the inflationary aspect of building a road, but at least try to catch up to it, slow it down. >> Let Nick finish because he's got some things he's working on. >> Yeah. So, two other items we're doing. One is um we're aggressively working with developers. So, if they're going
out there, and I think Old Pasco is a good example. We've got a project just north of um Overpass Road on Old Pasco Road that's going to be building turn lanes on the existing two-lane section. And we said, "That's a throwaway to improvement. Why Why are we wasting money on that? Let's just put your money
toward the four-lane widening cost. We'll backfill the difference and we'll get that project constructed at the time that your development is is coming online instead of waiting and building it in a rears." we had the resources to do that in that case and that's that's why we were able to offer that. But that's another way we can get projects
to construction a little more quickly is by using our private sector partners. And third one is the conversations that we're having within villages of Pasadena Hills where we recognize that we don't have cash but we need roads. We will eventually pursuant to our financial plan have the resources to afford all of
the roads in that area. But in order to put the money in our hands now and put the product on the road on the street when it's necessary, we're going to pursue a bond. We're going to see if we can't put some of that future revenue in our hands right now so that we can construct the improvements as the needs
are coming online and not afterward. Those are our best three initiatives and we're using all three of those um in various degrees. There's anything wrong with any of those things, they're great. Keep doing it. What I'm referring to is this whole system of collecting the
fees. That's all. >> Well, I think part of that is what you were talking about is pursuing bonds where you get the you get the money up front. >> Y that's great. Yeah, I like the idea. But part of number two that Nick mentioned though is that the developers
that build the roads for credits, they're building the roads before they would ever expend the fe before they'd ever pay us the fees. So they are effectively getting the road on the ground before they would ever pay us the fees at CO. So they are building the
infrastructure in advance and they're basically waiting >> on they're not really realizing the credits until much later. So, it is a way of getting the infrastructure done sooner, but to Nick's point he made earlier, they're reluctant to do it if they can't absorb
all of their credits, which is why the fees need to be higher because they don't want to do it if they can't absorb all their credits. I mean, I realize you aren't on the room. You all aren't in the room with Nick and I when we're negotiating these
$40 million deals on these roads, but they don't want to build a road if they can't absorb $20 million of their credits. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Chair, I think you were asked if you were going to open public comment. >> If I'm what? >> You were going to open public comment.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Do we have any public comment? Sir, are you back there in the back in the black shirt? >> I guess not. >> I guess no. Public comment. >> Read the next item.
>> You are the next item. >> I know. Do you want to read it? >> Okay. >> Do the official. >> You're not the work. >> You're not done yet. >> I know. Item P8, you will also be sitting as a local planning agency. It's PDE 260524,
an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code section 1302.2 2 mobility fees to increase the mobility fees for various uses beyond the the phase in limitations in section
163.31801 section 6 Florida statutes and other amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for applicability repealer and providing for severability inclusion in the land development code and an effective date.
>> Okay. All right. Nick Ren, county engineer. This presentation is even shorter. Um, I'm going to do I think six slides including the title. So, brief overview on mobility fees. We've already talked quite a bit about this. They pay for new transportation facilities. We
add to them gas taxes, sales tax, and tiff. They can only be updated every four years. The increases that we are proposing as part of this update do require a unanimous vote by the county commission. Couple of numbers that we didn't give you in the last presentation. We're
looking at a $6.9 billion need. That's the cost of infrastructure that is anticipated to be necessary over the next 25 years to support that growth to a million people. Uh about 950 new lane miles, which corresponds to 36
>> 38 >> 38 miles per year is what we're supposed to be constructing. And our 38 lane miles per year. And our projected revenues are short of the need. If we do nothing to our mobility fee rates, they're short of the need by almost $3 billion. And then I also mentioned
earlier the BCC did hear a workshop on these proposed fee rates in uh November and they endorsed and gave us direction to move forward with the rates that were being that are being shown to you this afternoon. A >> quick question to go back to that slide. >> Yeah.
>> The shortfall of 2.9 billion. You said that's out to 2030. >> 2050. >> 2050. Yeah, that's a 25-year forecast. >> Okay. And is that 2.9 billion in 2026 or 20
$50? >> So what happens is we discount the future revenues to become current dollars and then we Yeah. We use present value for the revenues and then we establish costs based on present value costs. >> So it's 2.9 billion in present dollars.
