[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[Music] [Music]
Hey, down. [Music] [Music] We don't want to do anything that appears to oppress somebody else.
Bald wants a dollar more than they were talking. Thank you for the charger. Talking about Oh, no problem. Yeah, that's what they do. By the time I leave today, but that's at least right now I'm answering the right way. Exactly. Oh man, you're making more. It's like
I do more than you. No chomp. I don't envy you. It's a chomp meeting. It is a chomp meeting. I They're upstairs though. That's all right. That's all right. I'll go get some call. Chomp recess. Call a chest. John, are you ready?
Everybody up here ready. I'm good. Good afternoon. And I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting of August 21st, 2025. If we can please take uh please stand for a moment of silence in the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Madame clerk, can you please call the role?
Christopher P here. John Moody here. Matthew Vun here. Jereley here. Chris Williams here. Chairman Charles Greg. Vice Chairman Jamie Gerardi here.
Okay. Uh, the planning commission is appointed by the board of county commissioners. We meet twice a month. The planning commission holds public hearings and transmits to the board of county commissioners recommendations on resonings, conditional use requests. The planning commission is the final
decision-making body for special exceptions, certain appeals, variance requests, and certain alternative standard requests. However, final decisions may be appealed to the board of county commissioners. The planning commission also serves as a local planning agency and as the LPA,
this body makes recommendations in regard to the consistency with the adopted Pasco County comprehensive plan of proposed comprehensive plan amendments and land development code amendments. If anybody is in opposition to any comprehensive plan amendment, land development code amendment,
resoning, conditional use, or any item where the planning commission transmits a recommendation to the board of county commissioners, it is important that you attend the appropriate board of county commissioners meeting. Okay. Um, we don't have any minutes today. So, I guess at this point before
we start the meeting, this is where we'll take public comments for any items that are not on the agenda. Is there anybody here to comment on anything not on the agenda? Uh, good afternoon. I would just like to note that we have nobody signed up to speak for public comment and we have
nobody signed up on WebEx as well. Okay. Okay. With that being said, we'll go ahead and move on to the public hearing itself. um the public hearing procedures for those of you who have not been here before. Um in-person participants and
participants attending through WebEx, including the applicant, who have pre-registered for the planning commission meeting will be notified by county staff when they will be permitted to speak. Applicants will be limited to five minutes and other participants will participants will be limited to three minutes unless additional time is
approved at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting and I don't think we have any of those today. uh in-person participants and WebEx participants must announce the following items before speaking and at that time they will be sworn by the clerk but we'll actually we'll swear everybody in.
Let's go ahead and going to swear everybody in now. If you plan on giving any testimony today if you plan on speaking if you can please stand and raise your right hand so you can be sworn. Sure. Do you swear from the testimony you about to give the truth to help you guide? I do.
And when you come up to speak, if you can, please state your name, your address, the agenda item, and the agenda title and what you plan to speak on. Then the three or five minute timer will start. Um today's agenda or our agenda is broken up into three sections. There's a
uh continuence section, a consent section, and a regular item section. Today we have five public hearing items on the agenda. is one withdrawn withdrawal item, one continuence, and three consent items. The consent items will be approved by
regular vote unless the item is pulled from consent. Once a motion is made on the consent agenda, the chair will call for a second and the motion will be voted on. Madam clerk, do we have proof? The honors were advertised in the Tampa Bay Times on March 5th, 2025, June 4th,
2025, July 23rd, 2025, August 6th, 2025, and August 13, 2025. Thank you. And before we start, I I forgot to remind anybody, if you have anything that makes noise, cell phone, pager, anything else, please make sure you put in the silent position so we're not disturbed.
Okay, Giana. Okay. Good afternoon, planning commission. Gianna German, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. Item PC1 is PTE25-000093, a comprehensive plan amendment CPAS24
in the name of law property providing for an amendment to the future land use map 2-15 sheet 20 changing from res 6 residential six dwelling units per gross acre to comm commercial on approximately 4.67 67 acres of real property located
at the southeast corner of the intersection of Lake Patience and Perdue Drive. And this is coming with the request to withdraw the application. Okay. Is the applicant present? Is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this item?
Okay. We need a motion to to withdraw or this just notification. Just notification. Okay. Very good. Okay. Very good. Item PC2 is PDE25-7881,
a resoning request in the name of Enclave at Livingston MPUD Academy at the Lakes, Inc. for a change in zoning from AR Agricultural Residential District to MPUD master planned unit development district. And this is coming with a request to continue the item to
September 16th, 2025 planning commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Newport. Okay. Okay. Is the applicant present? Anybody here wishes to speak on this item? Is that 16th or 18th? I'm sorry, correction. September 18th to
continue to September 18th. Okay. And that's our only continuence item. Move to continue item PC2 to the no September 18th meeting in Newport Richie. Second. All right. Motion and a second. All in favor? I
oppose. Motion carries. Item PC3 is a staff initiated project from the parks and recreation and natural resources department and you will be sitting as a local planning agency for this item. PDE25-0429 a comprehensive plan amendment CPAS2503
in the name of Elump con map amendment providing for an amendment to the future land use map 2-15 sheets 5 11 12 17 9 and 23 changing from AGR agricultural rule res 1 residential one dwelling unit
per gross acre res 3 residential three dwelling units per gross acre res six residential six dwelling units per gross acre, res 9 residential 9 dwelling units per gross acre, res 12 residential 12 dwelling units per gross acre and ro
retail office residential all going to con conservation lands on approximately 2,813 acres of real property located throughout Pasco County and this is coming with a recommendation that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Okay. And this is county initiated, correct? Yes, sir. Is there anybody else here to speak on this item? Okay. So, move to approve item PC3. Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? I
I opposed. Motion carries. Item PC4 is PDE25-0425, an ordinance amending Pasco County Land Development Code Chapter 100, creating section 106.6 6 presented by staff. Good afternoon, planning commission. Rebecca Bo, planning, development,
economic growth. Here today to present item PTE250425, section 106.6, amendments to the LDC. And I do have a presentation clicker. Okay. So, on July 15th, the board of
county commissioners uh considered the applicability of Senate Bill 180 on the county's ability to propose, adopt, or enforce any new regulations following a hurricane. At that meeting, the board directed the county to proceed with business as usual
um except for imposing any new regulations that could be considered more restrictive or burdensome on properties that have been damaged by a hurricane. So in furtherance of this direction um section we are proposing section 106.6
Six, creating amendments after August 1st, 2024. This amendment essentially states that the county will not impose any new any new LDC's that could be considered more restrictive or burdensome on properties
that have been damaged by a hurricane until October 2nd, 2007 or one year after a hurricane that resulted in a federal disaster declaration. This would also apply to resolutions, manuals or written procedures.
This slide is of the actual text. And then our uh recommend that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Chair, could I just add one statement to this? Yes. Go ahead. Um so we are working on um Mr. Moody
sent me an email. I thought he raised a very good point which is if you can go back to the text. Sure. The law and doesn't really clarify what is a property damaged by a hurricane but we do have a database. The building and construction services department
maintains a database of properties that were damaged by a hurricane. And so we likely will add a definition to what that means. property damaged by hurricanes that refers to those databases um because we are able to track we do track them by partial ID. So
the the there there will be an additional language added to this that defines what property dam which properties are damaged by hurricane. We're just not we don't have that finalized yet because we're working with DCS on how exactly to define what that
means. Okay, that was the only thing I wanted to add. Okay, anybody else up here? And I'll thank Mr. Moody for that point. Thanks, John. So, one question I've got is so are we
then exempting buildings that are built after on a new land development code to not have to comply to that if they're later damaged. So, they go back to the 2004 when they're being reconstructed. So what this is saying is that first of
all you're not exempting them from the entire code, right? You're exempting them from only any regulations that are considered more restrictive burdens and they were adopted after August 1st of 2024. So and it's only for a period of time sort of a pause.
So I'm not sure if I understand your question. I mean, it's it's it's a short period, but I'm just thinking if if a property is developed based on the land development code after the August 1st date, say next year, then is damaged in a hurricane, is
the reconstruction of that building now held to the lesser standard of the if another hurricane hits, it re-triggers this code provision. in because what it says is it's to the later of October 2nd, 2027
or one year after hurricane makes landfall in Pasco, whichever occurs later. So, so let's just say a property were built today, another hurricane hits us,
then for one year after that, this provision applies again. It has to make landfall in Pasco to re-trigger within 100 miles of any part of Pasco County and a disaster declaration as well, right? Yeah. Which almost always happens if if
a hurricane is made landfall in Pasco, we almost always get a federal disaster declaration. But does that answer your question? I don't know if I'm answering it. Just reading the text again. Sorry. Um
I think so. Yeah. So in essence, if if a property gets repeatedly damaged by a hurricane, this provision could continue to I guess arguably assist them for more restrictive emergency regulations. If we got hit with a hurricane every year, it
would just re-trigger every year, right? So that's that's so if there's a newer building that's built after this, it gets triggered again. Are they held to a less burdensome standard than they were actually built under?
So you're talking about Okay. So it was it's built after it's built after August 1st, 2024 and before October 2nd, 2027, right?
and then it gets damaged again by another hurricane or if it doesn't exist now gets built under the more burdensome code is damaged is it then if it gets damaged again and they're trying to rebuild after
being damaged again they would have the benefit of this provision again. In other words, every time a hurricane comes through and damages a building for at least one year after that happens, they'd have the benefit of this provision.
Okay. The the one exception to that is for the her the hurricanes that just hit us last year, the pause goes to October 2nd, 2027. It's not a year. It's longer than a year. But every time the property gets damaged, it
potentially triggers this happening again. Am I making Okay, David, I have a question. The language says shall not apply to the construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property damaged by
a hurricane. You're presupposing that an undeveloped property cannot be damaged by a hurricane. So this goes to the definition of what is property damage by hurricane. I've spoken to our BCS
department. That definition will clarify that it's damage to structures because that's what we track in terms of and I believe that likely was the legislative intent is that you're trying to protect dam those property owners that had structural damage from the
hurricane if they're trying to reconstruct or redevelop that property. Um, I don't believe the intent was that it was applying to just vacant land, but the definition when we define property damage by hurricane, it will be limited to
structural damage that's recorded in our database of properties damaged by hurricane. I mean, if I read the legislative history of this bill, all of the discussion is about helping those that were that had their
homes or businesses damaged by a hurricane. I do not believe there was any intent to help a vacant land owner. So David, just a general question then. I mean, is the purpose of needing to do this amendment is this to provide some
provision to the county? I mean, as far as Senate Bill 180 goes, was it is there questions on what it applies to? Is that why this has to be Yes. So, there's a couple reasons. One is the law is not clear at all. Um and so
but we believe this interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent and is the only interpretation that would be constitutional. Um so that's one reason we're codifying. Are you at liberty? And I understand if you're not. Are you
at liberty to explain why you think that's the only way it can be constitutional? Because I think if it was interpreted any any other manner, it would violate single subject requirements. It would be arbitrary and capriccious and violate constitutional requirements
for standing. I can send you the case law. There we have the there's a we drafted some whereas clauses that I don't think those made it to the planning commission, right? No, but they're part of the whereas clauses for the ordinance that explain that, but that's the short version of the bottom
line is this act it was it was an act related to emergencies and emergency management. So if the property was not damaged by hurricane, those are the only people that were affected by the emergency. Anybody else was not affected by the
emergency if they were not damaged by the hurricane. There's a general rule that your law has to match the title of your law and the subject of your law and it can't be arbitrary and capriccious. So,
I'm not sure I agree. Where'd you get your law degree, Mr. Moody? I knew that was coming. I'd like to see your constitutional analysis. I'm not. I just want to give you an example.
I'm a business owner and my power was out for three weeks. Was I damaged? I think it this this is this law is dealing with somebody trying to construct, reconstruct or redevelop after hurricane. So presumably you need
to have some structural damage to your business to have been affected. I mean you may have lost money as a result of the hurricane, but but but that doesn't mean you were damaged by the hurricane.
Go ahead. I mean, but more importantly, you have to look at what this laws it's it's dealing with regulatory amendment. Our our regulations aren't affecting the loss of power anyway. What our regulations affect is your ability to
redevelop, construct, reconstruct your business. And so I think the legislature was trying to stop us from making it more difficult for you to reconstruct your business if your if your house was damaged, your business was damaged if we the legislature did
not want us to make it more difficult for somebody who Well, I I'm sitting here looking at the text of SP 180. And if any of you want a copy, I got it here. And I not my intent to get in debate with the county attorney's office. I'm happy to debate it with you. I
you. I understand your position. I'm not sure you're going to win this debate, but I'm happy to debate it. Your your your duty as the county attorney is to represent the board of county commissioners, and I understand that. And if the board of county commissioners
wants to attempt to sidestep and/or circumvent Senate Bill 180 or come up with a creative interpretation of what Senate Bill 180 is, that I understand that that's your obligation to try to defend that position. So I don't wish to get into some kind of debate over with
you about that. I'll just say this. In Florida, the law requires that you come to a complete stop at a red light before you turn right. Okay? Every day we see people that roll
through red lights, but and maybe they disagree with the law that they needed to stop. The other morning I was on my way down 19 and a school bus stopped and its stop signs came out. Its red lights were flashing
and there were no kids, no parents, and there were three lanes of US19 backed up waiting for this school bus. But it's not proper for me to go around the bus. The law stops me from doing that. I don't get to pick and choose whether the
situation fits my my need. And I'll just say for that particular reason, I wouldn't be supportive of this language. And I'll say something else. And I'm not speaking to you. I'm
speaking to the board when I say this. We spend a lot of money paying lobbyists to go to Tallahassee to seek earmarked appropriations for Pasco County. Do we not think we're going to draw the
eyeire of the legislature who passed this bill with only two dissenting votes in the House and one dissenting vote in the Senate? I mean, that's a pretty good majority of the states, House of Representatives and
state senate that voted in support of this bill. And we're going to go ask them for money and at the same time kick them in the teeth. and our own local legislative delegation, all of them voted for this bill. They can choose to
do that. I'm advising that I don't think that's smart politics. I copied you on a letter. I have no idea whether you knew that letter existed, but Orange County attempted to change its comprehensive plan and the Florida
Department of Commerce citing Senate Bill 180 rejected it. Abinio, as is the language in the statute, and I don't understand why we think we're going to be treated
any differently. Like I said, I don't want to get into a legal argument here. I'm looking at do we really want to kick sand in the face of the governor and our legislature. I'm just not thinking that's a smart idea. That's just my personal opinion and
that's not okay. So that's not a legal analysis. That's a policy issue. But but but that's what I'm saying because this is a policy issue by the board. I don't want to get into a legal about it. The my legal response is the boards swore to uphold the constitution of the state of Florida and so they have a duty to
apply laws in a constitutional manner and in my opinion this definition this interpretation of the law applies the law in a constitutional manner. Your policy point is well taken but we've asked some of the legislators who
voted for this bill. They thought they were voting for this. I think it it's it's probably poorly drafted, but if you ask we've asked multiple legislators, our lobbyists asked multiple legislators, what did they think they were voting for?
They thought they were voting to protect properties that were damaged by a hurricane. They did not want to make things more that if somebody went sustained damage by a hurricane. They didn't think it should be more difficult for them to have to rebuild their homes, rebuild their businesses,
calling that damage. And if you you you go ask all those people who voted for it what they thought they were voting for, I bet you 95% of them would agree that's what they thought they were voting for. I I would hope. So I don't think we're poking our eye anybody's eye. I would hope that there I
would hope that our local legislative delegation isn't like the Democrat party while passing the Affordable Care Act and that you don't get to know what's in the bill until after we pass the bill. It's only 28
pages. I'm sure they're capable of reading the 28 pages that is Senate Bill 180. Well, actually, this bill got this language got inserted in this bill on the last day of the session at the basically the 11th hour, I'm not sure how many of the legislators
actually took the time to read it and debate whether what its intent was. So, while I would normally agree with you that we shouldn't poke the legislature because that there's that bad idea, I don't think that the legislature
intended to have the law apply beyond properties damaged by hurricane. Then should we not allow the legislature to go back and fix its mistake? Yeah. And we have we have a legislative proposal to the legislature to do that very thing. The problem we have is that in the interim,
this is a retroactive law. I understand that we have we have regulations and this was to Mr. Gerard's point why we're doing this. We have regulations that we already adopted after August. We have to do something between now and whenever the legislature might fix it to
implement the law. We're implementing the way we think the legislature intended and the way that we think is constitutional. And we do our our own board doesn't want to make things more difficult for somebody that was actually damaged by a hurricane. So, we do think they should be exempt
even from the regulations we adopted after August 1st of 2024. I understand that and that's a policy decision they can make. I'm just telling you for me, speaking for myself and I'm
not trying to claim that I have higher, better morals than anybody else. Just for me, I'm looking at what the plain text of the law says and I have no wish or desire to violate that.
