Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] It's just different.
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
Hey. [Music] [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] I know he's got
right back. How you feeling? Feeling better. It's a weird one. [Music] [Music] [Music]
Great. You know her extension? 2397. >> Yeah, >> right. >> Six months. busy. >> Have a lot of reading one of these days. >> You have to have to go back and watch the tape to see if they're actually right.
>> I get the feeling you probably just watch that just for fun, don't you? You would do that for fun >> over and over. [Laughter] >> It's too funny. Well, I know that greatest. >> That's good. Um, Commissioner Moore and
would watch man. >> Sounds like a >> watching in the evenings from home. Yeah, I guess they're meeting. >> Hey, sure. Yeah. >> How does it >> Thank you.
>> It's okay if you don't. Just make sure the clerk gets one. Back to me. [Music] Yeah. >> Yeah. Everybody's here for you, too. >> That's why Barbara was here. >> She draws a crowd.
>> Thank you. What do you mean? [Music] know when you're comfortable. Ready? Oh, >> well, I think >> we have to make a motion to >> Yeah, >> but we you can still hand them out. We'll just make a motion to receive and
file and then >> Yeah, >> I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. So, if we can stand for a moment of silence and pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. America and to the republic for
which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, the clerk could uh read the roll call, please. >> Mr. Jenny Gerard here. >> Mr. Christopher P >> here. Mr. John Moody >> here.
>> Mr. Matthew Muntz >> here. >> Mr. Derek >> here. >> Mr. Richard >> here. >> Chairman Charles Gray >> here. >> And the proof of publication please. >> The items were advertised from the temps
on March 5th, August 6th and September 3rd, 2025. Okay. Thank you. Amen to approve. So, I'd like to welcome everybody here today. And um for those of uh you who haven't been here before, we are the
planning commission. We're appointed by the board of county commissioners and we meet twice a month. We serve as a local planning agency and we hold public hearings and transmit to the board of county commissioners our recommendations on comprehensive plan minutes amendments, land development
code amendments and 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 m appealed to the board
of county commissioners. Um, so if there's something happens today that you don't like, you can always appeal it to the board. Uh, if anyone is not positioned to any comprehensive plan amendment, land development code amendment or any item where the planning
commission makes a recommendation to the board of county commissioners, it's important for you to attend that the appropriate board of county commission meeting. For those of you who aren't familiar with the format of the of the meetings, uh there are three sections and normally
they are continuences, consent, and regular items. Continuences are items where the staff or the applicant has requested a continuence for any number of reasons. It's been our custom to grant those requests unless
there are extenduating circumstances. uh consent consent items. We'll read read those one at a time. If you hear a consent item that uh you want to have taken from consent or to go on to the regular items, please raise your hand
when we bring it up and we'll pull it from consent. Otherwise, it stays on consent and it'll be approved all in one vote, whatever whatever ones we have on consent. Then there are the regular items and those are the the items that
will be fully vetted today. There'll be uh uh applications presented and everybody that has a question that wants to ask a question will have a chance to come up and and state your concerns and
then the applicant will have an opportunity to come back and answer some of those questions. So, uh, applicants will have, um, five minutes to make their presentation and the questioners will have three minutes to come up and ask questions. We
have a a timer. When you hear the second buzzer buzzer, you'll know that your your time is up. I don't think we've had any requests for additional time, have we? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Um,
so before we start the meeting, uh, we'd like to open the meeting for public comment on any items that don't appear on the uh, agenda today. Is there anybody here to speak on something that's not on today's agenda? It's not on today's agenda.
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Please give your come up. Give your name and and address, please. >> Alan Rose, one221 Hilltop Drive, Newport Richie. >> Okay. Before you go any further, anyone who plans to give testimony today or ask
questions today, if you'll please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn. If you plan to speak, we need you to be sworn. >> You swear from the testimony about >> I do. Okay. documents for the board.
>> Yes. Uh I have a motion to receive and file. >> Some moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Feel free to distribute uh give one to the clerk, please. And then he can distribute the rest. >> I just you will share. Yes. No problem.
>> Thanks, sir. >> Thank you. All right. So, we'll need your name and address then. It's >> Alan Rose, one221 Hilltop Drive, Newport Richie, Florida. >> Okay. >> 34654. Just bringing this to your attention because I think you I don't know if
you're aware of it or not, but things we've discussed in the past and have come before you in the past of one, we've won, the community has won, and the five to zero vote from you pushed forward. But when it goes to the county commissioners, it is not recommended.