Yeah. >> That's right. >> So 25 years it's Tension short. >> Yeah. >> Reason for the question. Yes. Okay. All right. I understand. >> Um this is the fee rate table that we're
proposing. Now, these are we, if you're familiar with our mobility fee rate system. We also have urban area and rural area tables. And we have various forms of development. We have standard uh mixeduse trip reducing uh traditional neighborhood development and and
transitoriented development. So, four different types of development, three different areas. What I'm showing you in this summary table is a suburban standard development. Most common, we get most of our fees in that category. And that's why I'm highlighting best
content, but the actual fee tables for each of those scenarios are in the attachment. This gives you an idea of the proposed increases. And again, we're proposing to increase the fees over two equal installments starting with an effective date of July
1 of 2026 and then a second increase in July 1 of 2027. And then keep in mind by state law when this fee increase is adopted, presuming that it goes forward, we will be restricted from performing another update for four years. So, the fees that are going to be in place on
July 1 of 27 will remain in place for that two-year period, almost three-year period until we can consider another fee schedule and update per state law. >> So, some some of those fees are actually decreasing, correct?
>> So, that's that's correct. We have um the so we're we're also one of the objectives of this LDC amendment is to streamline and simplify as much of the code as we can in this particular paragraph. If you ever looked at this section of of the land development code,
it's 40 pages of text and then 100 pages of tables. The proposed amendments will reduce that to 10 pages of text and four pages of tables. It's remarkably more concise. The details still live in the
mobility fee um study report. So, if you want any of that additional information, you you can seek it out. As far as the content that was in the original tables, all of the regulations that are in the land development code are being maintained in the amended language.
We're just writing it a lot cleaner and simpler in this proposed update. I say that because one of the items are the the restaurants. We're consolidating from um the question of subjectively determining are you a high quality um sitdown restaurant? Are you a turn or a
high turnover sitdown restaurant or are you a quality restaurant? Do you have paper napkins? Do you have cloth napkins? Do you have black napkins? Like all that stuff we're setting aside and saying, look, if you're building a drive-thru, you're going to have more traffic. You pay a higher rate. If you don't have a drive-thru, you pay a lower
rate. Easy easy to discern on a building permit. It's not subjective. We move it. It allows everybody to move forward a little more quickly. >> And then I I noticed another one that was um for owner builder uh existing owner builder >> that was at the request of board members
at the workshop. They said, "Hey, how are our long-term Pasco residents who want to blossom into home ownership going to be protected from these large fee increases?" And um I'll let you get guess as to which commissioners were pursuing that, but that there was a
desire to introduce a discount structure so that those long-term Pasco residents who are pursuing a new home as an owner builder would pay reduced fees. >> And so I'm very happy to see that. >> So they also discounted the rate for locally owned small as The LDC amendment
allows for those folks to pay the lowest fee, the TOD rate, and the um same thing with the uh locally owned small businesses. They're currently paying the traditional neighborhood development rate, which is 50% of the suburban total. Now, they're going to pay the TOD
rate, which is 75% discount from the suburban standard rate. So th both of those two entities, we're taking care of our own while still acknowledging that there are a lot of people who are coming from outside of Pasco who want to live here and make this their home and we want to ensure that we have enough
resources to build as much of the road network to accommodate them as we can. Um that some of that content is here. We are retaining the 100% discount for hotels, offices and industrial uses at board request. We are retaining and uh
the discount for single family and accessory dwelling units on five plus acre lots. That's those are existing. Um we are increasing as I just mentioned the discount for locally owned small businesses. We've added this new discount for long-term Pasco residents who are constructing >> Pasco res. >> Uh someone who has resided in Pasco
County for at least 10 years. >> Okay. >> And they're an owner builder >> and >> and they're pursuing an owner builder permit. So that that eliminates the potential of a of a of a national home builder saying, "Well, I'm selling to a
person who has lived here for a very long time." It's it's a unique scenario where we're saying as an owner builder, if you have lived here for 10 years, >> building permit, >> I know what an owner, >> but that would prevent a long-term resident that wants to rebuild their
raise and rebuild their house uh from hiring a contractor. So if they hired a contractor, a GC to do it, then they wouldn't be be able to get that discount. >> So, >> I'm I'm guessing we could probably say our way too. >> Okay.