I would also say, and I'm sure you'll have some legal defense for this, but I looked up for what reasons can the governor remove a county commissioner or one of us planning commissioners from this position and misfeasants is one of those. Then I had to go do a
whole bunch of AI research as to what constitutes misfasence. And I would I'm reasonably convinced that that passing this may constitute a misfeasance. And be careful not to say the word
malfeasants. It's misfeasants. But I speak only for myself. This is just something I'm not comfortable supporting. I have no problem with the rest of the board if they want us agree to this. I
don't judge anybody for that. Just for me, this is something I can't recommend. That's your prerogative. I'm just saying you have not re you have not reviewed the case law on I not here to get in a legal argu debate
with you, David. That's not my not my place here. And I understand what your place is and I respect that. But if you look at the entire law and you have it right there, the real remedy. No, I actually have the only if we violate it is that somebody could sue us
and get attorneys fees for implement for not applying it properly. Um the county the board of county commissioners is the one that assumes that liability, not planning commission members. No, I understand that.
I don't wish to commit what I think can be considered a misfeasence. That's your opinion. I don't think that that's why we're all here. And there's never going to be 100% unanimity on every issue. Sometimes we are in lock
step. Sometimes there are split votes. And that may be what happens here today. I'm just telling you where I personally am at. Okay. Well, obviously I I mean I don't know a lot of the details and I def I definitely am not going to get in any
kind of debate, but I mean I know other counties and other county attorneys have taken a position contrary to the to pass on this ordinance. I know there was something just either last week or this week as far as mortoriiums and comp plan
amendments, etc. that barely passed and then that was against the county attorney's recommendation. So, I mean, we kind of get put in a spot here where this is something we're asked to vote on, but we don't really I mean, that that's way above my head. I can see. Well, we went we went to our board and Rebecca summarized it. We went to the board and asked the board what position
do they want to take on this bill and this was the direction we got. This implements the board's direction. Yeah. And just for clarification, I'm looking at this is my role at the planning commission is not to make
policy. It's only to make a recommendation to the board. My personal recommendation is that you adhere to the law and that you take advantage of the opportunities that's in the law. I mean, the the law lays out a a procedure. If a
city or county has a question about one of its regulations, they can go to a court of competent jurisdiction and seek some type of ruling on it. There's a path there. There's other opportunities. If there if you're worried about the constitutionality, you could, you know,
sue the legislature, I guess, and try to get to the Florida Supreme Court so that you can review the constitutionality, but I'm just I can't in good cons, let me remind you what your statutory duty is as it relates to this amendment, which may give you some comfort.
You are not asked to make an opinion about whether this law is legal or not, whether it's constitutional or not. Your sole duty is determining is it inconsistent or consistent with the comp plan. I don't sure if this is a comp plan issue. I mean, I can tell you that now I don't know when we look at the new
comp plan later today. How do I determine if it's consistent with the comp? Oh, I could I could I I could tell you when the comp plan the comp plan has a similar issue when we do the update, but there likely would be similar language in the comp plan when that comes forward.
But the comp plan that's in effect today doesn't even address this issue. Well, then how can I determine whether that's consistent with the comp plan that doesn't Well, I don't think you can say it's inconsistent with the comp plan. If it is, you'd have to tell me where
what provision of the complaint it's inconsistent with. Yeah, I understand. My point is that if somebody tried to accuse you of malfeasance, so I think you could say my only duty was to determine whether it was inconsistent or consistent with a comp plan, not whether
it was good policy, illegal, unconstitutional, any of those things. I understand your position. So, but to Mr. Garard's point, I think that that the various county attorneys and
cities are still evaluating how they want to deal with this issue. I could tell you that Pasco is not alone in taking this position. They've already spoken to other counties that have taken a similar position. Okay. Anybody else?
Okay. Yeah. And just editorially, there's other counties that have also implemented the Live Local Act on its face. Pasco has chosen not to do that. This not the only issue where we may not be, you know, enforcing a law
strictly as Mr. Moody has interpreted it. [Music] There's not too many laws I read that are crystal clear. Yeah. And I don't spend a lot of time reading them. You know, all that being said, I
want you to understand I don't particularly like this legislation. I feel like the the legislature is stepping on Pasco County's ability to determine its own destiny.
But at the end of the day, I just feel like this is what the law says. I read the law. I don't see where it says anywhere in here applies only to hurricane damaged properties. Maybe that was the intent, but that's not what's in the language, at least as I read it. But
again, I speak only for me on that issue. And I understand you don't have the benefit of three years of law school and 20 years of legal practice that I have, right? The arguments that I can make on regarding its constitutionality. Okay. Did Did I already ask for public
comment? Is there anybody else here to speak on this item? Thank you, Rebecca. Yes. Hi, William Macau. Uh 7638 Antioch Drive, Newport Richie. Um good afternoon, C uh commissioners. My only
concern is the language specifically addressing landfall within a 100 miles of Pasco County. Uh as landfall is defined, I think is the important thing. Helen didn't make landfall anywhere
close to 100 miles within Pasco County. And so I think there may be a change of language such as if Pasco County declares an emergency in those situations. That's my only comment. And while I may agree or not, that's
that's straight out of that language is straight out of Senate Bill 180. Um, no, it's not actually. Okay. Well, then tell me cuz I got the lane here. All right. It says the Senate Bill 180 says within a 100 miles of the track of the hurricane, not where it last made
landfall. All right. Let me see. It's um sorry, it's number one. 252 4221 within 100 miles of the track of a storm to clear. Okay. So, but then two says
for when you're after hurricane makes landfall, right? So, the time the time clock in my opinion, my non- lawyer, non-constitutional attorney opinion is that the plain language says that the time clock starts one year after the
hurricane makes landfall. So, the time clock didn't start while Helen was passing us along the coast. It started when it hit. Do you think it should say within one has this is the version the governor
as has where the track of the storm as within 100 miles of the track of a storm. But you still have to have the landfall data in there. So yeah, I mean it has to make landfall though because otherwise it would never
trigger it. I mean, I guess that's the problem is is it one year after a hurricane has made landfall and the and the track is within a 100 miles. Is that what it says? That's what probably should say, Mr. Chair. And I I'm only doing this not because I want to debate this just so that you
guys have the language. I brought copies for you all if you would like copies. No, I'm I'm open to changing this. I'm just trying to figure out how we change it. So, because I think it has to make landfall otherwise it doesn't trigger two, right? Yeah. So if so if a
yeah it says one year after a hurricane makes landfall an impacted local government may not run out. So the the issue is if it only was stayed in the Gulf. The reason it says landfall is because
if it only stayed in the Gulf it would never trigger number two like the time period would never start start. So we suggesting the language is m minorly flawed. So I so I guess the ironic thing is a hurricane can make
a close call and then turn back out never make landfall still be the language in your or the proposed ordinance. I don't want to call it yours entirely has made landfall within a 100 miles. I think the difference here is that
they're actually trying to take into account what happened with Helen, that we were within a 100 miles of the track of that center of the hurricane. And of course, that put us in the wrong side of the wrong quadrant for storm surge and,
you know, to get all of the wind from Milton even though it may not have actually made landfall on our coast. That's what that's the damage we suffered. But I would agree that according to this the time clock doesn't
start. So I think it probably say has last made landfall if the track of the storm is within 100 miles of any portion of Pasco County. Yes, I think that would be accurate.
It I think it has to make landfall though. I don't know how you can I think the the track determines the area 100 miles of the track and then the landfall date determines when the time I think Rebecca if you're drafting I think what it should actually say is
within resulted in a federal disaster that has last made landfall if the track after the word landfall say if the track of the storm is within 100 miles of any portion of Pasco Or you can say is within 100 miles of
any portion of Pasco County and has made landfall. I'm fine with that, too. Has made landfall. I'm fine with either way. Either version. You're basically saying it needs to I think we're basically saying the same thing. It's got to make landfall and it's got to the track has to be within 100 miles
of Pasco County. I I get the point. I I I'm fine with that change. I don't think that's not a constitutional argument, Mr. Moody. That's just a not here to make constitutional arguments. That doesn't make it more consistent with the bill.
My lawyers up here today. Mhm. In the bill, it defines impacted local government as somebody that's within 100 miles of the track of the storm. And then for one year after the hurricane landfall, an impacted local government may not propose or adopt. And that goes
into that. Okay. So, Rebecca, are you clear on how you're reddrafting that? Yes. And understand that it does say the word may not propose or adopt. So, not only is they made it illegal to
adopt, they've made it illegal to even think about it. Well, the issue is that with that as you go through then in conjunction with 728, some of this we already adopted, right? So, so you can't if we already adopted it, it's you too late to not
propose it if we already adopted it. I'm sure you'll have fun in front of the Supreme Court arguing all of these nuances. I can't wait, Mr. Money. I got nothing else to do. Okay. Is there anybody else here for public comment?
Okay. Do we have a motion? Thanks for bringing that up. Is Okay. Official motion anyone. So again, I'll remind you your duty only duty here is determine whether it's consistent with the comp plan or not. So you can you can make a motion finding it
consistent with the comp plan even if you don't agree with any of the rest of it. I'll move that we find it consistent with the comp plan with the with the change. Okay, I'll second. All right, we have a motion. If I could, does that include us adding
an additional change to define properties damaged by hurricane? Yes. Yes. Okay, that we just discussed. Yeah. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh, and no further discussion. All in favor? I I oppose. Nay.
Motion carries with Mr. Moody dissenting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Moving right along. PC5. Item PC5 is PTE 25007,
an ordinance amending the Pasco County Land Development Code section 802 presented by staff. Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Amanda Hill, Planning, Development, and Economic Growth. File number PDE25-00007 is a proposed amendment to section 802
tree preservation and replacement. Recent activities regarding this section of the code include an LPA workshop on June 5th, 2025. The adoption of resolution 25-291 by the BOCC.
This resolution clarified the use of funds administration and increased the contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund. There was also a LPA workshop on June on August 7th, 2025.
As a reminder, the rates of contribution that were updated by the BCC on 7:15 include the update of the rates from $50 per inch to $75 per inch for all project types for trees that are classified as a
heritage tree, a payment of $150 per inch. A heritage tree is hereby defined as a live oak that is equal to or greater than 34 in DBH or a southern magnolia that is greater than and equal
to 24 in DBH. Those trees would also have to have a condition rating of good or better as determined by the ISA condition rating system. Can you remind what DBH stands for? Uh diameter at breast height.
And section one of that resolution states that the effective date of these contribution rates will be upon the repeal of section 802.3C1B3 subsections A to D of the LDC. The purpose of this amendment would be
to remove the contribution rates that are currently referenced in that section of the code as well as to remove the purposes and authorized locations that are referenced in section 802.3E. These sections currently conflict with the adopted resolution and this
amendment would resolve said conflict. Staff recommends that the LPA finds the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. and I'm available for any questions that you may have. Man, the first first question I have is I guess how did we get here and and why
did we not just change the fees in the ordinance rather than adopt a resolution? My understanding of the matter is that the fees and whether or not it changes at the discretion of the board through the resolution and not through the LDC. This language regarding the fees was not
initially intended to be within the LDC, but it is correct. Well, here's it is, but is with a reference that says it'll be adopted by resolution. My my problem is, and I we we've gotten into this several times before. Um,
when we pull stuff out of the code and make it to where it can be modified, approved, etc. through resolution, the public never knows about it. I still question how many people really knew that this fee was being revised by the resolution when it got revised by the
board and the fact that there was absolutely zero grandfather clause for anybody that was even in current review. I mean the way the resolution was adopted and this was clarified at August 7th when we met in for the workshop. I mean, you could be literally waiting on
staff to draft an approval memo and all of a sudden you get hit with these new fees. I mean, that that's a huge problem for a lot of big projects that Pasco County has spent a lot of time and effort trying to bring to Pasco County. I mean, we we had people come to the workshop
and they they gave examples of three, four, five, seven million dollar tree impact fees that they were going to have to pay versus a couple hundred,000 that they were facing before these fees got modified. and the and the maximums got eliminated.
So, I this one really this one just doesn't sit right. I don't understand why we're not just revising the fees in the ordinance. I would agree with you. Yeah, it's the issue I have is the lack of the grandfather language. Well, the
TBBA and came and asked for a phase in schedule and I believe in the prior version of the tree ordinance that had been presented by staff and ultimately withdrawn, there had been some agreement regarding how those new fees would be
implemented and this seems to fly in the face of that. So, I think there's two different issues here. One is like where you put the regulation. The other issue is how much involvement there was by the
development committee in the regulation because even if it was a resolution, you in theory could have a resolution go through all the same processes that an ordinance change. I mean, you could go to have it go to the horizontal round table. You could have it go to planning committee. I mean, you could run a
resolution through the same processes as an ordinance. So, I think staff probably needs to address why the resolution didn't go through those processes if it didn't. And I don't know if it did or didn't. Well, I mean, I think there was
stakeholder meetings. I heard and then I know it went to the board, but I I mean I I watched that board meeting for the resolution and there was I've se been to plenty of these meetings and I've seen things that people show up for and when you're starting to hit somebody with
multi-million dollar tree tree payments or obligations. I find it hard to believe that nobody would have been in attendance if they'd had known that was going to be approved as part of that resolution. Was on the consent agenda. On the consent agenda. Correct. So
I do recall that at the March 20th um hearing when the item regarding tree preservation was previously brought forward, there was a discussion with the planning commission regarding whether or not the fees could be adopted along with the other changes to section 802 or if that was something that could be done
separately. And my understanding was that the direction that was that we can go ahead and have the board update that separately as necessary if that was the desire of the board. Patrick, I don't know if you wanted to speak anything additional to that. I know you were still working on the project at that
point. Um I don't know this uh Patrick Der planning development economic growth. Um What is what is the question specifically again? So at the March 20th um meeting when you brought the item forward and planning
commission recommended that the board desired that be adopted separately from the other changes. Uh, sure. Yes. If I recall correctly, we withdrew the code amendments, but I think the planning commission did at the time say we'll move forward with
changing the fees, which is a general statement, right? But to play devil's advocate, I'm not sure planning commission said, right, but don't get don't get development committee involvement in it, right? I mean, Mr. Chairman, David Engel, Planning and
Development Economic Growth. Um, as I recall from uh rec recalling the BCC meeting, we were directed by council at that time that we'd have to come the board approved a resolution changing the fees. We were directed that to perfect
this, we have to amend the LDC and remove the old fees from the LDC because it says adopt by resolution. So, we were just performing our task as directed by the board. Right, David? I think the question that Mr. Gard is asking is
what level of input did you get from the development community before having the board adopt the resolution? We've had extensive input with the TBBA and um as I reported back to the board. There were amendments we had
incorporated their suggestions in the draft. they were removed and I failed to notify the TBBA from my last correspondence with them in April and I was on the record already uh two meetings ago and I discussed it or you
know that that I'll take the I'll take the heat for it. So worked through with the TBBA um set up a meeting with the TBBA to meet with the BCC chair and talk about uh how their views can be accommodated and what the policy goals
and objectives are of the board of county commissioners. I I can't speak for the board, but the chair is assume that role and that meeting is already calendared. And can't this wait until that meeting happens? That doesn't that would seem very unfair to the stakeholders.