And if somebody overrode you, that's what this first email I copy of, that's what you have there. Someone overrode you and said, "No, we're going to approve this. Putting 23 town homes in back of people's houses and 30,000 square foot of commercial property. Just
wanted you to be aware. >> We we are aware. I was never I did not when I all that we went through to get come to you and to go the right way and to win and then we lost but we haven't lost yet. That that's as far as that goes. I just wanted to bring that to
your attention in case >> let me just explain to you that this board is appointed by the by the board of county commissioners. The county commissioners obviously are elected. They're the ones that are most responsible to you. What we do is we listen to what you have
to say and then we make a recommendation. Um we we do we can approve certain things, variances and things like that. But when it comes to zoning items like that, we can make a recommendation and it's up to the board to decide if they want to listen to our recommendation or
if they got a better idea. >> So, uh that's how it works and that's why sometimes we get overridden and you know we just have to suck it up. And most recently, I brought to the board um storm water management. And between
Little Road, Moon Lake Road, 52, and Ridge Road, a basin, storm basin is being created because of all this development, the continued hardening of the shoreline. Just recently, I was back there, and I watched Rocky sink fill up faster than
I've ever seen it fill up and flood backwards into Bass Lake. Usually, it's mid. So, we go from Golden Acres, Bass Lake, Rocky Sink is it, and then we have this spillway, and then we have uh Hidden Lake. Well, Hidden Lake has been
sold. Who knows what's going to happen there. I'm sure it's going to get reszoned and built on. Uh the uh spillway, the top part was not open and we flooded out because Rocky Sink flooded back into us. And I mean, it was going like a river. I went out and
observed that instead of us going to Rocky Sink because of all the hardening between Lowe's and the new VA, that water doesn't flow like it used to flow. Now that all that water just went in and filled Rocky Sink and came right back into us and put about 40 properties,
houses didn't go under water, so you're not going to have flooding reports. But properties, all the grazands, people had to move their their their their animals and whatnot because one to three acres of their property were underwater because of this and I
brought the storm water and storm water's working on it. I just wanted to bring that to your attention and this is an impaired >> indication that your time's up. >> Okay. >> If you have anything else real quick, we'll listen. Just real quick, uh, this
is something I've been working on. It's by D. It's an impaired basin. It covers that area. So, we have to be cautious when we do this construction. We need to do it all. I understand that's progress, but just know we have impaired water basins that need to be considered. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> Can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> So, do you understand what an impaired basin is? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, what does that have to do with flooding? as an impaired basin has to do with pollution in the basin.
>> And why did that happen? >> Because of a lack of flow and the lack of flow through uh the creek and and the Cody River both are impaired and they're listed as
impaired by D. And it's because they're not flowing. And I think >> I'm having a hard time understanding. In one sentence, you're complaining about the flooding and that there's too much flow and now you're saying there's not no flow and that's causing impairments. >> Exact. Yes.
>> Maybe you can clarify what? >> Sure. A proper flow on the Cody River will take our waters down the spillway and they go to the Cot River. And now Cody River does not flow right now up on the in the northern sections. goes all
the way up to uh uh Cruz Lake and that whole water basin is not flowing. The same with Bear Creek. If you go from Little Road on to up to 589 on the
west side of 589 where it goes up to, it doesn't flow. And that's what's caused because it's now flowing. all the everything from all the farmlands and all the everyone flows down and holds and now you have all the pollution and everything's held because it hasn't flowed properly. So you have a
contaminated water basin. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? >> No. >> No. Okay. >> Thank you very much, >> sir. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> We have more individuals signed up for
public comment. Mr. Rose here was the first. Okay, >> next would be Miss Bart and I apologize if I mispronounced that. >> Hi, I live at My name is Julia Bartunic and I live at 2645
Meadowwood Drive, Newport Richie, Florida in beautiful Pasco County. Um, I would like to share one minute about maintaining the aesthetics of Pasco County. Later I will be sharing on P25, but I just want to say some of the newer
developments in Pasco County in the lower socioeconomic housing developments. Um, I've heard some people, some residents say that they look like eighth ward housing in Chicago.
And a lot of the newer developments are just ugly to me. They look like socialist or communist block housing. We can do better than this aesthetically in beautiful Pasco County, especially in the northeast rural areas. Central
Pasco, Angeline is beautiful aesthetically because they save the trees and beautiful environments around it. They even have community gardens and such. We need just because there's an area that's a lower socioeconomic housing
development doesn't mean that it should not meet the standards of aesthetics for Pasco County. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Well, we thank you very much. You didn't need to be so nervous. >> I said don't be so nervous.