>> Making that >> program requires you to say that you're acting as your own. >> Correct. >> That's correct. And you have to sign an affidavit that you'll live in the house for a year. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And you also have to sign an affidavit that you'll personally supervise all the work. >> Correct. So if you have someone that let's say they live in a
>> capable of doing that >> right that lives in a old house and they came in with some money they want to rebuild their like knock that whole house down and start over. Um if they hired a contractor then they would have to pay the higher higher mobility fees.
>> That's accurate. But that's the only program that exists that we can ensure they would actually live in the home. >> Right. >> Any other one they could flip it. That's the problem. Yeah, they like to >> to your concern, they could sign the affidavit and then they could delegate
to the contractor separately without putting their name on the permits to get the oversight and the professional guidance but still get the the lower rates. There there are ways that they could navigate the system. >> Okay. >> The key with the owner builder program is they at least are representing that
they're going to live in the home for a year, >> right? Yeah. along with that they're representing they're going to personally oversee the project and have liability for it. So, >> I just was questioning whether or not that met the intent of the the new
language. Go ahead, Nick. >> Uh the last three items on here, we are proposing minor amendments to the map borders for the benefit area districts. I'll show you that on a subsequent slide that controls where the money can be spent. Um, we are simplifying the
mobility fee search charges within the connected city and the uh, VOP special districts. And then again, we're overall simplifying the language in the land development code to um, to streamline and make it easier to consume. As far as the benefit district map goes, we're
clearly adding the two special districts to the map. They they're already recognized informally in the land development code. We're making it very easily easy to discern where those boundaries lie for connected city and villages of Pasadena Hills. And then we're also proposing to change the lines
between districts one and two and two and three. The simple point is we would like to draw the lines along county roadways. And that allows for us to recognize the shared travel nature of the adjacent districts. And it allows for us to invest the fees generated in
those two districts in those major roadways that um both districts depend on. And today our our zones don't do that. So that >> the roads that are on the lines are you can use fee money from either district. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So when you look at the boundary
I'll just use one and two for an example. When you look at the boundary it follows Shady Hills Boulevard, it follows Sunlake Boulevard and it follows Rangeland Boulevard. Those are three projects that we have an intense need to build and it would be great if we could re if we could pull resources from both
of the two districts in order to afford them. Same answer uh two and three we follow uh Bellamy and Old Pasco and Wesley Chapel Boulevard. Same purpose and then we kind we kind of jump over and we follow Livingston to the south.
>> Good. Um, again, recommendation on this one is accept public comment and then we're asking you to find the proposed amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Do we have any public comment? I see no one.
Thank you, Nick. Any further comments from up here? Yeah, I mean I agree that it's kind of I understand the position they're in, but it is kind of kicking the can instead of trying to address every problem. But >> yeah, I mean, I still like the idea of,
you know, forming some kind of a group to basically a brain trust, seeing if they can come up with more ideas. I mean you you have some good ideas you know about you know with bonds and so forth >> geo bonds >> but there's you know maybe other ideas
and I think it's worth forming you know a group of you know people that work in those areas and you know can really add something to the conversation um never hurts. My biggest concern
is when I look at the length of time over which the the preconstruction planning horizon is
for a project. This is going to take a lot of projects and make them no longer feasible. And I'm not sure that we're in the right time and place in the economy where we can just afford to
let these projects fall by the wayside. The biggest employer in this county is the government. The next biggest employer in this countyy's construction industry. Okay? And if these projects fall by the wayside because now all of a sudden they
don't make sense because we jacked up the fees, unemployment creates us a lot bigger problems. And I don't want to see that happen. And we're already seeing we're already in a housing market slump. Some are saying we're in a
housing market recession. I guess that depends on where you look at it. houses are staying. I mean, in 2021 and 2022, people lined up outside of houses to offer more than the asking price and buy it the first day it went on the
market. Now, it takes 120, 150. The house next door to me took over 18 months to sell and required a $100,000 price reduction. That's going on all over the place.
there's a time and a place to raise the fees and that was probably back at the end of 2021. I'm just not sure this is the right time and the right place. And this is difficult for me because I believe me, I
understand the need for the roads and I understand the problem of the lag time that it takes to design the roads. But I also look at fees on a schedule are pie in the sky. They're not money in the bank.
And if you kill projects in the process, then that's even less money you have to work with. That's so that's my concern with all of this. >> Well, the catch 22 is is if you keep proceeding on the track that you're on,
you add the traffic to the road and you make the deficit bigger between what it takes to build the road and the roads. >> You say it was an easy problem to solve. >> You kill the project, you kill the traffic. >> That's true. It's the project's dead. I don't get the traffic that went along with it. >> Correct.