Well, that that is a fair proposition and you know I I certainly endorse that. Well, we've already issued an opinion that the changes to the fees don't take effect until this ordinance is adopted. So
if the planning commission is not comfortable with this ordinance moving forward until you seen the or heard that the resolution has been updated consistent with this upcoming meeting
I you can continue the item until that that's within your prerogative. When's this meeting again? I believe it's next week. Yeah, I guess I know we have other people here to speak on this, so I guess any other questions for staff then we'll
go and take public comment. Okay, Barbara will height 6327 Grand Boulevard representing nobody um but somebody. This is my 30th year doing this and I have a little different idea. I think the fee should be in the ordinance and I think you should remove
the the ability to do it by resolution because in theory things could have happened differently but if there wasn't the ability to do this by resolution they wouldn't have happened the way they did. This was on the consent agenda. Nobody knew about it. This board, this
planning commission said we think that a fee increase should go forward, but they didn't even come back to them. If it was if the ability to not have to have this done by resolution, if you take out the ability to have this done by resolution, this issue would have come to this planning commission and be vetted by you
professionals who work with us all the time. And there would been a recommendation going to the board that would have been had some other input. You could have collected stakeholder input. You could have collected your own input. And there could be, you know, I sat through, I can't tell you how many meetings I volunteered my time and and
watched a back and forth between staff and the TVBA representatives who were volunteering their time too to try to come up with a resolution on how to raise those fees and how to grandfather them in. This resolution was different from those conversations. So what as a
process person and a fairness person and how we do things when we take things out of the code for example there used to be in section 300 there used to be a table that said the deadlines to get things done and I remember when that came out of the code I objected because no don't
worry don't worry it's going in the development manual but since then those dates have never been complied with and clients like to see those they like they like to look at the code and be able to see it so the unintended consequences when you take things out of the code and you allow it to be done by resolution on a consent agenda that bypasses you all.
It's not a public hearing. This where where in theory things could be done different, but they don't have to be. And so what I'm saying to you is if you pass this ordinance that's been suggested by staff, you're condoning this process and allowing it to
perpetuate itself in the future. So what you should be recommending is either table it or say we recommend that the fees actually be in the ordinance and that you have to we take out the ability to do it by resolution so that this fact pattern that should have never happened
doesn't happen again. So again speaking of nobody other than you know making good policy and I don't think the board made good policy that day. I don't think they knew what the unintended consequences or what the actually the consequences was of that action and you heard TVBA come here and explain to you all what the consequences now and now
they're having to have meetings and all these different things when if it was just followed a process and wasn't allowed to be done by resolution something as important as this we wouldn't have to be try to figure out what happened why did it happen what do we do about it now because we would have a good process set up in the ordinance
that's my two cents thank you thank you Barbara Mr. Chair, I just want to just inject a little bit of disclosure and discovery for the planning commission. U the staff didn't arbitrarily remove the TBBA
suggestions and recommendations that were in the original draft. We were we we had vetted it with our board of county commissioners and it was requested that we remove these items. And I understand that there may have not been appropriate dialogue about it and allowing the TB to uh lobby for their
position and I I regret that. Um, and I and I apologize to everyone. The only point I'm going to make, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Barbara, but um, what I do agree disagree with her a little bit on is the code right now says they will be adopted
by resolution. I mean, so that that's the issue is that the code is somewhat inconsistent because it says it'll be adopted by resolution, but then includes the fees. So code is sort of internally inconsistent today.
I think Barbara's arguing that you should error on the side of not allowing them to be adopted just put all the fees in. But the existing code is is is sort of a mix of the two. That's the problem.
Well, couldn't you get rid of the saying they'd be adopted by resolution portion? You could. I'm just saying I don't know that that's a policy change and they could be adopted in the code. I'm not saying I'm not appining one way or the other. I'm only saying that the existing code does say they will be
adopted by resolution and that's how they were originally adopted these fees. They were adopted by resolution. At some point after that, somebody decided to put them in the code too. I don't know how how it happened, but they got put in the code too. But even when they were put in the code, it says they'll be
adopted by resolution. So the fees were originally adopted by resolution. That's that's a fact. I don't think Barbara can disagree with me. That's how they were originally were adopted. She worked on that resolution when it was adopted. So um she can't deny it now because she was heavily involved in that.
It was in 2005. Yes. So So at one point she blessed this being adopted by resolution. She won't admit it now, but she did. Um I Okay. Um, we just did it. Okay. So, that has been the historical
way they've been adopted is by resolution. I'm not saying that can't change, but Gotcha. That's that's the history. Okay. Is there anybody else here to speak? Great. Back to us. Anything else from up here
or a motion? I I'd move that we continue this um to the planning commission here in Newport Richie a month from now uh in order to at least let that meeting take place with uh TVBH or TBBA rather.
Okay. So that would be the September 18th. 18th. Yeah. So I just want to clarify purpose of the motion or the intent. So the are are you wanting to make sure a meeting took place or are you wanting to see a revised resolution? I'm not sure what your
the the intents to make sure that um the stakeholders have their voices heard and then you know and then we can yeah we can review the the outcome of that meeting uh when we're making an opinion on on this in a month. I I I do recall um the planning
commission had asked us to look at other pure counties and I I believe um are we done with that? We're still in the process looking at actual Yeah. So you don't even have all the information that you requested at the last meeting where we're looking at what which county ala Elatchua
Elatchua are are you talking about on the fee issue or on the larger amendment to the that was on the larger amendment oh the larger amendment excuse me I thought it was also I don't think you're they're waiting on any additional information as it relates to fees um
well let me ask the question a different way when it comes back in a month are you expecting staff to bring you a revised resol because I know you all raised the issue of grandfathering. Regardless of what the board decides to do on the the amounts, you all raised the issue of
grandfathering. Are you wanting staff to bring this back with language related to grandfathering or are you letting that sort of play out in terms of whatever happens with TBBA at that meeting? For me, for the
purposes of making a motion, I think I'd be fine with that. I just want to have them give an opport I want them to have an opportunity to be able to to speak on it at that meeting. So, if if they're if they're fine with the the fees as
written without any kind of grandfather language, then I guess I'm fine with it, too. But ultimately, we should they should be heard. Okay. All I'm saying is if you are if anybody on this planning commission is expecting to have to bring back a different version of the ordinance,
you probably need to help provide that direction now because right now the motion is basically saying bringing it back as is as long as this meeting occurs. I just want to make sure that's the direction. Well, it seems to me that we were all interested in a grandfather clause as was the TD TBBA.
Okay. I can show what the language would currently look like right now. So essentially it strikes through all the references to the fees in section 802.3 C1B38D and then it removes the references to
the purpose and authorized locations in section 802.3E. That's the extent of the proposed amendments with this item. Right. But currently it does not address the effective date of the new fees. Correct. Now, that can either be dealt with in the resolution or it can be
dealt with in the amendment to the code. I I'm really just asking and we can figure out where that goes. I'm I'm really just asking, are you expecting staff to draft grandfathering language before this comes back to you in a month? Yeah. I mean, I think we all like to
would like to see that of some sort or at least uh at least get feedback from the stakeholders regarding that. Well, incorporate language that's either suggested or agreed to at this meeting with DBBA. Right. Right.
I mean, I again, I personally I I can't support getting rid of this out of the ordinance and modifying the ordinance. So, I mean, I I agree with and I'm fine with moving it down to the next two meetings from now after the TBBA meeting, but I I just think we set
a bad precedent by approving these fees as part of that resolution and the way it got approved. I don't like the language in it and and I don't like how the process happened personally. Mr. Chair, may may I suggest um we'll have the meeting with Chair Starky and
the TBBA. Uh bring it back at 9:18. We'll either have have satisfied the TBBA. If not, uh we'll report back to you. Um and you can act as you see fit whether you're not going to recommend it or or you would.
How's that? I'm I'm fine with that. Could could that exercise also explore how we get the issue resolved that we're now doing it by resolution rather than in the ordinance if there's a way to do that in this process?
I don't know that there well might be something to bring up to chairman Starky. Well, it's it's a it's actually a legal issue in this case because the ordinance is very specific as to how these fees should be increased or modified. Well, it currently says they're going to
be done by resolution. I It doesn't. I mean, could that be changed to say it'll that could that language be struck and then you put all the fees in the ordinance? Yes, it could. I don't know that it's a legal it's more of a policy issue than a legal issue. Well, I legal issue is that the is that we gave
the opinion that in the absence of this amendment, you could not have the ordinance a the ordinance fees take effect. Mhm. But could the ordinance be changed so that you don't adopt it by resolution? Yes, you could. That's a policy issue.
All right. Well, I I'll raise that with the with the chair. I mean, the TBBA is more interested in getting these fee issues resolved, right? But, uh, we I will speak to her about it when we meet and see if she's I mean, in theory, the resolution could have had grandfathering and the
resolution could have had phases in. I mean, the resolution could have done all the things that TBVA wanted. So I think it's it's probably two problems here, right? One is that we adopted a resolution that was inconsistent with some of the requests that TBBA made.
The second is that it was done sort of outside the normal ordinance process. Right. Okay. Well, priority one is to address the TBBA's concerns and that that's what I'll be doing. I will mention to the chair that there was a process
discussion and uh maybe the planning commission would make a recommendation to the board to to to change the process and then we could bring that forth. Well, well, I mean I I don't think anybody up here's opposed to the to changes to the fees. I think everybody
up here acknowledged that the fees were I mean we all wish we could pay 2005 fees on everything we do. Um but we we can't. It's reality. It's just the I mean I I heard TBBA they came in here they they had problems with the no grandfathering or the phasing in. They had problems with the elimination of the
maximums. Um so I mean I think those are real issues that they didn't get addressed in the resolution. So and not taking sides. The the flip side was that was well they've been getting away with low fees for 10 years or something and sure you know that get it
we're we're hearing it from all sides here. But it's it's not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game either. I mean, the grandfathering should definitely at least be considered. By the way, I don't I don't want to put too much weight on this resolution versus ordinance issue because in theory, if this language said
established by resolution of the board, county commissioners based on a recommendation from the planning commission. Mhm. It would go through the same process, right? So, it still still could be by resolution. You could just have it go to the planning commission first. That's right. The issue was that that resolution
didn't go to the planning commission and didn't do all the things that an ordinance would do. Okay. All right. There's a motion to continue. Is there a second? I'll second it. All right. Motion, a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.
Thank you. I think that's everything on the regular agenda. Correct. So that's the remainder of the agenda for today. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion in a second. All in favor?
I opposed. Motion carries. All right. Move to the workshop. Then yeah, we can take uh take a recess and then we'll move on to the workshop and take a fiveminute recess. Anybody want some? Yes.
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] All right. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the planning commission workshop of August 21st, 2025. like to remind everyone please silence all electronic devices and for those who
are attending virtually please mute mute your microphones while not speaking okay I think on today's workshop agenda we only have one item that's the pass conserves element thank you Mr. Chairman Nario Pito's
planning development economic growth. Uh today's local planning agency comprehensive plan update session will focus on the Pasco 2050 chapter Pasco conserves which is the conservation element. This chapter like all the chapters of the comprehensive plan have been worked on by numerous industry
related stakeholders the county attorney's office and county departments including in this case by the parks recreation natural resources department which was a significant participant and contributor in the development of the chapter. In addition to this, the planning development economic growth department facilitated the reviews for
parks, recreation, natural resources and industry related stakeholders in order to capture their input and facilitate the development of the tra of the draft. Moreover, it bears noting that we received significant community stakeholder feedback on the question of natural resource and conservation 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. We're presenting the Pasco Conserves chapter today. Uh though like
before, our plan is not to go necessarily 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 in this case an overview of some of the deleted policies because they were either completed, made
obsolete by state law changes, or were no longer necessary. Uh with me today is Hyatt Misili. She's the senior planner with planning services and the project manager for the Cumber plan update. She'll walk us through the chapter overview. Um, you should have received
in your materials the draft chapter, a redline version of it which uh shows all the different changes and the policy change tables that illustrate the various edits made in Pasco 2050. So in that table you can see what's an absolutely new uh policy, what is a
modified policy, what is a deleted policy. Um, and that's compared against the current comprehensive plan. um document and the data and analysis for this chapter has also been provided which supports the goals, objectives and policies of the proposed chapter. So if
there are any questions or comments at the end of the presentation, we'll be available for discussion as well as our counterparts in the park, recreation, natural resources department. With that, I'll turn it over to Hyatt. Thanks. Patty, good afternoon planning commissioners.
Hi Mazili, planning development and economic growth. As you know, Pasco 2050 is comprised of 11 chapters, each addressing a key topic that guides our county's future growth and development. On this slide, you can see the full list
of the chapters ranging from land use, public facilities, housing to recreation, open space, and natural resources. And speaking of natural resources, like Terry has mentioned, this afternoon we will be discussing the conservation element or the Pasco
Conserves chapter, which is chapter number seven on our list here. So I will begin with an overview of the proposed amendments to this chapter and then we will open the floor for your questions and feedback. We also have with us today staff from the natural
resources department who will be assisting us with answering your questions. They have been very instrumental in reviewing and updating this chapter. Okay, let's roll into the next slide and take a closer look at Pasco Conserves.
The conservation element of the existing comprehensive plan was renamed conserves. This chapter is required per chapter 163 of the Florida statutes. And the purpose of Pasco Conserves is to ensure that we continue to identify and
protect Pasco County significant natural resources such as water resources, air quality, land resources, and our conservation lands. This chapter also provides the framework for how the county manages these resources while
still accommodating growth and all while preserving um our environmental integrity. So what has changed in this chapter? We have streamlined and reorganized the goals objectives and policies. The
chapter now has two goals, nine objectives, two of which are brand new and 67 policies, 12 of those being new as well. These goals, objectives, and policies also incorporate recommendations from the habitat study,
including ecological planning units and the agricultural reserve, which help support open space protections. We also made edits for statutory requirements, removed policies that already exist in the land development code, updated
outdated information, and rewrote policies to be more concise and clear. And of course, there is some reing and retitling of policies to fit the reorganization. Overall, these updates make Pasco Conserves easier to navigate, more
consistent, and better aligned with state requirements. the countyy's strategic plan and the overall county's long-term goals. This slide highlights the new objectives and policies we are proposing in the Pasco Conserves chapter. Thank you.
These policies are crafted to protect and enhance our natural resources while balancing future growth. We have policies focused on land and ecological conservation. For example, policy conserves 1.1.1
emphasizes on linking natural areas while policy 1.1.8 focuses on tree preservation. Policy 1 1.6.18 is another new policy that addresses reducing nutrient loads in surface waters. We also introduced a
new new objective 1.3 that includes policies pertaining to ecological planning units and the agricultural reserve. On the water and marine management side, we added objective 1.8 which lays out a comprehensive approach
to esurine and marine habitat management. And next we have this slide that shows how the the goals, objectives, and policies of Pasco Conserves directly reflect the community's vision, especially around the vision theme of
natural resource preservation. The community told us loud and clear that protecting waters, wildlife, and natural system is a priority. And in response, we have strengthened policy language to reflect that priority. For example,
there are several policies in Objective Conserves 1.1 that include uh policies related to protection of listed species, manity protection, protection of existing conservation lands, uh tree preservation, and public education on
conservation. Objective conserves 1.2 two is all about ecological corridors, their protection, mapping of the ecological corridors, the permitted uses and development standards and environmental management plans. We
also have objective 1.5 or objective conserves 1.5 which is about wetlands and surface water protections. um how we regulate wetland wetland impacts, wetland mitigation and preservation, upland buffers and river setbacks and infrastructure planning to minimize
impacts um of the wetlands or on the wetlands. And then we have objective conserves 1.6 which is all about groundwater protection and water quality. All in all, we are carrying forward the community's priorities into actionable
policies that will guide growth while protecting what makes Pasco County unique, and that is open spaces and uh vibrant places. This concludes my overview of the Pasco Conserves updates. Now it's your turn.