>> Oh, yeah. >> We're we're nice. We're nice guys here and gals. Okay. Who's next? >> Mr. Chair, the next item, the next individual signed up for public comment is a Lisa Vicarius.
>> Okay. >> Good afternoon and thank you for listening to us here. It seems like everyone has the same agenda about our trees and our beautiful Pasco County and we're nervous because >> Lisa, before you get started, I don't want to interrupt you, but we just for the record, we need your name and address.
>> Oh, that's right. I'm >> I know you've been sworn. I saw you swear. >> Lisa Picaris. I live at 10810 Kitten Trail, Hudson, Florida 34669. >> Thank you. I just have a comment about our trees
and our beautiful um landscape here in Pasco County and all of Florida that we're all experiencing this massive development and all this destruction of our woodlands. Our woodlands are not just land. They have risen from our soil
like a living cathedral. Giving every creature the breath of life. To destroy the trees is to silence that sacred song. So, just keep this in mind. We all live here. We all enjoy this beauty of our land. Let's try to
preserve it as much as we can before it's too late. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody any questions? Okay. Well, let me just say that we are also concerned about that, especially lately, and that's why we're in the process of developing new ordinances
relative to the trees, so we can have more tree canopy. and they won't just go in and wipe trees out. So, we're we're aware of that. We're working on it. Okay. [Applause]
Anybody else have comments up here about it? >> Okay. Who's next? >> Mr. Chair, the next individual signed up for public comment is a Sharon Navy. I apologize if I'm mispronounced. We have your name and address, please.
>> Sharen Naabi. Oh, I'm really nervous. I don't do >> Okay, take a couple of deep breaths and take your time. >> Okay. >> Speak slowly. >> Okay. Sharen Naabi, 2839 Somerville Drive, Holiday, Florida.
Do you need my zip code? >> No, not necessary. >> Thank you. I'm actually here um to make you aware of there's a parcel of land um that uh is on the corner of Camry and
Gulf Trace. I live in Gulf Trace community and it's about 35 acres that's for sale and it's a thriving gopher tortoise habitat and I didn't know if you guys were aware of that. um next door they had built the Harbor Palms
which was also a gopher tortoise habitat and I know they're supposed to be relocated. I believe they're protected but uh they were not and so I kind of wanted to get ahead of this land. It's been for sale for probably I think at
least four years and it's also has a lot of electrical transmission towers on it. So I didn't know if you guys were aware of that. I don't have any pictures. I could get those because I mean the whole land is just covered with gopher tortoises,
>> right? Yeah. I there is a relocation process. >> Okay. >> And any developer would have to pay to have those re relocated. >> Okay. >> So, and it if you you know if if they go in there to develop it, they're going to have to do that. That's that's a requirement that they do those kind of
uh studies to show how they do or not. How do we find out if they actually did it and didn't just bulldoze with the staff here? >> When when a developer applies for a permit here at the county,
one of the things they're required to submit is a listed species survey to determine if there are any endangered or threatened species that occupy the property. And then as a condition of
approval of the development, when when it's finally approved, the county withholds their permit until they produce copies of the permits from the appropriate state and federal agencies demonstrating that they're going to
relocate, in the case of gopher tortoises, relocate the the gopher tortoises in accordance with state and federal law. And so all of our permitting records are public record. You can request them from the planning, development, and economic growth department. I think the natural
resources department is the one who handles the listed species surveys, but copies of those are all available and I can assure you that it is a condition of approval of every development. They will not issue your your site placard that is
your license to go start running the bulldozers until you've proven that you've got the appropriate permits and done the appropriate relocation or mitigation. >> Okay. So, someone does check up on them that they've done it. Okay, great. >> Development guys were aware permits in
that case are issued by the FWC, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and it needs to go through an authorized go for tourist agent who's a l a permitted licensed uh professional. Okay. >> So, it it is definitely >> I had called them and they had come out and so I just like they weren't sure
about the land that had already been developed. So, I just thought I would just bring it to your guys' attention in case. >> Thank you. >> So, if it's been developed, it has to go through that permit process. Now, it's not to say that somebody before applying for a permit couldn't illegally go on there and move gopher turtises uh on there, but if you see something like
that happen, that's reportable to the FWC and it's illegal. >> Thank you so much. How long ago was that other property developed? >> Probably about three years ago. >> And where's this property you're referring to? >> Um, I'm sorry. It doesn't have an exact
address. It seems to be on the corner of Cam Camry Drive and Gulf Trace Boulevard. >> Okay. >> It's 35 acres. >> Okay. >> And it's been for sale for a long time. >> Doesn't have any legal access.