>> Is there any language in this that um grandfathers any uh applications already in process? >> Well, building permits. Yes. Build complete building permit applications submitted before the effective date are always grandfather.
>> Right. But not projects that are in zoning or not plan. >> Not not zoning site plan. No. Right. >> These are people that are making big investments >> and those are the ones you don't want to have fall out. Right. >> Right. So >> those are the ones, right? because some
of those people have committed hundreds of thousands of dollars to that process at this point and you know they're not in building permit yet but they've very well invested you know to the tune of hundreds of thousands if not
even millions on a project that you know now is going to be tremendously more expensive. So is that something that was considered to to add that language? I mean that would be my recommendation is to add that language for projects that are in process.
>> The the problem with that is that we have so many zonings out there that >> it would exclude too many. >> It would it would effectively kill the revenue source. I mean, >> you don't have a revenue source if the
project doesn't get done. I understand that, but I don't know where to >> where to draw the line. >> I don't know where to draw that line. And I'm also trying to think about all the developers that like the developer we're dealing with in Fast Hills that needs his fees increased
so he can absorb his credits. So if I exempt all the projects that need to pay him so he can absorb his credits, he's not going to be able to absorb them. I mean, how much could an investor have invested
before they ever get to site plan? Just if you have to do a comp plan amendment and a zoning change, >> my next door neighbor charges over $500 an hour. >> I mean, a major project, it could be a tremendous amount of money spent just
before before you ever get to site plan, >> you know. I would I mean I just think in terms of fairness if I put myself in that position I would think you know once you if you're a developer and once you get zoning and and
land use approval I mean the permitting process should be just part of the process. I think you should be grandfathered after that. After after you get your plan approved, basically your zoning plan approved.
Preliminary plan. >> I'm just going to be honest with you. Yeah, >> chairman. If you vest everybody who's zoned, you might as well just throw this organs out. >> Yeah. >> You're not going to collect any revenue. >> Yeah, but I think John does. I don't
think you realize how many pro how many zone how many properties we have. I understand your point. I I get that. >> I get that. But that >> we have so many old zonings in this county that that have been I don't think
you realize how many zonings I come across my desk that have been zoned that way since 1970. >> Yeah. I'm not talking about those properties. I'm talking I'm not talking about speculative zoning. Talking about >> We have lots of zonings that have been on the books
for a long time. Can you put a time frame? >> I think the the issue for me is this. >> It's that you're trying to jam the increase in the short period of time which is in this
>> window >> window of when a project happens. And I think that's why the legislature gave you this those guys recognize this. that they recognize how long it takes in advance
to plan and then start implementing executing a project. That's why they created the four years. We're trying to do it in two and declare >> well they also said >> extraordinary circumstances and I mean
>> but they also said if you declare extraordinary circumstances you've got to do it in at least two increments. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. except four, but two years is well within that window of time. >> And with all due respect, extraordinary
circumstances, Bieber didn't tell me that the growth was going to be high. You know what? In in March of 2020, I started noticing all these cars parked on Grand Boulevard in front of my office that had New Jersey license plates, Ohio
license plates, and Michigan license plates, and New York license plates. Oregon. How many people come here from Oregon? By August, all those license plates from all those other states were still here. They're usually gone. It's too damn hot for them
here, right? By 2021, people were lining up out in front of houses put on the market that afternoon. Nope. You guys in planning, development, and economic growth were overwhelmed
with an avalanche of MPUD applications for all. And then we act like, well, Bieber didn't tell us the people were moving here. You knew they were moving here. You pro you had to process all their applications. Mike Fisano didn't know when they needed to get their driver's licenses changed
from New York to Florida. I mean, come on. This wasn't a big surprise. The governor was welcoming him with open arms. We were the co capital. Come here. Escape your escape your oppressive government up north and come to the free state of Florida. Yeah, we welcomed him
with open arms. Maybe we shouldn't have. I don't know. But that's what we did. So, we can't act like growth is a surprise. I just don't know how we declare that to be an extraordinary. It was something we couldn't foresee. >> Well, and you're only truncating the table by two years, right? So, why
couldn't that two-year window be filled by a bond, right? And then those pro then those properties would still come online because it's >> potential >> fees they would expect or they were expecting and the revenue would be there to pay the bond.