Let the discussion begin. I I can start because I have a question I know Keith is gonna knows I'm going to ask him. So, so Keith, let's start with what? Okay, you and I both know the history of what we got through on ecological
corridors. So my question to you is what is your intent as it relates to EPUs and agricultural reserves in terms of their acquisition? Like what what is in your
mind the map that the mapped areas for EPUs and agricultural reserve areas? What is the intent of that map? So uh maybe we can pull up the map. So yeah. Yeah, we're going to pull that up. So Keith Wy, director of parks, recreation, natural resources
department. Um, Mr. Goldstein, the purpose of this was is kind of flows from the open space conversations that we've been having through this 2050 process and our contribution to that discussion countywide in terms of does the county want to revisit requiring
open space requirements within master planned developments? Um, and if so, where would we start creating a list of of of spaces that make sense for us to to target technically? And so we felt that well, what better place focusing on natural resources protection than areas
that were already identified in a previous study and that already existed in the comprehensive plan that were identified as environmentally sensitive such as the ecological planning units and the a reserve. So really the purpose of this and maybe the execution wasn't
exactly uh what we needed to to nail down but the purpose was to identify these areas as eligible spaces that we would if we were going to move forward with an open space requirement our recommendation is we start here. So, you know, back up to a development
application. Development application comes in. If the county decides ultimately that um we're going to have some kind of open space requirement, whatever the percentage would be, used to be 40% when I first joined Pasco County 15 years ago. Um we would say,
okay, this this is the area in the county that makes sense that we would probably want to use one of those um those spaces. not entirely, not 100%, just an opportunity to visit a section that deserves protection because of its environmental significance. So that was
I don't know if I clearly answered that, David, but that was my I think the team's intent. So So two questions. One is so so these are not areas that you would be looking to acquire with Elamp funds. I I would say that they've already been
identified as areas significant enough to that if a willing seller was interested, we would we would look at that. But through that program, it's I mean, we look at parcels or properties that are nominated that don't even fall within the EPUs that have environmental
significance. So, it wasn't an add-on to the existing program. If that's your if that's at the root of your question, I would argue that these areas have already been identified as environmentally significant for the most part. Now since 2002 a lot of things have happened a lot of development has occurred and maybe possibly that the
shapes in the polygon should be modified but you know in an effort to kind of get this on the on the books this is this is what we have so far. Well, I guess I have two questions slashconerns. One is well, that's why I asked you. Do you
intend to acquire them? Do you have enough money to if you project out penny for Pasco? Mhm. Do you have enough money to acquire the ec because you're sort of legally obligated to acquire the ecological corridors. You don't really have a choice because those are regulated.
I'm familiar. Do you have enough money to acquire the ecological corridors and some of this land that is mapped? It would be difficult to answer that, David, because I mean, even even if we identified all the acreage in the ecological corridors, we don't know if a
property owner would want to keep some all, you know, I mean, it's it's tough. I think um, you know, I I I don't think that I would be able to answer that question because I don't really know what the future would hold. Even if you said, "Okay, 7,000 acres are or 4,500 acres are
remaining in the e ecological corridor and you did some rough math on $200,000 per acre, you know, based on the future projections of revenue. Yeah, it could be tight, right? Um, but that's not it's not the purpose of this exercise. The purpose of this exercise is getting back
to the open space piece. Wouldn't we want to make an attempt to protect areas that we know are environmentally significant versus just some random corner of a development that makes no sense? That's that's what we were trying to accomplish here. Yeah, but I'm trying to figure out what
that means in practice. Let me let me So I do So when we worked on this, we never intended the el funding to have anything to do with this action. This was something that would be negotiated through the development
action if the county was interested in establishing an open space requirement. And then we would have incentives. So I'll ask I'll ask you and Mr. PTO a hypothetical that maybe help will answer my question. So if a land use amendment comes in a
proposed land use amendment to increase density and it's in the area labeled agricultural reserve is there is can somebody argue that they don't they're not entitled to a density increase because it's labeled agricultural reserve.
I I don't think that's our intent. The the reason the reason I'm saying this is because the reason this is important is because for ecological quarters, we did do that. I mean, we we came in and we said you will not get a density increase in an
ecological quarter and therefore we had to compensate for that. Right. That and again, David, that's not what we're trying to to do here. We're trying to basically say that keep shifting back to the open space piece, which quite honestly has been a challenge to identify. Uh I think if you
were to define all of the eligible uses within open space, what I'm recommending is that we look here first. That again doesn't have to be 100% of whatever the area is. It could be whatever whatever the LDC ultimately ends up being. But I
what I don't want to do, and I think Mr. Moody was in a we had some some stakeholder meetings. What I don't want to do is we create an open space requirement and we're just creating we're setting aside open space that doesn't mean anything or has no value. And this was an effort for us to really make
basically saying this map is the intent of this map is that there are areas where we may at some point in the future do additional regulations if that's what the county chooses to do. So it's a planning tool. So like we're
what I don't want to do is go through another study and we're trying to figure out what should explain this to Elizabeth. My problem with the saying it's a planning tool is in my mind that also means a future land use amendment which is a plan amendment a plan. Okay. Mhm.
That it can be used to deny a plan amendment. So you say it's a planning tool. Well tell me where where would I find language that says it's not going to be used for that purpose? Mr. Pitos? Anybody?
I mean Terry Pto's plan development economic growth. The idea of from a future land use increase in density or intensity or or development potential uh is to primarily look at the future land use to govern that
information. My understanding of the agricultural reserve was that it merely established a target area of where policy could be affected. It doesn't necessarily say that every it doesn't extract um uh
entitlement, let's call it, or or or subtract entitlement maybe is a better way to say it. It doesn't subtract entitlement. It's just establishing a target area. Um to the extent that the map could be adjusted, the map could be adjusted. But but our analysis from a
land use change perspective or zoning perspective would discuss uh based on the merits of future land use and well zoning. I don't want to disagree with you Terry, but I think the law requires that you evaluate consistency with the entire
comp plan. I don't think you can just isolate the future landings element and say it's only consistent. I don't know that you can ignore the conservation element when you're evaluating consistency with your comp plan. No. And I'm not saying that we would ignore it, but I didn't quite look at it as a quote
unquote planning tool. I just looked at it as in within this target area, the county may have a number of targets that they would potentially acquire through market means essentially.
Okay. Well, you now you and Keith are saying different things. And so that's why we're having this conversation because because if it's a if it's a future land acquisition tool, you know, sort of through voluntary acquisition, um that's a different purpose than
that's why I'm at this is how is why I asked what is the purpose of this map? Yeah. Um because I don't it's not clear to me from the text. Understood. Well, I mean, we were we would be open to suggestions to language that helps us meet the intent to utilize it as a as a planning tool to address
what I've just described, trying to find u open space uh criteria that makes sense and and that it may not even actually happen. But so, yeah, to be clear, our intent is not to add another layer on a map that we're going to deny an application in the future. That was
not the purpose or the intent of what we were trying to achieve. So, and my concern my concern about not mapping it quite honestly um is you know eventually I'm going to to retire maybe sooner than later depending on how this goes. But uh um you know um and it it's a good
reference. It's a good point. You know it makes sense for someone to see it. I'm I think the team is okay with describing this narratively in a paragraph too. Um, but I'm telling you that there's lots of discussions about open space that I have both with the the board members and just residents. And I
think Hyatt pointed this very clearly. The residents are concerned about this. So this this what you're telling me is that we need a policy that says that we will consider future amendments to the land development code that provide increased protection to these areas. Is that
accurate to what you're saying? I'm saying that I if and when the county decides to establish an open space requirement, this is where we should look first. That that's all that's basically. So you would want it to say something like in the event the county
adopts additional open space requirements. These should be the target areas for those requirements. Can you do everybody a favor? Yeah. Open space means different things to different people. Can you tell us what your intent is for what is open space?
Just had this debate or discussion with one of the county attorneys a little bit ago. So, it can mean lots of things, Mr. Moody. It could be civic space. It could be actually we were just working on a a project a couple days ago. It's it's basically anything that um could be
usable, right? That it could be a neighborhood park, it could be conservation land, it could be all cement in some cases. Um, this is why I'm concerned about this definition not being nailed down, but all of it is useful. It could be a community hub. And
what I'm suggesting about these areas specifically is of all the things that open space/civic space, community hub space could end up being living somewhere in a future development design that these areas should fall in there somewhere. That's that's all I'm
suggesting. and that let's not go make an arbitrary claim to set aside something that doesn't have an environmental benefit underneath that definition of open space when you have a very clearly targeted area or areas in the county that make sense.
Let me ask a question a different way. Yeah. In the areas that are white, okay, I guess they're not high priority for your for you. Yeah. Are you basically saying that our neighborhood park regulations are enough effectively enough open space in those
areas? I'm saying that in that case that might be the a suitable you know um eligible criteria to satisfy open space. You might need nothing else other than that but I would also argue in and I'm not a planner so any of the planners can hop
up here and help me. In an urban environment you might focus more on civic space or community hub. I'm saying that in an area where you have, you know, these these these zones already identified and you have an open space and if the county agrees that of all the things an open space definition could
include, this these these areas really should be included. So, what I'm really asking is if the if there was text that went with this map that said Pasco County shall consider additional open space requirements in the EPUs and agricultural reserve areas
depicted on this map. Does that achieve your goal? I think so. If if the county as a whole agrees that open space is something that they would want to see holistically. Well, first I'm just trying to see what you're trying to achieve because I couldn't tell from the text or understood the map. So, you're trying to achieve
that these are areas where we might look at doing additional open space requirements. And to Mr. Moody's point, in theory, if it's a future land development regulation, that could define what we mean by that. But you're looking for just a general
policy objective that that forces us that maybe our existing open space regulations are insufficient in these areas. No, that's not. Okay. What are I'm sorry. And maybe we're we're we're missing each other. I apologize, David. But um I just keep going back to what I'm
being told is the overall goal of establishing some form of open space requirement. All I'm suggesting and will continue to suggest is that when an application intersects with these areas, instead of requiring maybe instead of requiring neighborhood
parks, right, David, in those areas, maybe we allow a set aside of these areas that both can be used as a active space. Maybe you wave the neighborhood park piece or maybe you have a combination of you have an all standard against neighborhood park. You do less neighborhood park because you're setting
aside more environmentally sensitive area and they all meet the future open space requirement. And so for agricultural reserve are you are you considering open space to be any area where there's not I mean if it's farmland do you consider
that open space? Um, no no not I mean I so my opinion of open space is would be post it's it's in the built environment I think is how I'm trying to you know the team is trying to envision open space. So I would say that
in the a reserve where you have both agricultural property and impacted property you also have stands of of of natural plant communities that maybe you know kind of make sense to include into this open space piece if there is a standing requirement. I'm not looking to
create an open space requirement just for the EPUs and the A reserves. That's not the goal. We we were under the impression that organizationally we were pursuing an open space requirement. So I'm trying to contribute to what that would actually you know what would
actually be included in that not not create. You're saying I'm asking you, are you considering these to be the target areas for where you'd either have some additional or alternative open space requirements? Yes,
that's under the assumption, David, that we would have an open space requirement for MPUDs or future plan development. Yes. But the presumption would be that you wouldn't necessarily have alternative or heightened open space requirements in the wide areas.
Correct. I think I think those again so let's let's go back to the old 40% ratio that we used to have right that's what it used to be in the in those white areas it might it wouldn't be these things it would be a neighborhood park requirement or it would be civic space or community hubs it's just different is
all I'm saying different focus because you're in a different part of the county and again we should uh we should focus on areas that are telling us that should be conserved and I'm going let the public speak to do at the Bic Commission. But to me, in my opinion,
number one, you need a statement that makes it clear this is not regulatory and not a regulatory map for purposes of any land development proposal, right? Um because just saying for planning purposes only in my opinion doesn't cure
it because planning purposes includes land development. Okay. Sure. Um, and then secondly, I think you need a very clear statement as to what its purpose is. And if the purpose is solely to for us when we're considering future
amendments to the land development code, that these would be the target areas for either alternative or heightened open space requirements. I think the text of the comp plan needs to say that. Okay. I didn't see anywhere where it
says any of those things currently. No. Yeah. I think you're correct. We were Yeah, we were attempting to just maybe the planning tool reference was was not the correct terminology. To add to that, David, too, I think we need to better define open space. Yes, we would love that.
I'm open. I mean, it does because it's really hard to, you know, set set aside say this for future. I'm particularly concerned as it relates to the agricultural reserve because one could argue the farmland is open space. So, so yeah, I don't disagree with that either,
especially if your intent is to preserve its agricultural nature. I think our intent of this, again, the intent, at least of all the staff I've talked to that are talking about this requirement, is to make sure that the the future end product has these
community homes within it and open space elements and it's just not wall- to-all units and to try to use that as a planning tool and then incentivize it. That's that's that's what we're trying to get at. I' I'd say in addition to what David's suggesting is that there's some areas on the map that are that are
shaded that are in fairly planned intense areas. You know, 50 airing cuto off over to Bellamy Bros for example. Um so I understand what you're saying. It's not the intent of a to be a planning tool, but uh I mean that that proposed development is already there. So I mean
that the overlaying of of you know whatever that is agriculture reserve on that area doesn't really is not Congress with what's what's already planned in that area. Yeah. Or what's approved by the board. True. That's what I'm saying. I mean presumably my two suggestions probably we cure that
issue because if it's not regulatory today and that it's only a a potential tool for a future regulation. You could exempt anything grandfather. True. anything that predates it as the time you do that regulation. Um,
but if we know those areas now, why would we just kind of take that layer out from I'm not saying I disagree with you, but because you know people are going to look at this map and it's going to become a planning tool. You take those areas out out of the map. Yeah.
I'm not opposed to them being taken out. I want to be clear. I'm just saying that if it's not regulatory, I'm not sure it makes a legal difference, but but my question for you is how does this interact with some of the existing stuff
that we have? For instance, the the Northeast Rural Protection Overlay, you know, because that that covers a lot of the same ground of some of the agricultural reserve and with Luchi River. Well, again, I mean, I think not too familiar with that specifically. Um, but
I'm sure it could be compatible. We wouldn't want to add or again the goal is not to add on top of something. So if there is an open space element or some kind of uh planning tool that is referencing that or implying that then this could be used in its place. Yeah. I mean it defines rural character.
Yeah. You know for that particular overlay which again some may define that as open space. Right. Right. Um but we won't know until we have that definition I guess. But I think that's a fantastic statement. A clear definition on open space would be
wonderful. So what's in the way of handling? What's in the way? Um I think everything we've just discussed um and also you know is this civic space? Are they community hubs? Are they neighborhood parks?
You want to help? Uh but I think a lot of staff in the planning commission get their questions answered first done first before come up on this issue issues talk about procedure get all the pl questions done first. That's right. Good afternoon Elizabeth Blair Pasco
County Attorney's Office. Um yeah we've had this conversation a couple of times and just amongst our staff. I've spoken with Terry and some of his folks. I spoke with Keith this morning. I've spoke with some of Keith's people previously and we recognize that this open space thing is quite confusing. means many things to many different
people. And I think maybe the approach that is possible that the one that's I've advocated for is thinking of an an umbrella of open space. And then you've got different segments of what that open space is and what it means in a different context. Everything from an urban, suburban, and a rural open space.
And then you start talking about natural lands, environmental lands, all these different words that you think means something different. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. and really looking at those definitions and drilling down in the context of what the development is going to be or what what it looks like there. So you have civic centers in your
urban area. When you think of a civic area, you think of, you know, cement, you think of something that's not your open space in a rural context. So we recognize that this is a problem. So having the umbrella term drilling down in different categories is what I'm hoping we end up doing. And I think it's going to take some brain power to get
there. So with that, if I hear you, we can have open space in an urban context. What's that have to do with this map? Because you're identifying all the non-urban areas. Exactly. Exactly. So, so you end up with
these different places that have different uniqueness to them. And I'm not as familiar with what staff's thought process was for open space in these areas. I'm learning as Keith talked and his folks were talking with me this morning. But I think that having
this division in different categories will really go a long way in, you know, getting to where we want to go. This is just one of the categories. Yeah. And right now it's these may not be urban areas, but it's not to say that couldn't be an urban area at some point in the future in one of these areas. Yeah. I mean, we we don't even like our
existing open space definitions. So, well, yeah, I mean there's there is an open space definition in the comprehensive plan. Now, go ahead and read it to us. It's very confusing and very long. It's very lengthy. uh open space undeveloped land or water
body which is free of structures and equipment except that incidental to the land's open space uses for urban land use classifications which include residential land use classifications, non-residential land use classifications, and mixeduse land use classifications. Open space is a common
area under common ownership that may include the following. Flood protection, creating a sense of spatial separation for incompatible land uses, areas for agricultural operations, passive recreation, active recreation, conservation uses not otherwise defined
in this glossery, and historical and archaeological sites. For the rural land use classifications, open space can be any of any size, treed or open grassland. Functions include the providing of flood protection, creating a sense of spatial separation for incompatible land uses, the provision of
passive recreation, active recreation or conservation uses, historical site preservation, and areas for agricultural operations. for the res one residential one dwelling per gross acre land use classification which is classified as both residential land use classification and a rural land use classification when
such land is developed as estate lots 1 acre or greater in size or as an MPD master plan unit development under policy flu 1.14 it shall be classified as rural land use classification for the purposes of this definition when such res one is
developed as a cluster residential or subdivision MPUD master plan development under special provision A the Res one l use classification definition. It shall be classified as a residential land use classification for the purposes of the definition. That's that's it. Makes total sense.