It's been through my office a dozen times. >> It's a crazy parcel of land. So, >> are we good? Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Next,
>> Mr. Chair, we have one more individual who doesn't did not designate the item number. So, if Melanie Lambertson is for public comment, And Melanie, could we have your name and address? >> My name is Melanie Lambertson. I live at
184 Spring Lake Highway, Brooksville. I'm not in your county, obviously. >> You've been sworn, >> but I'm a very close neighbor. >> You You've been sworn. >> Okay. Over here. I'm over here. >> Um
Um Okay. I wanted to talk about land the tree mitigation. Um it apparently the process is that it goes from uh being trees that we can see and
appreciate to some distant swamp that we aren't going to be able to see and appreciate. And uh that has a really big impact on a person who is just driving down the
road and sees these developments one after the other without a single tree >> and also warehouses. They apparently are not required to have any kind of landscaping whatsoever. And that there
just these great big concrete blocks, massive. And uh I just I just think that there should be more trees dispersed around the county where people can enjoy them
and appreciate them. Um, uh, I guess >> would anybody up here like to? >> So, also how does the who monitors it? You know, like I was reading through it and it
says, you know, if this if the developer cuts down 10 massive oak trees, they have to uh buy 10 massive oak trees in some distant other place. Um
but who who even monitors that? >> Yeah. Well, there there is a tree ordinance in place now, but we're trying to improve the tree ordinance so that we do keep more trees and that's the we we've recognized that's an issue and we're trying to deal with it. Now, I'm
sure some of the engineers that are on this board here might have comments about about how that works and the tree ordinances. Somebody like to comment on that, >> Mr. Engel. >> Yeah. >> Another suggestion that I think is really great >> comment.
>> Yeah. I just >> Hi, David development director. Just a overview. >> I don't know if your mic's on. >> Yeah, I'll get up here. Do you mind, ma'am? >> Oh, sure. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> David Engel, planning and economic
development director. So, we have a multi-prong approach dealing with our canopy trees. First step is um we've the board has passed a resolution increasing the fees to cut down trees in our county. And what that does is it incentivizes the developer to protect
the existing canopy wherever possible. Number two, um we are working very aggressively with a Okay, I'm done. No, with a with a tree protection ordinance and by November, we're just refining uh our stakeholder engagement. we're going to
be back here with a draft to protect our trees. And um number three, um we also send out we also provide on-site inspection. There's an arborist report and a tree a tree survey that on every project from now on going forward and we
identify areas of mature canopy where we'd like to preserve and we charge more money for cutting down those type of heritage trees and uh it stimulates and motivates preservation and just to respond to the young lady regarding um
you know warehouses and etc. Every project in Pasco County when it's constructed has to meet our landscaping and tree standards. And um you may not be able to see them from the road. It depends on how far you are, but uh you know, you just take let's say the Rooker
project at Overpass Road and and um Old Pasco Road. There is extensive landscaping there and all of those driveways will have trees on them. So, and that's that's a requirement. Um I think there was one other question you had. No other question.
>> I don't know. I don't know. >> All right. Anyway, so um yes, it's Oh, on the use of funds, um we um the board now has opened up the spot to use these tree mitigation funds to get canopy coverage throughout the county. So, uh
we're we're actually providing shade trees and understory trees along our rightways and our corridors, public properties, parks, etc. So you're going to see millions of dollars go out with new tree canopy plantings very shortly matter you know within the end of the
year until the planting season will going to begin. >> Thank you. >> Thank you David. Appreciate that. >> Good deal. I I was just going to say that possibly another way to uh have it so that we can
see more trees other places would be to uh financial incentives to um land owners to preserve trees and uh to to plant. It seems like if they thought they were getting a tax break that
people would get out there and plant some trees. >> Mhm. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Anybody else? >> Mr. Chair, that was the end of our list of individuals signed up for public comment. >> Okay.