>> You can't bond impact fees if that's your question. >> Well, but there are they're exploring to build. reason you can't bond the impact fees is there's no guarantee you're going to get them. >> Correct. >> In that case, we're bonding tax increment revenue because Pastina Hills
has its own tax increment district which we're bonding that revenue. >> So, it's just in the case of Pastina Hills. So, bonds couldn't particularly be couldn't potentially be used elsewhere in the
county to to build roads is what you're saying. you we have a tax a countywide tax increment district which in theory could be used to bond as well but it's not it's it's not as robust of a revenue source
as it is in VOP >> I'm not saying it can't be done I don't want to be clear it can be done it just not >> well and that revenue could that revenue source be instead of increasing mobility fees then you seek to increase that revenue source instead
>> that's what we just talked about. That's the revenue source that is under attack by the legislature. That's effectively property taxes. So, no, I mean, it's likely to be cut, not increased.
>> I'm not sure the legislature was the one attacking it. Governor's attacking it. >> Okay. Well, somebody in Tallahassee is attacking that revenue source. I don't know. I >> think that's the governor.
I I don't think we're inclined to increase that revenue source given the current settlement in Tallahassee. I hear we'll be lucky if we get to keep it as is. Let me put it that way. I >> mean, nobody likes a fee increase of of
any kind. I mean, everybody wants always, no matter what it is, increase taxes, increase mobility fees. I mean, but the fact of the matter is is there's a shortfall, a significant shortfall. Either if you're going to have the growth and you want the growth, you need the roads. If you don't need the roads, you can't
have the growth. So, I don't I mean, unfortunately, I don't see a way around this. >> Yeah. My my fear of it, Jamie, and just I'm not saying for the long term, it's only in the short term. >> Sure. is that
we're kidding ourselves. We're going to have projects die on the vine. That's fees we're not going to collect if we were in the mania. >> Sure. the building mania that we were in
in 2021 through 2020, early 2024, >> I would say, well, if a couple fell off the vine, so what? But we're not in that mania anymore. We're in a different situation. We're
we may still have some resonings, but you know, you go look at the number of reasonzonings we approve here. We used to have to come in here and approve 10 and 20 of them at a time every other two weeks. Okay. Now it's And we were doing them in huge numbers.
Today was nothing. 96 condo units in an existing development infill. I mean I just don't think it's the right time economically for that. There may be and maybe things will get
turn around and there'll be a time. That's just my thoughts. This is one of those areas where you may not have unanimity. Your job your job, Nick, will be to get unanimity when you get to the board because that's part of the
statute. >> That's kind of >> get it here. >> It's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't, you know. And Nick, taking a project, just for curiosity, design builder, Semar or something like that. I mean, what does that typically cut out of the life cycle
of a project? And is there opportunities for contractor financing on those projects? >> It it could be as little as nine months, maybe as much as two years. >> So quite a bit.
>> Yeah. Yeah, we got to work through David's colleagues to make sure we're documenting compliance with state procurement regulations on our design build contract or solicitations. >> So, you know, government is
designed to be accountable. >> Understood. >> Yeah. The other the other thought too though is that developers are usually building on virgin land, but they are. >> So, yeah. So, so it's a faster, easier process. When the government goes in to
widen a road, it's usually an existing road with utilities, power poles, property damages. It's just a different animal. >> Yep. So from here comments
again your duty here is to decide whether it's consistent with the comp The agenda memo outlines the reasons it's consistent with the comp plan. >> Well, like I said before, I I mean, nobody's ever in favor of a fee increase, but I don't think we I don't see really we have a choice here. So, I
want to move approval um that this is consistent with the comp plan. >> All right. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second on the motion? >> I'll I'll second it. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> No further discussion. All in favor of
the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppos like sign. >> We have one. Nay. So motion carries. Is that the end of our agenda? >> Oh, >> yes, sir. That's the remainder of the agenda. >> Yeah.
>> The other one was a companion. >> Yeah. The the workshop item was a non- action item. >> Okay. Thank you, Nick and all your all the people over there that didn't. >> Now that we're done splitting babies.
>> Yeah. >> No good answers. >> You ain't get in the boat. I ain't getting any fees. We just hope we don't have any cancellations, right? >> Yeah. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Nick has to get five votes. >> We have a motion to adjourn.
>> Second. >> A second. Derek, you're quick with that one. >> Uh, yes. >> This one there'll be unonymity. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> Thank you everyone.
>> Thank you, Chuck. >> Yes. Thank you. track your >> three boats in the boats in the front Earth.