Thanks for clarifying that crystal clear. I feel Let me let me just ask it this way. When Hyatt was up giving the presentation says the public wants open space. Well, what is it with what what is it that
staff perceives the public wants? Uh I I mean honestly I really feel like that should be answered by the planning team but you know from my perspective you know when you look at um the the old citizen surveys it's it's a loss of um I'll let you speak but I mean
just from from my perspective it's a loss of natural areas but fully understanding that open space can mean lots of things. That's why I think Elizabeth's recommendation to have categories does make sense, but I think the perceived issue is just loss of of
natural areas necessarily that provide that open space feeling. So, I don't know if I Okay, I think the question is answered contextually across the county. On the east side of the county, open space is
going to generally mean um long viewsheds AC. It can include the agricultural activities that are happening on large properties, the ability to see far away and to be moving between structures and places over a
distance. Um, univer on the west side of the county, it can be as as uh as specific to how large people's front yards or backyards are in those more urban settings. Universally I think most
people consider open space the natural areas and also included with that in terms of layman's perception of how they move through the world parks um detention facilities
uh even well manicured can I say parking lots can often be considered open space to people because it's it's not in their minds uh buildings all upon each other. You're not in the city, quote unquote.
So, it's there's a there's a number of contextual definitions which our current comprehensive plan is trying to reach for those contextual definitions. I think Elizabeth is right that there probably should be an umbrella term and then underneath that umbrella term
identify the the diverse understandings of open space. So getting back to what is Keith's area, this map, which which version of open space was he trying to achieve in these mapped areas? I I think I can clearly answer that, David. So it would be the natural
environment or the viewshed piece of of an agricultural piece of property. I think that's as a as as an option. In your mind, a farm with crops would be open space. Yes. Yeah. or or the or whatever that
creates for someone as openness in a in a viewshed. Yeah. I I I can't speak for every citizen in the county that's wanting open spaces, but I can speak for myself and me just as a citizen would think that an open space means no development
or no more development than what's going on than what's already existing. M so you know I think you'd be hardressed to for someone to say that an open space is considered a parking lot in on 19 um you know I don't think that that would fit the definition of most people's uh idea of
well manicured parking lot just forification I caught well it's well manicured in that case that's it um so I yeah I think I think that's really what the public is looking for is a solar farm is a solar farm open space I
was just about to ask the same Did you think you're the expert in open space as a solar farm open space? I I I I preceded this with saying that I can't speak for everyone. I can speak for myself. And in my in my opinion, a solar farm would probably be considered open space.
Yeah. Because that's the only that's the only use of the property. There's no there's no just additional congestion. There's I would tell you that the people of the northeast rural area have different. Yeah. But that's just me.
Well, the legislature adopted a law saying we have to allow them in agricultural areas. So, and we are following that law, Mr. Moody. Yeah. I mean, I what I'd rather see cows on a rolling rolling pasture. Yeah. Than than a solar farm. Yes. But I think a
solar farm doesn't add traffic or, you know, create the congestion and stuff that people bring up as an issue. Good news is we're starting to think differently about that technology in Washington DC these days.
Well, I mean there's also wind farms. I mean there's there's other things that happen. Like I said, the good news is we're starting to think differently about that. Um, so but to getting back to my original question and so you'd be okay if this was revised to say
that that I mean we're we're going to consider some future changes to our regulations regarding open space in these targeted areas or that these targeted areas could meet the future definition of of an open
space uh category. That's I mean just to ask you a question. Put yourself in the position of somebody who owns a piece of property out there and you guys are coming in here telling me you're targeting my property. Mhm. Okay. Who are you to target my property? I don't think that's you've decided what you're going to do
with my property. Nobody elected you to decide what you're doing with my property. Mhm. Okay. I question the value of having such a map whatsoever. Nobody can come in here and give us a clear explanation of what
this map is for, what its purpose and intent is. Can't even define what open space is. And we've just spent how many minutes now discussing this map that nobody can have, nobody has a logical explanation or simple explanation for what it is.
Suggestion would be get it out of here. Well, uh, with all due respect, Mr. Moody, I feel like I I feel like I did attempt to at least try to describe what the purpose is and I also said that maybe our execution wasn't perfect. But um anyway, I appreciate the discussion
and and I'm open obviously to maybe modify Oh, Terry's standing behind me. Modifying the um the definition as Terry and I were just having a sidebar conversation to talk talk, you know, maybe capture what Miss Blair had discussed. Are are you ready to retire yet?
until we figure this out. Well, I mean, got to get it all. I don't agree with everything that Mr. Mooney says. The difference with ecological corridors is we were very clear what their purpose was. And we yes, they were targeted, but we
agreed to compensate because we targeted. Okay. So that's I think the underlying concern here, Keith, is that there's no clear purpose and it's not clear whether we're going to compensate for that targeting.
I get it. I I just want to note on the origin of this map, the the map is actually um in the current comprehensive plan as map 3-3 in the conservation element. The difference between what's in the current
comprehensive plan and this map is merely the just the agricultural reserve um teal colored shape on the map. Everything else is there and and just as the agricultural reserve uh is added as
a shape to to the to the map so too has the updated version of the map included and agricultural reserve in the name. So to the extent I you know understood you know just get rid of it or something like that it would probably be I I would
presume that you're referring to the agricultural reserve not necessarily the whole Terry I was saying I understand your point but the reality is we never implemented anything with EPUs. I mean Keith knows this. The only regulation we adopted
the only regulation we did in any way shape or form is ecological corridors. I'm not aware of us ever applying EPUs in any regulatory no whatsoever. No. And again that you know listen agree to maybe kind of continue. I'm fine obviously with if the recommendation of
the committee is to is to remove the map. I don't have an issue with that. What I'm what I'm suggesting to the planning team and to everyone else that's trying to figure out this open space is let's just not lose sight of these areas as an opportunity to be eligible. That's basically it. and and my team view this as an opportunity to
again to contribute to that conversation. Um if in fact, you know, David, I do respect your legal opinion. If if you're saying this creates a situation where we're we're um indirectly implying a take, that's not that's not not what we want to do. So
I'm not saying it does or doesn't. The the way the language and map are drafted today, I can't say that's fair. I would have difficulty defending it the way it's drafted today. Is there a way to draft it so it's legal? Probably. But
for the purpose that you want to use it for, I'm not sure you need it. Okay. I mean, I I mean, the reason I'm saying that is be my slight concern with it is I'm not even sure it's in the best interest of the county. Let me explain
why. Okay. Because if you're saying these are our targeted areas for more open space or different form of open space, it sort of presumes that we don't want open space in the white areas, you know, and I'm not sure you're saying that either. I'm not. Yeah.
So, I'd almost be worried about it being used against us and saying, why are you doing additional open space in area? You know, say you say the county wants to come in and want to do additional open space requirements in the wide areas and somebody says, why are you doing that? You're It's not even in the mapped areas
where you said you were gonna want more open space, right? And are the people in the wide areas not entitled to more open space? Yeah, I I think they are. And I and I guess Well, I mean, he probably showed up at the workshop asking for more open space, too. So, why are they being excluded? I
mean, I a lot of rural areas in that white spot, too. White. So, it just seems to be you're creating the halves and the have nots for open space. and to the point this becomes a planning tool, you know, at at the end of the
day. So, it's Yeah. I mean, to John's point, get rid of it. Well, I'm That's what I'm saying. I'm not even sure it helps us as a planning tool. That That's what I'm trying to say is is I I don't because it sort of implies that we don't need open space in the white.
White areas. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. that we don't know what a future staff is going to come in here and how they're going to how they're going to interpret this map and what that means under the the comp plan. We want to make sure that as this government continues that there's clear
direction going forward as to what these things mean. So here here's a here's a recommendation. I I think that this came out as a single open space requirement through conserves when we were attempting again to contribute to the
larger discussion. So what I what I would recommend is that we would draw the map right and we talk with the planning team of how we have that conversation through this development. I think you could just do a policy that says that Pasco County shall consider additional context specific open space
requirements. Yeah. Where does that live though? Right. And that's that's not for me to decide. I mean because I agree with the one thing I said that I agree with all of you on is that it is context specific. It differs depending on where you are. So right
maybe we do need to look at open space based on its context as opposed to but you could say that in just words without creating a map and I agree with you. So, all right. Um, as enjoyable as this has
been, um, I'm sure there's other questions. I hope not, but I sure there you wanted to have this conversation. I did. I did. And actually, I think, um, honestly, it went almost exactly like I thought it would go. Uh, because because we really, I think, are
struggling on what this ultimately looks at looks like uh, for for everything that we discussed already. So yeah, I think it was a very productive conversation. So, okay, I have a I have a question for you just from history.
Seems to me a few years ago there was some discussion about wetland wetland buffers and BOP versus general wetland buffers. I assume that's been resolved. It has. Okay. How was that what's the is it just whatever the comp plan says is the
wetland buffer or so I think it was a specific call. Yeah, Chris, I think it was a specific sub area policy that was created for VOP and then hence modified to be more in line with standard Okay. standard practices. Is there like an additional 100 feet something? Yeah. Yeah. Something like that. Yeah.
I was just curious how that worked out. Yep. Okay. It's effectively a slightly enhanced wetland buffer in VP. Is that an accurate description? Yep, that's correct. Yes. Okay. All right. So, ideas like that could translate to a open space.
Yes. Look, that just naturally worked. That's exactly what we were trying to accomplish. So, any other qu? Yeah, I'll throw another 800 pound gorilla out there. And I'm sure I'm not the only one that has on this dice that has questions or comments about it, but
the old subject of wetland categorization um and the intent of wetland categorization um and the need for it with the state rags that are that are on the on the books. Um you know, we essentially defer
to the state rags that are on the books. And I I can see with with the, you know, the context of a category one wetland maybe, but you know, with within this planning document, you know, we we talk about category 3 wetlands. Um, we
essentially defer uh shall be authorized impacts are shall be authorized by applicable state and federal agencies. So what what is the point of even having a c a category 2 or category 3 wetland when we're following
62 340 and 62 345 um as far as the authorization impact goes. So that's one part of my question. I'm sure my fellow commissioners who were engineers sitting on this the similar thoughts but I just want to open
it up just historic. Well, wait a second. Hold on. I mean, the we asked a fairness I mean a question was asked and I don't know do we need to give Keith the opportunity to to respond because I mean I don't know John did you want to like elaborate on the question or
Go ahead. Go ahead. I just have one request. If there's a specific policy that you're identifying if you can just state that policy so that we can be tracking on screen. Exactly. Yep. Okay.
Yes. Yes, ma'am. Question. Sorry. Uh I was just getting clarification. So, um it's a valid valid question. I think that maybe um for transparency purposes is if it just goes away completely. Um I think that we were
trying to build in an exemption. Is that y Jackie Jordan Parks Recre Natural Resource Department. So, the idea was to kind of change the categories to simplify them a little bit. So whereas twos and threes kind of meant the same thing to the county, threes would now be those exempt ones that the state would
historically considered um exempt from any requirements, you know, upland cut ponds and things like that. So that was the intent there. Um in regards to the category 2 wetlands, one thing that we were trying to add in was in the instance for single family projects that are not necessarily subject to an ERP.
So it might just be a single family house. um DP has said and it's because it's not subject to ERP it therefore it's not subject to the applicants handbook. So we're still trying to implement that 15 foot a um minimum 25 foot average buffer on those systems so we can be consistent with what the state
would require if an ERP was being sought. Why? To ensure that there's no adverse impacts to wetlands and states determine that they're not interested in it. Why why do we need to be interested in it? Because we're finding when we're doing single family reviews, we're just trying to be
consistent with what? We're not being consistent with what the state law is. Why do we think we need to have a more rigorous wetland buffer requirement that the state doesn't see fit to apply to a single family home? Why do I need to
burden a homeowner with something just because you moved to Pasco County? I can move to Hernando County and buy the same single family lot and not have to worry about this. I'll take a I'll take a stab at that. So, just a quick history lesson. Uh county was sued back in the early 2000s
and through that lawsuit several comp plan policies were created. I know Mr. Moody knows this because we we had the discussion during the stakeholder uh working group and and through that that's where the that's where and I'm hearing it's not true, but that ultimately that's the creation of a lot of these policies including the ELAM
program. Um so I think that it's obviously the will of the board to have their own categories or not. We were attempting to simplify the process a you know listening to you Mr. Moody and other stakeholders and we thought that's what we accomplished while still
maintaining the intent of additional protections in well in Pasco County. That that's the mission. If the board chooses to have a different mission then that's the board's decision. So Keith, I'm sorry. Yeah. Did you were you just explaining why we even got into
categories for wetlands? Yes, Mr. Gerard. Correct. Yes. And um can you repeat that again? I'm sorry. Yeah. So, exactly what you said? Yeah. So, the county and I wasn't here at the time, but sounds like some people behind me were uh the county the county
was sued and through that lawsuit several comp plan policies to increase environmental protections were put in the comp plan. Okay. One of them was it was increased wetland protections, environmental lands, listed species. So
all these policies basically were created, you know, many many years ago. What we've heard through working with many many applicants is we need to attempt to streamline the process. And that's I think ultimately what the team's objective was here was to streamline the process. Mr. P, you bring
up a good point. If in fact we're attempting to create the threes as an exemption, maybe they don't need to be in there anymore. That's fine. We don't we don't have an issue with that. So the plif in this lawsuit alleged that we were not being protective enough. That's correct. Of many things. It was a natural
resources. It was many, many issues. So even when we were adhering to state law and being as protective as state law required us to be, we were not being protective enough. U I'll let maybe someone else that has the history speak to that, but um I wasn't a part of the
litigation. So that that's what confuses me and you know the same thing confuses me to this day is you know we're being more restrictive than well okay so let me be clear. So whether it was or was not part of some
lawsuit to begin with it doesn't prevent us from amending our comp plan. So I want to be clear about so staff and the planning commission need to do whatever is the best policy today. You don't you're not bound by
all that even if there was a lawsuit all it required us to do was the comp plan at that point in time. I don't remember whether deal with wetlands. My recollection was more about ecological corridors than wetlands but I'm sure Elizabeth or Barbara can tell us exactly what happened. Um, but even if it did,
it doesn't stop us from Even if it did say we had to have category one, two, and three wetlands. We can change that now if we want to, right? There's nothing that somebody would have to challenge that decision as part of this update for that to not happen.