>> One more. >> Oh, we missed one. >> First signed up. >> Yes. My name is Joyce Defalco. I'm at 12918 Fairway Drive in Hudson, Florida. Um, I just want to ask that you please
um support and save our trees because it does support and save wildlife. And when you destroy our beautiful trees, you destroy their habitat and it kills our wildlife and that's very cruel. So,
please keep all the trees intact. Thank you. >> Okay. Welcome. >> Okay. Any comments from up here? If not, guess we can go to the rema regular agenda. >> Good afternoon, planning commission members. My name is Curt Cyerson of
Planning Development and Economic Growth. Filling in for Giana regrettably. Item PC1 you are sitting as the local planning agency for that's PTE2500201 a comprehensive plan amendment in the
name of CPS 258. This is in the name of 6230 stone road industrial providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps 2-15 and sheet 10 changing from RO
retail office residential to IO light industrial on approximately 4.18 acres of real property located on the south side of Stone Road approximately 500 ft east of the intersection of US Highway 19 and Stone Road. Mr. Chair, this item
was published as a consent item. However, the applicant would like to request a continuance to the October 16th planning commission. >> Okay. October 16th. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Um,
>> Newport Richie. >> Newport Rich. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's Newport Richie. Yeah. >> Okay. Continue item PC1 to the October 16th meeting in Newport. >> Okay. Before we do that, um, is there anybody here to speak on that item? I think we see public comment.
>> I don't see any I don't see any comment. Okay. Do we have a motion then John? >> So move. >> Second motion in a second. Further discussion. All in favor >> by saying I >> I like sign. Okay.
>> Continued. >> Excellent. Moving to our regular agenda here. Item PC2 is item PDE 257781 a zoning amendment in the name of analy that Livingston to be presented by staff.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. William Vermillion Planning Development Economic Growth. This is Enclave at Livingston master plan unit development PTE 257781. You'll remember this project from
February, March, April, May all the way to September. So we'll give a brief refresh and then some of the applicants changes that were related to transportation concerns that we had at the last hearing. The current zoning is AR agricultural residential going to master plan unit
development with a future land use of residential six. This is 178 town homes on approximately 46.3 acres. That comes out to roughly 3.8 dwelling units an acre density. So well under that residential six future land use. This is
directly west of 20 mile level road and east of the Collier Parkway and State Road 54 intersection. Here's the location map. Here is a contextual map
of the property. Here you can see that the subject site is outlined in blue. In red you have the Livingston Road extension as it travels north along the existing 20 mile level road. the Academy at the Lakes as well as the Catholic
Church and the Terabella MPUD which is a mixture of multif family town homes single family detached and roughly 100,000 ft of medical office and 60,000 square ft of shopping center.
the overall location map, aerial, the current zoning, and the future land use of residential six. Here's the MPD master plan. The the key notes to point out on this are the category one wetlands that encumber the
property. Moving into the binding concept plan or the binding MPD plan, whatever the nomenclature is these days. You can see the red town homes in the centralized portion of this are the rear loaded town homes that are alley
access. And then along the periphery of the project, the orange town homes are front-loaded. for the access portion here, the portion of the exhibit. Previously, there had been two options as it related to 20
mile level road in the Livingston Avenue extension. This is the final roadway exhibit showing that 20 mile level road will remain open and will have the uh the turn there into the living a a living avenue extension along with the
8-ft path that will be constructed within this rideway as it enters into the subject property. This is the rideway typical section for Livingston Avenue. and into the changes that have happened since the planning commission has last
saw this mostly surrounding transportation. So, as was indicated on the plan you just saw, as well as the roadway exhibit, this project is extending Livingston Avenue north to the project access and dedicating rightaway to the northern boundary,
which is included in the cost feasible plan for 2050's LRTP. A new timing and phasing was conducted um for this. The previous timing and phasing as was brought up in May had utilized the old 2045 LRTP and the
subsequent cost affordable plan. So this new timing and phasing contemplated the 2050 cost feasible plan like I briefly spoke to on a previous slide. Uh at one point in time there was
two options for 20 mile level road at this point in time. Now, the proposal is for the 20-mi level road to not be closed and will be realigned to intersect with a new section of Livingston Avenue Vision Road as shown on exhibit 2 as previously shown. There
is now also restrictions on construction access. Some of the citizens in the past um had some concerns about construction access that would be happening on existing 20-mile level road. There is now existing condition 25 in your
conditions of approval ex uh agenda packet which speaks to the restrictions on construction and 20 mile level road. And to be specific, the applicant shall stabilize Livingston Road and use the extension for construction access. 20-mile level road
shall only be used to construct utility improvements and to mobilize equipment to stabilize Livingston Road extension. And the the larger transportation improvement that impacts the intersection and its capacity currently at Livingston Avenue and State Road 54
is the applicant is constructing a left turn lane, a shared through and right turn lane, and one right turn lane at that intersection. And what that does, while of course this project can't fully mitigate for the volume capacity ratio
that we currently see on 54 today, um, which is above a 1.0. What they can do is to lower the VC ratio at this intersection by improving more capacity with the right turn lane and the through lane, which then subsequently changes
the timing for the residents at that intersection. Mr. Steve Henry and the county engineer here if you'd like a more in-depth analysis about how much the VC ratio changes and the timing changes subsequently.
There's one variation analysis from this from 901611. That's to not provide an interconnect to the south. As previously shown on the master plan, the southern portion of the property is largely encumbered by category 1 wetlands and an existing platted town home project.
with that that comes with a recommendation of approval with conditions. I'm here for any questions. >> Any questions? >> I my only question is about the um kind of the vision road for Livingston because if you look at the original vision plan, it looks like Livingston
heads due north and kind of cuts through the corner of the property. >> Sure. >> So, is the plan now to make the new vision road of Livingston basically 20 mile stretch or 20 mile uh level? Let me back up to the master plan. So,
originally when GIS did the overlay for the vision road, they utilized map 735 from the comprehensive plan, which is just an approximation of all the vision roads in the county that was overlaid via GIS. >> Right. >> So, when this project came in, what that would do is put that rideway directly in
the middle of that category 1 wetland as it moved northbound. So this alignment in dedicating its rightway shifted the alignment along the property boundary in between that wetland and the flood plane area you can see there on the right side of the road. We don't have any further
plans for the alignment as it moves north. Um so what the GIS layer shows currently based off 735 you can see an approximate but the county does not have an alignment past this property
boundary. But for now, the um the vision road for Livingston through the uh east side of this property is to kind of basically follow the current 20 mile level road curve. Correct. >> That'd be correct.
>> Because that's what it looks like, you know, with your master plan that it that occurs and it connects with the existing 20-mi level. And so in theory, that 20-mile level road will become Livingston, at least to the northern boundary of the county until more plans are made, >> right? until it goes back over to um
Collier. You can see on 735 and on GIS you get to a certain point north. Not until you it's south of Plantation Palms in the baseball fields where it cuts across moving west to then connect with Collier Parkway. Um but that exact
alignment. So that's the reason for the large dedication of the rightway there on the edge eastern edge of the property is so that you have the ability to maybe because right now it looks like a pretty sharp curve that's going to be there from Livingston as it curves into 20
mile level. So that right ofway allow you to maybe straighten out the curve in the future. Is that the idea? >> Oh, I I was speaking to off when I was speaking about I was speaking far north outside of the property. I understand that. >> Okay. Yes,
>> that was my followup question. >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else to speak here on this? Barb, >> Mr.
>> I forgot the order here, Barb. >> Okay. >> No one else on the list. We have individual sign up for Okay. >> Good afternoon. Barbara Wilhight, 6327 Graham Boulevard, Newport Richie, 34652.
Our presentation focuses on what's changed since May 15, 2025 when we had a full hearing before you all. And I know we're having another hearing today and I think it's great. Um, we've been actually talking to neighbors here um trying to work different questions out and so more participation to me is
better. But our presentation focuses on what we've done since May 15th. You also have a um a PowerPoint that I handed out, which is our PowerPoint exactly as it was presented on May 15th. So, as staff has pointed out to you, we added a new construction access
condition. This was a result of a neighborhood meeting of a a volunteer neighborhood meeting that we had and we were asked that question. What can you do about construction access? We really want to limit construction access on existing 20 mile of a road. So this is the condition um that came out of that.