One of the problems I've always had with the categorization of wetlands, it's arbitrary. somebody and nobody's been able to tell me this yet. I've asked the question multiple times in a couple of these stakeholder meetings. What's the difference between a 99.8 acre wetland
and a 100.01 acre wetland qualitatively? Nobody can tell me that. It's an arbitrary definition. I might be for more rigorous wetland protection if you can give me
some qualitative reason to protect that wetland. And I'm thinking about wetlands definitions. I'm thinking about Clark. I don't mean to pick on your project, but you got a mine project and I'm going to come down the road later and I'm going
to have a 100 plus acres of mine that has an open surface water and qualifies as a wetland and surface water under the state law. Is that is that something that I'm going to apply rigorous protections to? look at
because it exceeded an area or am I were more worried about the green swamp on the east side of the county that it's a definition that has no science behind it. Somebody pulled a
number out of the air like I said. So it's all it's all okay. I can have I can use the swift mud definition of a wetland buffer if my wetland is 99.9999 acres. That's all good. But I got to have a hard 25 and there's no exceptions
and then I've got to go through an extra burden to make an im to justify an impact to that wetland because it's 100.00001. If someone can give me a qualitative reason, I am absolutely willing to consider why we should apply better
protections. But right now, no one's been able to do that. I I feel like we've I mean, for what it's worth, I feel like we have had this discussion. So, um I I I think you could make a very general statement that the larger the regional uh the regionally
significant system is, I just don't feel like why county staff feels like we need to apply more rigorous buffering standards than the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection requires. And I think Mr. Moody, that's where I mean this isn't county staff u making this recommendation. We're actually making the board imposed this on it and I agree with Barbara and I was here back then that on the task force to create the el
program. Yeah. Okay. We're adhering to the policies as they exist today. As Mr. Goldstein pointed out, if the board of county commissioners wants to change the policy, that's that's under their purview to do that, which we can recommend. which you can
recommend. But I'm not going to sit here and be attacked over a policy that I inherited. I I don't mean to and I apologize if it sounds like it's a personal attack. It's not. But I've asked this question multiple times and what I don't see is
staff providing justification not to you want to maintain this policy. You're adamant in the position that you want to maintain this policy, but you can't provide a justification. Why? I think the justification, John, is that a watershed or a larger system provides
better ecosystem services than something that's smaller. I mean, uh I think if you were to run these through um you would probably ultimately get the same result and that's where I'm trying to get to. I know we've had this discussion. Yeah. That you' is a qualitative evaluation of
a wetland. Doesn't it make more sense to say that if I have a umam score of A, B, or C, then maybe this wetland is entitled to better protection than something of the lower UAM score other
than just the arbitrary acreage requirement? Because acreage is isn't going to make the UAM score. It could, but it affects the score, but it doesn't it's not make or break of that score. True. valid point but I think where you
have to be careful is if you if you step away what UMAM doesn't do and the state rules don't do necessarily is they don't look at the cumulative impact of multiple impacts on a large system and so by standing on principle saying that the larger system deserves to be uh the
integrity of that system is important then you provide greater protection because what the you know ex the processes that you're referencing it'll allow a system to be impacted at multiple lines along its boundary, but there's no cumulative analysis. So maybe
the answer to your point is we look at some structure that allows us to do a cumulative analysis uh on on regional systems that we know provide a lot of a lot of benefits to future communities and existing communities. And I think that's the that's at least my team's
position of what we're trying to make sure we we we want to avoid that you know nickel and dimming. So Keith, are you saying that your team believes that what the state has in place isn't adequately protecting the wetlands? I mean, I think that we see that, you know, it's that because there is no
cumulative requirement, right, to look at a system holistically. It's challenging and I a lot of a lot of applications come in and maybe the desire is that if they could do that that would work, but that's ultimately not what we're seeing. I mean, if you want me to say on the record that I think the state rules are not adequate, I'm not trying I'm not trying to back in
the box. I'm just I mean I mean I've I've seen situations where projects have I mean let's take it all the way back to square one. I mean we'll go back to you know GIS layers identify the wetland as a category two or three. Well then by the time we get into site plan
and down the road somebody at staff level comes in and says no we think that's a category one. So we got to fight that fight. Okay. Then we look at that wetland and that wetland there's a lot of different characteristics and a lot of different components of that what's lump being all lumped together into one big category one wetland. Some
of it's pasture, some of it's wooded. There's all kinds of different components. Do they all have the same value? Should that requirement be placed on them saying absolutely not? Unless you're building a road, you're not going to touch any piece of that wetland and you're going to stay 25 ft away from it. I mean, I I
think there's some key properties in Pasco County that are very important to the development of the county that have that situation. And if this imposition remains in the comp plan, you you restrict those properties from being developed. And I think that's that's
very very narrow-minded approach at at wetlands when you have all these other agencies looking over your shoulder and and that that is their task is to look at this. I mean, you got the core, you got D, you got SwiftMud. I mean, there's other people that that look at this topic specifically and we're going to
say, "Oh, no. we're going to take our staff of five or six people at Pasco County and we're going to regulate it better than they are. I'm not saying you said that. I'm I'm just using that as an example. I I I would argue I'm confidently saying that local protection provides more protection. I mean, because you know, it
just does. So, um but again, you know, you know, we had a former county administrator here that didn't believe SwiftMUD was doing its job. Well, I'm not suggesting that either. Let me finish, please. and he decided that we would adopt more
stringent restrictive storm water regulations. Okay. And then we just had all of this flooding. So did our county do better than the state did?
Not a storm water expert, so I can't speak to that. Well, Mr. media. I will say that most of the areas that were do were built under county and swift mode regulations did not occur did not have significant flooding. I agree with
most of this most of the flooding occurred in areas that were not built to swift mode or county standards. I I understand that. So, I'm just saying don't you shouldn't blame the flooding on I'm not blaming the flooding on Pasco County. What I'm saying is, and anybody
that knows me in my practice, and I will tell you, the people at SwiftMUD do a very good job of regulating wetlands and storm water, and they do it in the most professional of manner and the most
consistent of manner. And I think they've got a pretty good track record of demonstrating that the regulation that they do is effective. I can tell you as somebody who grew up in this area, okay, the water in that Gulf of
Mexico out here when I was a kid was brown and the beaches were closed down. Then we got storm water management regulations and I got septic tanks off the coast and I got the people on the coast on sewers and if you go out there to anclo key today on the ride out from
the fifth chiscot out there to the anclo key it's crystal clear and you can see and I remember as a kid driving over the skyway bridge and when you drove over that little clunky big clunky metal bridge that's no longer there that water in Tampa Bay was brown and when you drive over it today it looks like the
emerald water of the Florida Keys. These regulations work and those are all courtesy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Swift Blood. They do a good job. I don't see any need for the duplication of regulation or any further
additional regulation. What they are doing works and you can see it with your own eyes. Well, along those lines, I think that you know that there's a statement in there or policy 1.5.8 If we scroll down to that, that allows us to do
alternative wetland protection strategy. And I mean, I I don't see why there was a need to even have that sort of language in the in the plan. It's ex it's actually a modification to some existing language. We were attempting to clarify um what when there
was an impact to category one wetlands. Ironically, there there was no ability to actually go to a to a bank. So, you know, that was actually cleaned up. So that's not what they're talking about. No. 1 1.5.8 is analysis of swift mud FTP
and Army Corps wetland protection strategies. Essentially saying that it's it's I think it's a different Where's the markup version? I'll get the markup version open too.
It's Yeah. 1.5.7 in the markup version. Correct. Yeah. So, the red line. Okay. There you go. I think Miss Well wanted to make a comment. Yes. One more question. That's existing language question before Barber. I
promise it'll be Keith. Can I just Yeah. One more question. Absolutely. Can you scroll back up to the policy that talks about the It's related to the buffer. It's a follow up to Mr. Moody's point, but a lesser point. Go back. No, go back. You went too other. That one. Okay. So,
can you explain to me why? First of all, I'm not sure administrative variance is the right we don't have Patrick here, but I'm not sure that is that the right deviation term. I thought it was alternative standard or something like that. I don't even know if that's the right. But my bigger point
is why is it that we allow it to be deviated the 25 foot upland buffer around category wetlands to be deviated but we didn't we don't allow the minimum 15 ft average 25 ft for category 2
or three like there's no similar deviation ability for I mean Mr. is raising a bigger point which is that we shouldn't have to do this at all. My more technical point is why are you allowing deviations for some and not
others? I think the the focus again is that the category ones take priority. We're trying to kind of simplify and streamline the process. Okay. But you're allowing the deviation for category ones, but you're not allowing it for twos and threes.
We can add it to the the administrative variance that's already existing for the category one. Yeah, there is there is a standing administrative variance right now. I think it's up to five foot. Could you talk about this in a little bit bigger? Well,
what's the purpose of the wetland buffer to pre prevent secondary impacts? Exactly. What are secondary impacts? Impacts that occur beyond the primary impact. So, it could be erosion. It could be um invasive species. Yeah.
Sedimentation. Okay. and does the water management district and the DP allow me to propose if the way the rules work is I'm presumed to have mitigated for secondary impacts
by providing these buffers. I'm not required to provide the buffers. It's just that there's a presumption that I've mitigated for any secondary impacts by providing the buffer. you're free to go into the water management district and I've done this on multiple projects
where we'll say, "Well, here's what we're going to do to propose to mitigate our secondary impacts rather than providing your buffer." How come we don't have those opportunities in the comp plan? I think I was say I think it's definitely
something that we could talk about. Yeah, I I also think that that I don't know if that lives in the comp plan, Mr. Moody. I feel like that would be more of an LDC like adjustment. Well, no. The problem is this is very regulatory in nature and that you're requiring these buffers. The problem Keith that if that was your
position, you should have a more general statement in the comp plan about upland buffers. Okay. Your upland buffer requirements are very specific in this policy and which I don't think it's in there now. Well, there's the 25 but when now but you
added very specific requirements for twos and threes and you didn't even allow them to be deviated by any variation in the land development code. Okay. I mean that's something that we could I mean I we can add Wouldn't it just be easier to say and I
understand there's a larger issue about whether we should be regulating upland buffers at all that needs to be resolved by the board but wouldn't it be easier just to say that counties shall continue to implement land development code regulations that imple that protect upland buffers period I mean and just deal with that's in the
land development code because you're I know Barbara probably is going to get up and say we shouldn't be regulating through the comp plan um because then you get into how do you deviate from it. Right? So I don't know that you need any of this deviation language at all if you just
have a more generic statement about protecting upland buffers. Yeah. I mean I code anyway. What was that David? Don't most of these exist in the land development code anyway? Well not so not I think we have there is really not the flexibility to kind of
work through this at the application stage and that's ultimately what we were trying to get to. We were thinking that this builds up the land development code process, not through the comp plan. I don't think you should be this specific in the comp plan at all. I understand the community doesn't want up
and buffers to be regulated at all. Okay. Yeah, that's a separate discussion. A separate discussion, but I'm saying if you're going to regulate them, you should not have the specifics in the comp plan. Agreed. Yeah. I mean, we're okay with that. If I mean if the opportunity to you know
do changes to the LDC presents itself there are things that we have to change because it doesn't the current LDC regs don't don't work appears the planning commission loves stuff in the land development code. So well I have a question does a does an
upland buffer qualify as open space? That's what I want to know. Keith, Keith, to your to your point though, Terry's going to propose a whole new future land use scheme to which the land development code will have to be updated following the adoption of that future
land use scheme. So, I don't see that any different in your case. So yes, then we need to put what our aspirations are here and then follow up with the later with the appropriate land development code regulation.
I think that I think I think that's the normal course of how these things work. That's what we discussed. Yeah. And I think that works for staff and me. So um I don't have any issues with that. And no, David, I don't I'm not here saying that I don't want any regulation
of wetland buffers. I'm saying I don't see why we should have a requirement which is different from the state and I don't think the state has demonstrated that they're incompetent
at regulating wetlands. Well, the good news is if we kick all this to the land of Elmo, we can have that fight later. I'm Let's pencil it in, David. I'm This is Yeah, very exciting stuff. Keith's retirement date. Can I point out
all the land development code and probably do that sometime in 2028 I think when this expires can I point out one other one other point here uh if you guys scroll back up to I'm gonna have to go I'm sorry I'm just I just want to make one point
and then so uh 1.5 there's a statement in there about mitigation u mate yeah yeah mitigation bank credits are acceptable so down at the bottom of that uh page uh with preference of banks located within Pasco County and applicable
mitigation bank service area. My comment is that I don't think that's consistent with Senate Bill 492 that just went into effect on July 1st. So just have you guys take a look at that and make sure that that's consistent. I wrote that down. Thanks. I'm so sorry.
Robert will height 8627. I have to get to a neighborhood meeting. I love neighborhood meetings. I I I just want to tell you a couple stories real quick. So the way the categorization of wetlands went down is I was in a meeting with the county attorney when I had
David's job and a person at department of community affairs handed a piece of paper over the desk over the conference room table and said you will adopt these categorization of wetlands. That's it.
It's all there was was you will do this. We said okay we put it in our comp plan. There's nothing more scientific about it. A person wanted it in our comp plan and it got into our comp plan and an employee at the DCA at a point in time handed it to the county staff, myself
and the county attorney and said, "You will put this in your comp plan and we did." So that's one story. The second story is the 25 foot buffer. So I was tasked when I was Bobby Sumner tasked me with trying to figure out this conservation element and the ultimate
ordinance the land development code as it was back when I was at the county what to do about the wetland buffer. So we marched down to the EPC of Hillsburg County and we said you know what do we do about this buffer is it right to do can we can we justify a 25 foot buffer
on wetlands and they said no that would be a taking because there's no basis for that. So if you look at the way the code was originally written for the wetland buffer, it was a presumption that could be overcome. After I left, that was changed. And it
was written that way because we were worried at the time based upon what the folks said at the EPC that that's not justifiable. You cannot justify a one-sizefits-all buffer from a from a um ecological standpoint. So that was the
second story of how the the 25 foot buffer was never intended to be a one-sizefits-all. It was a presumption that then you could go through the process that Mr. Moody's talking about. And Bob Titz actually helped write that language of how you would go through the process to un you know to actually figure out what that buffer should be so
that we didn't have a one-size allfits-all that created a taking B Harris. I don't know if Bert Harris was back then. I just wanted to share those perspect perspectives with you because we find you know it's like these things where they come from. I'm like the only person that knows and so just you I'm
dying over there. So that's it. I got to go. Um good luck. I think you're all you know good comments and and good making good policy. That's what this is all about. So thank you. Oh I would say one other thing. When we were reviewing this this element, we were given a sheet of paper that said, "Here's what here's the
policy changes that we're seeking to make." So, you didn't have to figure it out. Did you guys get that, too? Okay. Because I didn't see it when I when I looked at the agenda. I just It It just links. It's part of their packet. Oh, so we But the rest of everybody else
in the public, we get to see that, too. But I'm glad you got it because it's helpful that you don't have to try to figure out what changes are being policy changes are being made. you can actually just look at the table and go, "Oh, that's what that's trying to do." So, glad you guys got that. Thank you. Bye.
Thanks, Barbara Clark. Planning Commissioners, uh, if we can go back to the map series again, I want to look at the agricultural uh, reserve map, and I know we're going to get rid of it, but I just want to make a little point about this. My initial my initial No, it's important because they're
policies that we still have to work through that are in the the language. I just want staff to understand the planning commissioners. Some of you have worked on these projects, but there are numerous projects within the area that
say agricultural reserve that are intended to be urban in nature, not even suburban. And there are numerous gigantic employment projects and they're including the target center all of central Pasco Employment Village, the
Hines Cruz and Douglas project called KD52. They're not agricultural and that all that's that my problem is you're calling things agricultural that the board has decided since 2000 and I don't know who did this study in 2023. I've never seen
it. But whoever did it must not be aware that the board has changed the comp plan numerous times since 2000. And many of these areas are not even intended by our board or our comprehensive plan to be agricultural. I will work with staff on the language
on what they're trying to achieve there. But as I've told them many times over the last few months, you don't need this stuff in the comp plan to do your job to plan out where you want to achieve open space. it's it's not even relevant if if you're trying to acquire it, you can do
that with your regular job and through the means you have with the el. So that can be done. You don't need the map and you don't even need the comp plan policies to do that. If you're trying to create a different form of open space and regulate people, generally that should be done through the land
development code. We should work through that together because there may be compensation that would be due to property owners and we need to work through that together. If we can go to the next map that I also wanted to focus your attention on this map and I spoke with Keith about this earlier today.