We had new traffic counts. We updated. So we've been doing things between May and now. We updated our timing phasing analysis. Analysis still shows an existing level of service efficiency for the intersection of State Road 54 and Livingston. Um it shows that the overall
delay may increase 3.6 seconds with project traffic. I think it's important important to get some context of our project versus the existing deficiency that exists at that intersection. The code is very clear at 901 um it's
like an eye test here 9012H3 that this project is not responsible for reducing or eliminating the existing deficiencies. But we didn't stop there because we could have said look we're our impact is dimminimous and we're only like 3.6 6
seconds additional delay. We could have said that. We could have cited this and said we're not responsible to do anything more. But we didn't stop there. We looked at, okay, what can we do? What can this one project do? A project that's consistent with the land use in a
great location. Um, what can it do? And a great project. So one was and you've heard Livingston Avenue is a vision road and we propose to extend that vision road to the to the project access. Um you can see it's in your cost
feasible your vision improvement and that is your ultimate um vision road network. We provide rightway further as as Mr. Pont has pointed out. So, not only just to our entrance, but also all the way to our property line to allow for the future extension north of our
entrance of of Livingston Road extension. Exactly how that goes when it leaves our what the portion that we're going to do and our tieback in a temporary tieback in to existing 20-mile level road, that's up to the county. So, but we're providing we're doing it up to our entrance. We're providing right
ofway on our north property and ultimately where the vision road goes after that um the county will have to do further analysis. We have heard about an intersection improvement. This is one of the main things we did. Like I said, we didn't stop at the fact that we don't not
responsible for existing deficiencies and we're only going to add 3.6 second delay to that intersection with our traffic. We didn't stop there. We spent months looking at what can we do to this intersection. Remember this is DOT's roadway. So we had to coordinate with FDOT Pasco County um links and
associates and we they came up with this improvement that you see described here that will increase the capacity at the intersection. Does it fix does it fix magically 54 doesn't have any issues anymore? No. But it is something that this project can do and it does rel it
does reduce the VC ratio that's existing out there today. Um as a result of the improvement we also pay mobility fees as you know um and the project will pay mobility fees. So that is my presentation. There was a
couple housekeeping things that I wanted to do because I promised the residents, they were um one of our neighbors was was kind to point out that I had a screw up in my in our conditions of approval. So, if you look at uh 24, condition 24,
there's a second paragraph there that if you read it talking about fencing and closing 20 mile over road, I kept wondering why we kept getting the question why, you know, that aren't you closing 20 mile over road? And I'm like, no, we're just realigning it. Well, that's because this second paragraph is in here and it should needs to be
removed. So, on the record, we'd like to if you if you choose to move this forward today and recommend approval, if you'll include removing the second paragraph of condition 24. The other thing that we wanted to put on the record is that our conditions show our
minimum product at 20 feet wide. Um, our proposal is and what we've been showing in in meetings and including our neighborhood meeting was 24 minimum 24 foot product. I caught that inconsistency. My teams never do never say something and then do something else in our
paperwork. So, we'll want to move that minimum product to 24. Again, you can include that in a motion if that's your desire at the end of the public hearing. The other thing is we have heard from our neighbor to the south in in Huntington Ridge. We have a common property boundary town home to town
home. It's actually will be a side of one of our town home buildings to their rear. And the question was what's what are you going to do about buffering? What's the proposal for buffering? Your code because it's town home to town home doesn't require a buffer, just a setback. But we told the the um the
resident that we would put on the record and add to our conditions between now and and the board, assuming this moves forward to the board, um that we will do a 10-ft type B buffer um at our common P on our common property boundary with Huntington Ridge and we will include an
opaque fence. Right now a type B you don't you can do a hedge instead of a fence but we told our neighbor that we would we would add that we will do a opaque fence no wood or no chain link because that's what your code says. So we wanted to put that on the record as well. My team is here. Um we can present
again what we presented in May. But I think what I'd like to do is is let's hear people's concerns and questions and then we'll come back and and talk some more. Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. On the list, >> Mr. Chair, the first individual signed
up to speak on this item is a Melissa Blackburn via WebEx. >> Melissa, are you present? >> Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Have you been sworn, Melissa? >> Fantastic. My name is Melissa Blackburn.
I live at 2734 Calvano Drive in the Terabella neighborhood. One question that I did have and I know it's mentioned in this plan about >> before you go further let me just uh have you sworn. Okay. >> So >> Oh, sorry. Thank you. >> You raise your right hand. I can see
you. So, >> yes. >> Don't try to trick me. >> I'm not tricking you. >> You got >> I did. >> Yes. >> Okay.
Jeremy, thank you. >> Okay, thank you. I was My main question is around the traffic with this development. I'm in Tabella right there in the same area and I know it's mentioned about adding a left turn lane,
straight and right, I think headed northbound. However, we have that today. So, are we talking about adding existing lanes to what is there today? Well, go go go ahead with your questions and we'll answer those when the applicant comes back.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's my main question is, you know, I have concern. I have children that live in this neighborhood. It's a heavily utilized intersection. We've had several fatality accidents um at that intersection. Our exit from the
neighborhood at Vabella is already very congested. So many of us use the Livingston exit because of the traffic light. And so my concern is on the traffic at that main intersection and causing more um strain there on an already, you know, troubled area.
>> Okay. Thank you. We'll try to get that answered for you. >> Thank you. >> Who would be next? >> Mr. Chair, the next individual signed up to speak is a Patty Draper. >> Patty? >> Yes. I have not been sworn in.