It's problematic too. It's depicting the existing greenways and that's really not so much of a problem, but it's also identifying quote unquote opportunity zones outside of eco corridors in many cases. And those areas cover a large
swath of uh lenangelene that are already approved. uh the area where the town center is supposed to go is within that area and I don't see the county having an opportunity to acquire additional uh open space or greenways within that
area. It also covers and you know we've been working on uh changes with the Mitchell 41 project. We're already working on the eco corridor project, but this would then create another regulatory map over the
area we're trying to develop. And so I'm not this map in my opinion needs to go back to just identifying the greenways which we previously had uh on a map in the comp plan. But this is basically creating another regulatory map that is
inconsistent with with the board's stated objective for some of these areas. also covers two gigantic mines up there. There's a bunch of problems with it, but I will work with staff on it, but I don't see that this map needs to be in the plan as it is either. It's got
major issues for my where I sit um just as the other one did. Keith, thank you. We want Keith to respond to that or speak for Yeah, Keith. So, um, just for clarification, Keith Wy, director of parks, recreation,
natural resources. This is another example of us. This is really about the trail network and the master planning effort for trails. This is this was not again intended to say we're going to now look outside the corridors and regulate more acreage or anything like that. I think Hyatt just confirmed that it's
actually in the trail section. I don't know what that section's called, but place. Okay. So the purpose of this and again we ran this through the county attorney's office and through the planning department. We were saying okay there's a strong desire to create trails
a major trail system in Pasco County as a I've learned today planning tool is not a great term but as a planning tool. These are areas that we would look at if an application came in where we would partner with a future developer to figure out what how they would connect
to to a large trail system um and what that would look like specifically focusing on the greenways. So if there's another way to do it, we're we're open to it end up in conserves then instead of plays that I don't know. So well yeah, to the extent it's supposed to be an
area for trails, I don't know why it's in conserves at all. It should not it should not be it should be in plays or some other some other s we could talk about how what what its purpose is in plays when we get to plays but I'm just if it's if it's a
recreational portrayal we did that one already yeah we did so why I don't know why we're not dealing with this in place was I understand Clark's concern because it's in the conservation okay element that implies that we're maybe
trying to conserve it Not right. Yeah. Materials in it right. Yes. Absolutely. Hi plan development economic growth. So this map is in the data and analysis of the conservation element. It's not in
the comprehensive plan. We included it in the data and analysis because we make a reference to the corridor opportunity zones as we were discussing the conservation lands and um such. He's telling me he never intended it to be
any data supporting anything related to conservation. That's correct. That it was only supposed to be some supporting map to a trail opportunity. We have a reference to it in even be in your data and analysis to support the element if it's not a
conservation tool. Well, we do have the um ecological corridors. So, that's another reason why we have it. corridors are conservation. That that's a that's a true statement that those are conservation.
The ecological corridor part of this is not the issue. It's the the buffers around the ecological corridor. He's saying he never intended it to be a conservation tool. This understanding correctly that the map doesn't need to be included in the
data and analysis for conservation because it's referencing recreational opportunities. I know. Okay, let me That's what Keith is telling me is that he's intent. Yeah, we can get we need to have that discussion later about how we make it match his intent for for for
plays but conservation strategy. I think Clark raises a good point is it doesn't I mean he's raising other points but but my point is I don't even know why we're having this conversation at all on the conservation element. Yeah. Again it's part of the conservation
strategy in the inventory and analysis of the concerns. The map in my the map in my version just has the ecological corridors and public land on it. the next parks, neighborhoods and national. So according to the data and analysis,
the uh the Pasco the Pasco Conserves chapter creates a comprehensive conservation strategy for the protection of county's natural resources through a combination of policies for ecological corridors. This is 2.1 in the data and analysis. Additionally, the county's greenway corridor opportunity zones,
thus being referenced and the inclusion of the map as implemented in the greenways, trails, and blueways master plan, aims to connect parks, neighborhoods, and natural areas while encouraging mitigation to occur through incorporation of long-term conservation of upland habitats, restoration of
altered upland habitats, wetland enhancement, and wetland protection. that what Keith just said the conservation strategy includes land acquisition management preservation of listed speent that the reference needs to be removed is that what well the going by what Keith said his
purpose of for this map it was solely for trail it was a potential future trail mapping exercise not anything to do with conserving upland habitats restoration of upland habitats or wetland enhancement.
That's correct, David. So, it appears to me that you need to remove it completely from your conservation element and strike this language. Okay, we can uh amend 2.1 in the DNA the
data and analysis. Um I I'll mark it on mine in this same language deleting the term agricultural reserve. Is it is it referenced 2.1? Well, I maybe I didn't get that.
If that map gets deleted, which it sound like Keith was willing to do, then yes, that would also be deleted. Oh, there it is. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I see it. Okay. Um, right. And then if you take that out, the map goes away from conserves as well.
My understanding what Keith just said is that the sole purpose of the map is to connect parks and neighborhoods, which is the first part of this. That's correct. Yeah. So through through the trails master planning process many things were identified but the one
thing that was very clear was that we needed to focus trail opportunities along the greenway systems. So again using this as a planning document. This is where this is where you would steer someone to say, "Okay, maybe there's a discussion about a potential trail
project to connect to a larger rib system that maybe runs on the on the the larger corridors or something like that." But I view that more as like when you're reviewing your neighbor neighborhood park compliance that you would like be looking for connections to the ecological corridors when they when they
come in. Yes, that's right. Okay. Well, that's a very different than what was presented to us today. Yeah. Well, uh, again, this it shouldn't even actually be it shouldn't even be in this section. It should be in it should be in place. Yeah. So,
okay. I think I hopped in front of someone. So, Cynthia, I'm so sorry. Cynthia, thank you for your patience. Yeah, no problem. Uh, thank you very much, Cynthia Spidel. Um, Barb Kramer at 2002 West Cleveland Street in Tampa. So, um, just a couple of quick issues. I've
been in constant contact with staff over the agricultural reserve language. Um, so none of my comments should be a surprise to them, but we I have been concerned with that map from the get-go. Um, so and unfortunately there are an increasing number of uh frustrated land owners in that area who who perceive
that the ability to develop their land is being continuously curtailed by an increasing regulatory purview such as that map, especially because it's in the conservation element. So it gives a perception that it's supposed to be conserved. So um you know I went back to the 2006
technical document just to even look at how the world transition area was uh created and it's literally like a pencled sketched map. So I don't think that the areas have been particularly uh analyzed in granular granular detail. I was a little thrown off by the open
space discussion. I thought that the intent of the agricultural reserve was to potentially allow Keith to apply ELAMP money to provide opportunities for connectivity when feasible when development kind of comes in. Um but so I was definitely a little confused by
that. So I'd have to take a look at any any new language. I I don't think anybody would be objectionable to um Elant money being used to create connectivity um in this area if that's what the intent was. Um, so let me just
make sure I got my list covered. So, um, then just switching back to wetland functionality. So, I think that, and I'm not a wetland expert. I'm not a, uh, but I do help people go through the site plan process. And I think part of the issue that we had with the sizing, the
category one sizing was that it doesn't look at the functionality necessarily. and sometimes um impacting a category one wetland or what is defined as a wetland category 1 wetland you know might be helpful to in the overall context of a better site design. So I
think that um we just wanted some more flexibility to ensure that if something's defined as a category wetland and you know impacting it to whatever extent could be permitted is actually in the benefit of um achieving a better site plan that that flexibility
is somehow written in and I agree it shouldn't be in the comp plan it should be in the land development code but that was sort of the intent of that administrative variance language that you saw in there. Um and I think that's all I had. Thank you very much. Thanks.
Okay. Anybody else? While we're taking a public comment, good afternoon again. William Macau, 7638 Antioch Drive. I'm going to have a slightly unpopular opinion. The current definition of open space in the comp
plan is actually I think more in line of what Keith wants than what that map and the new revision to the open space is. I think if you divide it into separate categories, one being residential, one
being commercial, industrial and then another being agricultural conservation. If you split open space definitions based off of future land use categories where those future land use categories
are encompassing of similar land uses, you can create a better open space definition for these agricultural lands we want to preserve. And I point to um the Pomodo Ridge MPUD and PD as a
perfect example of a good way that that was open space preserved in an agricultural or former agricultural space where everything north of the vision road some I believe 1100 acres was preserved for long term.
Conversely, in connected city open spaces, King Lake or some of the neighborhood or pocket parks within connected city. So, I think reusing the current definition of open space to tool it to what Keith was
proposing where open space now is divided amongst the various land uses might serve better long term for conservation. So you want us to keep the definition and get rid of the map? I think changing the definition such
that it specifically calls out the land use whereas currently it seemed like there was a little bit of mixing of the definition. Um I believe uh Terry was speaking earlier. He
brought up that the residential, non-residential, and there was one other land use, but it's So are you suggesting there should be a a varying open space definition for
each future land use category? Yes. And that's what I'm saying is maintaining that current open space definition and simply molding the new open space um element and the new conservation element such
that it clearly defines if you're looking at a residential development, open space can be the parks that we're requiring you to build. If you're building in connected city or one of the special planning areas, it's these certain
requirements that we're looking at for third spaces or civic spaces. And then for agricultural land, it's we want you to have undeveloped areas, whether that's former farmlands or wetlands or elamp land, whatever that may be.
I had another one and it's gone from the top of my head, so I'll just leave it at that. Yeah. I mean the the fundamental problem and staff can explain this better is even though we have a definition of open space the only regulations in our code that I believe that actually implement it is neighbor parks and that's it. Correct.
There's nothing else to to yes to regulate all the other open spaces that we might need. Right. And I think that's why it's important to have it in the conser Pasco conserve section is once we've defined open space have a policy that Pasco County shall define in the land
development code or through policies what open space is required and then it's further driven down in the LDC. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
I got a couple policy specific questions for clarification. Uh 1.5.2. If I read the last sentence, it looks like the word issuance was changed to submittal. Am I interpreting that to say that the delineation of wetlands has to
be approved by the district before we submit a site plan application? That's already in the land development code. And I can go grab that real quick. I have it printed out. Can I ask a question? Why is that? Well, I was going to ask why is that
necessary? And I would tell you under the current regulatory language of buffers in the current version of the comp plan, I could see why we would do that. But if we were to get rid of the regulatory statements
regarding buffers in the comp plan, then that necessarily wouldn't be required. And where I'm going with this, Jackie, is you can when you submit an application to the water management district, you can have the delineation done as part of
your ERP application rather than going for a formal jurisdictional determination prior to making application. In my own practice, I always recommend that my clients go get the formal first and then we know exactly what we're working with. if they wait till they
file the ERP, then things may get elastic around the wetlands a little bit as as that line moves here and there. But yes, I'm just trying to understand why we again
just from where I come from, I don't see the need for duplication of what the state already does. I I agree. I mean, the state gives you the flexibility. So, in 805.3, I don't know if you're
able to pull that up in Municode under um 805.3b. I'll let her pull it up. Oh, land development code. That be where it says specific. So it's
it speaks to the precise delination of wetland shall be determined through sight specific studies and field determinations by the applicant in swift mud and or D as applicable prior to mass grading stormwater management plan and report fill construction plan or operating permit application submission. Delineated B boundaries shall be
submitted at the time of application. It might I'm going to get back on my soap box regulating through the comp plan. So it may be in the existing code. Don't disagree. But the difference is that the code there's deviation processes for the
land development code. There's alternative standards. There's a section 303.6c whatever that allows staff to approve to wave application requirements. There's a whole set of relief procedures for the land development code to deal
with unique situations. The comp plan doesn't have that. So the problem with putting being that specific in the comp plan is then it makes it very difficult for Patrick, Terry, whoever to or even your
own department if you wanted to grant some relief from that requirement. You can't do it if it's in the comp plan. you can if it's in the land development code. So I don't know why you're feeling a need to sort of codify everything that's
in the in the code into the comp plan. Yeah. And I think from your previous statements too. So we kind we have an understanding of that now. So it's going to be throughout where we're making these kind of changes where we're just mirroring what's in the LDC. We need to start think going back through this element and anything that
is already regulated through the land of code. Take it out. because it a lot of yes we have struck through a lot of the LBC um requirements that are in the comp plan. So we will go back and then yeah I I don't know what happened with
this element but this one seems to have a lot of very specific requirements in it that are already regulated through the line of element code. Yes, we can definitely make those updates. Okay. Can you talk about the next line? Just
what the thinking is here. It says Pasco County may delineate wetlands for single family development sites that are zoned residential and not within an MPUD. We need to go back to the comp plan on the screen here. Oh, yes. 1.5. We're not We're not in the code anymore. He's going back to the comp plan.
I'm sorry. This is 1.5. Yes. The second. Yes. Or a planned subdivision without a valid environmental resource permit. I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at there. Sure. So, um I know we did discuss this
a little bit at the workshops we had in the um focus groups, but so currently the way the code is written um I guess in the comp plan, we supposed to defer to D or swift mud. So for our single family homes, those projects that come in through BCS, building construction services, the way it's written, we would
have to they would have to go get a formal delineation done with D. So we're trying to allow um to offer that service to the county um citizens. So that way we're it's a cost savings for them. It helps speed speed up their application process. And this is only going to be for BCS applications. It doesn't have
anything to do with, you know, site plan review. So if we're to strike the issue we just spoke about, then is that still necessary? I mean, in my opinion, this is just policy just have be a general statement about a desire to or to delineate
properly wetlands in coordination with swiftmud. And that's all it should say. I mean, your code should deal with the details that like who delineates when when it's got to be submitted and all those details should all be in your land development code.
Okay. And I think that was our intent just to put it in here. That way we can put it into the land development code. So you're saying it doesn't need to be in here. We can just add that when we make our LDC amendments just for the single family. I'll tell you why I asked the question. Sure. I I know what you mean in that yes, a homeowner doesn't need to call
one of my expensive environmental consultants and then go through pay the $777 and get the formal delineation, but it says single family development sites that are zoned residential and not within an MPU.
Well, I could get 50 acres of land that's zoned R4 and then ask you to come do the delineation, right? That doesn't necessarily restrict it to a single family home lot that says single family say that are zoned
residential. So that could be land that's R1, could be 100 acres of R1. It could be 50 acres of R4. Well, I I appreciate that they want to give the service to the homeowner. What I'm not wanting to do is provide welfare to
developers either. And yeah, and that wasn't our intention either. So, but regardless, I think this belongs in the land development code. Sure. Not comp plan. Okay. Okay. I'm going to Anything else on that one? Policy 1.5.10
and this is just a definition thing more for my knowledge than anything else. I think um the end of the first sentence primary tributaries is that defined somewhere it's already defined in the comp plan glossery. Okay. The existing
the existing comp. Can you Thank you. Primary tributarian. So it says water body shown on the most recent USGS survey quadrangle sheets as having perennial flow which eventually
drain into a permanent open water body. And what? Well, I sat in the st some stakeholder meetings with you and so I already know. But can you explain to the rest of the planning commission what the intent is for the
50-foot setback? So it would be um you know more system specific. So for example um I'm trying to think of the name of one of the like a branch that comes off of Cypress Creek or something like that. that would also be subject because it's a primary tribut
tributary would also be subject to the 50- foot setback. The intent of the 50 foot setback. So here this is something that's a another regulatory statement in the comp plan. We're requiring a 50-foot setback. Mhm. And
when I when I had meetings with staff, the explanation that I got for that was we want to protect people from potential dangers of floodwaters, which is noble. My comment as an engineer is the
horizontal setback from a waterway is irrelevant. It's the vertical topography separation between that waterway that is important. So I'm trying to figure out why we need this all about topography. Well, correct.
And I'm going to add again, same statement I keep making. I don't know why you have a specific requirement in the comp plan because it's already in there, too. We just moved this section up from it was actually under the um I get it, but water quality section. Let's just say to Mr. Moody's point, you
had a particular development which had a huge vertical drop between the development and the primary tributary and there were everybody agreed that you only needed 10 feet in that setback that
that would adequately protect against flooding. All the intent of the setback would be met with maybe 10. So let's just say it's 25 ft. Okay. If it's in the comp plan, you have no ability to deviate from that requirement. If it's in the land development code, Mr. Moody could come
in and say, I want an all standard because I can show you that if it's because of my vertical drop, the 25 ft is sufficient. You can't do that if it's in the comp plan, but you can if it's in the land development code. So,
I think it if you go back to the comp plan, I think it should just say if you if somebody could put it back up what I think one of the things that's been exposed here,
and I don't mean that in a in a bad way, only to make this process move forward in a better manner, is I think staff feels like if it's if it's in the comp plan today, it's it's almost like it's a s it's sacred. I can't get rid of it.
And I think the message that's being delivered today is yes, if you see a regulatory statement, get that out of the comp plan and get it into the land development code. And then I guess we can debate the merits of that when we try to amend the LDC whether we need to
have a 50-ft horizontal setback or a 10-ft vertical, you know, setback from a river. you we can debate what the what the what the technical requirements are be but I think the whole point is just because it exists in the comp plan today doesn't
mean it's sacred and can't be moved out and put into the land development code. Yeah. I mean if it just pass continue to implement land development requirements requiring setbacks from wetland and surface water lines adjacent to the these rivers and without getting to the
specifics of what those requirements are that's probably fine. Okay. And then you don't need to have things like the county may consider a reduced buffer for sites having an existing permit or non-conforming seaw wall because that could be the code that that could be handled through the land development code process. If you
don't regulate through the comp plan, you don't have to have exceptions in the comp plan either. You're just making the comp plan longer when you do that. Does that make sense? So, but the bigger point which echoes Mr. Moody's point is
remember that the land of moment code has deviation processes. Let's let let Terry Patrick David Engle that's their job is to evaluate case specific applications and determine
whether deviation should be granted. Let them do their job and they'll coordinate with you on those deviations if they affect your department. But let them do their job without regulating through the comp plan. Understood. Thank you. Okay,
that's all I had. I got some nit probably nitpicky language things. Uh in the in the I'll start at the very top. In the introduction, uh the second line says, "This chapter ensures the continued identification and protection." I just get nervous about the word insured all the time.
Does that need to be more does that mean that if there's a problem if we don't protect some natural resource should that be promote the continued identification and protection? I'm sorry. Which policy are we on? It's it's in the introduction. All right. He's up at the introduction. Second line.
Second line. It says the chapter ensures the continued identification and protection of the county significant natural resources. All the way. The very top. I think it's all the way at the top. Page seven. Yeah. Page seven, first paragraph, second sentence.
Page seven. There you go. Second, end of the second line. This chapter ensures a continued identification. That's a strong word. Yeah, it is a strong word. You could change it to promotes. Is that better?
Makes me feel better. If it makes you feel better, that's why we're here. That's right. And I don't I don't believe we think I was like I don't think that we actually wrote the introduction. Oh, you did? Okay. I was just But it's it's a valid comment. I think
it' be better to say promotes. That's fine. Yep. Noted. Insurers makes it sound like we're guaranteeing it's going to happen. Okay. Um and then down to 1.1. What? So this is talking about connections open space to natural
resources. Is it trying to just provide open space connected to natural resources? Is it trying to connect natural res like connect conservation lands together like make connections between conservation lands? No, you this is like the beginning.
Yeah, this is the beginning. This kind of is where we started which which in the sake of time I hope we don't have to repeat. But yeah, that that everything we discussed in the beginning is kind of where where we let off with this. So, okay, that makes sense. Yeah. Um,
right after that 1.1.2, we added language to in uh for protection of listed species mitigation plan to be approved and implemented and then verified by Pasco County. How are we going to verify that or are we do already doing that? Yeah, that's something we're already doing. So, that probably just needs to
come out. That's already something that's that would just need to be maybe um modified a little bit in 803, but we're already doing that. Okay. through site plan review. Uh 113 manatee protection. It says that we're going to require all development within
its range to adhere to its established guidelines. I think the manatee's range is all in the water. Mhm. So should that say what development are we doing in the water? Should that be like coastal development adjacent to its range? I don't know what those requirements are. I'll help you with that one. I happen to
have a project. It's a marina. All right. with a boat ramp. And actually, this is a great opportunity because manatees are an issue right now in our permitting in that Pasco County does not have an
approved manatee protection plan with with FWCC or FWS. Um, and so it may be it the onus may be on my client to actually develop the
manity protection plan. It would be helpful if the county had one. Currently, this just says it's going to be handled on a case- by case basis basically is what it's how I read it. But you're saying that other counties have an established plan.
Yes, other counties have established manity protection plans, but Pasco County does not. Mr. Moody's correct. And so the county would have to petition FWC to start the development and creation of a plan. And it could be by area, region, or project specific. Um, we've never entertained
that because the the actual work required to do that is pretty significant. Yeah. So, so if you would like to do it for us, that would be client may have to do that. Yes. That'd be a tidy little consulting gig. But even if we did, this policy doesn't prohibit it because it says established
guidelines. If we created additional guidelines, it wouldn't prohibit us from doing that. existing. I think it's referring to the existing guidelines and and a lot of this this was again was existing language and we just kind of tried to update it to what
how it currently works today. While while you guys are there, if you don't mind me jumping in, if you could go back up to I forgot there's one other comment or just observation 1.1.2 uh mitigation plans. Where was I? management or mitigation plan shall be
approved and implemented in accordance with state and federal requirements and verified by Pasco County as required, right? Because a management plan or mitigation plan is not required on every project. So just semantically just thrown as required at the end of that
possibly. Well, well, I think we're going to be removing that anyways. This is another one of those very specific regulatory requirements that probably should come out anyway. I'll I'll make a note of it just in case it needs to translate into the LDC. Okay. Uh then 1511 just wording here. It says Pasco County
shall locate and design roadway improvements to minimize the impact of jurisdictional wetland. Should be two jurisdictional wetlands. I think just to change of to two. Yeah. And then down to one6, the title that's
groundwater protection and surface water quality. There also are policies under there that are protecting surface water. So I don't know if just water protection is more appropriate um or if it really matters, but just something I noticed.
Yeah. I think so. We took out the surface water exist the um buffer requirements and that setback section for rivers and surface waters used to exist under this section. So we moved it up into the wetlands area. Um so we took out the surface water protection but you're suggesting just naming the section water protection.
Yeah because I think there are provisions here that talk about surface water quality protection. Mhm. Um, like I said, it's probably not that big of a deal, but just
trying to see what I saw after that that made me think. Can I just ask a clarification question? So, you're saying that you you had jurisdiction over the surface waters. So, you that's the change that you were making just when it comes to the buffers for those certain systems. Yeah. We didn't
really have any input as much input on the lower on the groundwater. Yeah, I think groundwater means something particular. If we just change it to water, that's very general. And we don't want to talk about gulf water or other kinds
of waters, just groundwater in this case. Okay, I'm fine with that. Can I ask one storm water question? So, one point, this is where Mr. Moody can help me. the 1.6.1 that second sentence.
Wasn't there an issue at one point about that sentence potentially being inconsistent with the land development code requirement that the land development code allows like modeling that deviates potent potentially deviates from that requirement. I don't know if this is the
policy or if there was a different one, but there was I remember at one point there was a discussion with storm water about the a potential inconsistency between the comp plan requirement and land development. I would tell you that that is inconsistent with the current swift mud
regulations. And correct. So for instance in our LDC 1104 flood damage prevention, we actually require compensatory storage as the means of mitigation for fill in a flood
plane. The water management district will accept either compensatory excavation or compensatory storage as an option. or
you can demonstrate through hydraulic modeling that you've not had an impact on the 100red-year flood plane. Um, trying to think of a simplistic example. If I filled
inside the flood plane of a river, one way to mitigate for that would be to excavate out an equivalent amount of dirt to the amount that I placed in the flood plane. The other way would be to improve the hydraulics of the river
channel so that I do not raise the flood stage. And the way you intrude the hydraulics is I could widen the channel. I could smooth the channel out, right? Straighten it out. I I guess my point is is that if if our staff is not actually implementing what this sentence says and they're
implementing either swift mud or county LDC requirements, I don't I think it needs to come out of the comp plan. And I realize we don't have anybody from stormwater here, but but that's but somebody needs to pose that question to them because I don't want to continue
to have an inconsistency between our comp plan and actual practice. The only play I would tell you that in when I read that protection of flood planes, I have no issue with a policy that says Pascal County shall protect a
100redyear. Yeah. I'm not talking about the first sentence. The first sentence I'm okay. I actually have a problem with the first sentence. Oh, you do? Okay. And other natural areas which have beneficial hydraological characteristics. Well, what are those? That's pretty vague. That could be anything.
I have no problem with the first one, two, three, four, five, six, seven words. Well, but even then it defers to the land development code. So, we either do or don't do that in the land development code. I mean, if we don't actually do it in the land development code,
we we do we our storm water regulations, which by the way are way way way out of date. Um, and in December, are going to be really out of date. We redo that through the storm water section and through 11:04 flood damage
prevention. So, I didn't take yours. I can I guess my main point is that the seconds ends appears to be a regulatory requirement that needs to be put into just deferred to the land development code.
If somebody could check with Yeah, we'll take the lead on that David and communicate with someone in public infrastructure. I mean, I remember getting an RLS on this issue and the question that came to me was they specifically said that sentence was inconsistent with the code. Which one governs? And I had to tell
them, well, the comp plan governs. But then they said, we're not following the comp plan. I'm like, well, fix it. So, this is your chance to fix it. Uh 166 reads that Pasco County should prohibit septic tanks, buildings, and/or public
utilities not designed in accordance with state and federal regulations from being located on unsuitable soils. Prevent water contamination. I would think we're not permitting any of those things not designed in accordance with state and total regulations. It seems like something we don't need to say here
the way it's written. That's another place where we're I'm not even sure why it's in here because the state the state is the permitting agency for the utilities andor the on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems.
Well, if they're not designed with state and federal regulations in mind, they shouldn't be permitted anywhere. Well, and then your problem is what is an unsuitable soil? you haven't defined what an unsuitable soil is. And I can tell you historically, I know what
the problem is, why that's in here. I can think of the example of in the 1990s when the city of Port Richie decided to install sewers, get the city off of septics, which was great, and they put in sewers and then dropped
them right into marl and clay and then used the trench spoil as the back fill and paved over it and then a year later the streets had sunk down a foot in the middle of road. So, and and just to clarify, you recommended
to remove that policy. Yeah, I think it's not I don't think it Well, I'm not sure what it's trying to accomplish. If there's something we're missing that it's trying to accomplish, then we should reward it. But it's right now to me, it basically says we're not going to allow anything the state doesn't.
Well, that's true. Mhm. To me, it sounds like, you know, if the state doesn't allow it, we'll still allow it as long as it's on a suitable soil. That's what it right. Unless we're trying to be more stringent in state and federal regulations, there really wouldn't be a point to it.
Yeah, that's trying to be less, which I think they're arguing that it actually is arguably less stringent, but you don't want to be less than the federal. My particular issue is how how does this the county work
enforce this policy if I'm not developing a utility within the Pasco County utility service area? I put a utility in FGUA service area. You guys don't even know I did it. I mean, do you still have to apply for
county building permits to be able to do that though, even if it's in FGUA's area? That depends. Not necessarily. Well, this actually raises an interesting question, which is probably a code enforcement question, which is
Mhm. if this if this prohibition only appears in our comp plan and not in the code, could our code even enforcement even prohibit it? And could we even issue a citation for violating the comp plan?
Yeah. I mean, is there can you get a code enforcement violation for creating your own cesspool, you know, with a plastic kitty pool, you know? I mean, you should be able to um
Yeah. Well, I was just going to note that before we Keith makes a good point, we should probably talk to our the relevant subject matter experts, but also before there's a final decision to remove this, we probably should check the state statute,
which does require us to address groundwater recharge area. Well, but also check with our code enforcement staff because even if it is consistent even if state statute requires this is it belong is a code is the comp plan
the right place to put it because I I'm not sure if we have the ability to prohibit something that's only in our comp plan and not in our code. So you want us to check with code compliance if they're actually enforcing Yeah. What would be the mechanism for us to actually prohibit it is my point like
I don't know if we can issue a citation. I've never seen a citation issued for violating policy 1 point you know a policy of the comp plan. So that's true maybe maybe we can but I've never seen it done. They're called code enforcement not comp
plan enforcement. So, um I'm not don't know if they can do it or not. And our land development code doesn't have the utility regulations. We have utility policies that the county
utility system enforce have a utility section in the code of ordinances or the land of development code. That I'm confident we can do. I'm just not sure that we can enforce something that's only in the comp plan.
Like so even if it said that we will prohibit this, I don't know if we have a way to actually do it if it's not in the code or but it may be in the code or comp code land of element code or code ores. I don't know. I'm not sure. That was the point I was trying to make. If I'm in a private utility, even though
I did it, right? But if it was only in the land of MO code, we wouldn't have to worry about this because or the code of ordinance because we obviously can only enforce what was in our jurisdiction. I mean the the provision or the policy may be resolved also if we just change
the language up and make it less regulatory in in its scope. Yeah. I mean that but we'll talk to we'll talk to those constituent departments utilities and I mean if it said something general like Pasco County should continue to implement requirements related to sub
tanks buildings and public utilities I or even if it just said that Pasco County will continue to uh implement protection of groundwater and suitable soils in the LD land development code. Is that
what we we're trying to if that the right if that's a legislative requirement to address groundwater protection and unsuitable soils. Anyway, take another look at it, please. Y um 1613, it just mentions high aquifer
recharge areas. Are those defined somewhere already? It almost seems like that'd be a good map. Now we want a map. All kidding. All kidding aside.
That's a useful map. Well, since this is a future regulation, arguably you don't need it mapped because you can map it through the future regulation, right? But if you're just trying to figure out the intent of what we we might regulate in the future amendment, I
understand why you want to know what those are as a map. Uh the current comprehensive plan doesn't ha doesn't have one. It identifies with a high aquifer recharge. He's asking is it defined anywhere
what a high aquifer recharge area is. Does the glossery? No. No. And I'm trying to think like I know that like with I don't know if swift mode's got those defined maybe you know as defined by swift mode or something like that would be appropriate there. Just
maybe find a way to defi to indicate what those are. We can do that. And then 1618. I don't know that I've got a recommended solution for this, but it's reducing nutrient loads in surface waters. We speak to the specific
Wikiwatchi BMAP and the Tampa Bay reasonable assurance plan. Is that too specific? Should that be this? Should this be more general and that we're going to uh ident you know implements implement any
B maps because there could be new B maps or just I don't know it seems like it's a little too specific that we're limiting what we are going to do to reduce nutrient loads in surface waters. Go ahead. Um it is common practice for um for the
reduction of the nutrients loads to use the um simp estuary assurance plan. So that's why we included it in here. Yeah. As a reference and I think that's okay, but maybe a sentence that allows for other plans like other BAPs that might be
implemented you know things changed. I think besides the wiki watch. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. think to his point is that we may end up as the state is doing more and more water surface water testing, we may end
up with more basin management action plans that affect Pasco County other than the Wiki Watchi BAP. Okay, we can reward that. maybe completely remove Wiki Watchi and just just
adopted basin management action plans. Okay. Okay. And then all right down to I think 182 that's completely new. It says that Pasco County shall coordinate and support federal state. Can we coordinate
data collection or is that we just need to support I'm not sure what coordinate means. We'll do. Which one are you on? 182. That's I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Yeah. So, just on 182 it says that we'll coordinate and support those data collection efforts. Like I'm not sure what coordinate means we would do if we would if just support would be appropriate. Yeah, I think that that that was that's what we're trying to achieve. So just um take out coordinate and and just leave
support. Yep. And then down to 184 on exist. You just created less work for you. You should now we just with coordinate we would reach out to them. Now we don't have to reach out to them. And then on 184 it says that Pasco County will shall
continue to maintain and monitor as required existing artificial reef sites. One, what's what is as required by what or like what's what's as it should be as required by the permits. Okay. Yeah.
Um I think that's all I had. You good? I'm good. Quick question, just something for consideration. I see that we're working with divers to monitor our
artificial reefs. Has anybody given consideration to monitoring the protection of our cave systems? Pasco County has a very unique resource. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating cave diving to anybody, but this is we
have a very unique resource here in Pasco County and that's something that we should be looking at providing some protection to end too.
We will note that [Laughter] things. What I'm getting at, one, I think you're half crazy if you go cave diving. But I agree. What I hate to see is cave systems where
we get cave divers that come out in the future and tell us, "Yeah, we found a whole bunch of debris and litter and they left this garbage down here and this is where they dumped all their scallop shells and yeah, I mean that's a good point.
Part of our aquafer system. Yes, those caves. All right. Anything else? Good. You all have You all have definitely beat that dead horse. You ready to retire now? Thank you. Thank you.
But our caves open space on the cave. All right. So, I I guess my only question is when is the next workshop? Tomorrow. I hope not.
700 p.m. tonight. No, I'm just kidding. 8:27. Did you coordinate your outfit with our element for the evening? Well done. Thank you. Next day, six days from now. Yes. Yeah. And then we will be discussing the
adapt element. Your favorite, Mr. Moody. Yep. I'm sure there'll be fun to be had by all. What time is that? All day and into the night. 10 a.m. 10 a.m. on.
Yeah. 10 a.m. Wait, which element is on? Adapt. Adapt. Oh, it's like a party invitation. 10 a.m. to question mark. I did send the packet via email as well. So hopefully you guys had the chance or you will be um reviewing
it at some point before our meeting about 10 o'clock. Okay. Well, if anybody has anything else, I guess do we need to adjourn? I think you can just It's a workshop. I think you can just
We're good. Workshop has ended. Thank you. You have the power of chair to stop it. Power of chair to stop. Yeah. Look at that.