>> Ah, I was I was talking. >> Yeah. You just couldn't. You had to tell me. You want to be honest, right? >> Do I have Oh, >> yes. >> Good afternoon. I have a um small seven
slide presentation um as an overview for Huntington Ridge. Um, we have I spoke with Barb and Jeremy earlier and some of our concerns have been addressed. Um, and I feel pretty
comfortable that um, you know, we'll come to some kind of resolution. I don't know whether you guys want to see this or not. >> Before we go any further, um, I just need your full name and address. >> Of course you do. I'm Patty Draper, 2133
Park Crescent Drive in Land of Lakes. >> Okay. I'm just >> Now, do you know how much time your after your presentation is going to take? >> It's gonna take three minutes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Just very quickly. Um again, I'm
>> the receiving file. >> I'll second. >> I'm sorry. >> You You're just too quick for us. >> Um again, Huntington Ridge overview. We are a small gated 900 unit town home community between 20 mile level and
Collier Parkway. On the on the next slide, while we do share the same concerns as our neighbors on 20 mile level in regards to traffic and flooding, even though the FEMA maps for that area haven't been updated since
since 2014, we do share those concerns. But for this presentation on slide two, we want to uh focus on the north side of Huntington Ridge where we have the two buildings in the little red box um and a
small retention pond. The next slide shows the original um plan by Stanley Martin that were given given to us at the May meeting. And it does show um a 15 foot type B
buffer along the west side of the property with it labeled number eight. Um but no buffer or setback is designated against the Huntington Ridge town homes which again are the bottom of that culdesac area. Now, I will say in
talking to Barb and to Jeremy, that seems to have been addressed and it's in the record that there's going to be a offense and some type of a buffer there. So, that's already been part of the record. I just felt like as Huntington Ridge, we needed to go on the record, too, to talk to you guys.
>> Okay. >> Um, very quickly, the next one shows elevation concerns. Again, Jeremy has talked to me about the elevation. Um the problem there is that the applicant's property line is higher property is
higher than Huntington Ridge and you can see the slope into the backyard of our town homes. Um we can estimate that that slope is anywhere between 2 and 1/2 and 4T.
Next slide is just um showing the runoff behind those two. our um our residents are constantly working back there um to ensure that the drainage continues. We've had to change vegetation. We've
had to change um we've had to trench and it's all because we have had runoff in the past from the different elevations there. Um last one is the retention pond where the storm water flows. Um this water in there shows just two days of
heavy rain. There was uh no hurricanes. It basically was just two days of heavy rain. And as I looked on the map on >> you're going >> as I looked on the map of what we were
given by um Stanley Martin, you can see where our retention pond and their two retention ponds butt right up against each other. So we again again we were very very concerned about any runoff increasing some flooding into our our area.
Um but again Jeremy thank you. He's addressed it with us. He's somewhat made us comfortable with what's going on. And then I just want to um just say in conclusion uh why I was going to come in here and
ask you guys I'm sorry ask you guys to either deny or at least postpone the concerns we have here. I feel like in talking to Barbara and Jeremy, our concerns have been addressed with the 10-ft fence and some type of a buffer
there. But um I feel like um the privacy and the security of Huntington Ridge needs to be maintained and our property values are concerned about us too with that the development going up. So thank you very much for your time. We do
appreciate it. >> So So can I just ask to clarify? Sure. They you know again the LDC doesn't require any any buffer in between like developments but um they you said they have agreed to a fence and >> they have agreed to a fence on the property line Jeremy on the property
line. I think there's still some questions whether there's going to be a buffer there too. >> Yeah. I think what Barbara said was is they were offering a 10-ft type B buffer with an opaque fence. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Is that right? I just just wanted to clarify that.
>> Okay. >> So, you no longer with with those changes, you no longer have opposition to the to the project. >> I feel like we can work with the with the developer. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right.
Next. >> Mr. Chair, we do not have more individuals pre-registered to speak on this item. >> Okay. Very good. Well, great. Uh, Barbara, would you have any comments on We had a few questions there that are still left unanswered, I think.
>> And Jeremy is the civil engineer that that she's referring to. You, some of you might have been wondering who she was talking to. >> Jeremy Couch with Tampa Civil. Um, I would like for Steve to go through and and tell you about the improvement that he's proposed to the 54 Livingston intersection. Uh, Miss Blackburn had
asked about that from Tabella. And then of course if if you want to hear about the drainage discussion between Hunter Huntington Ridge and Jeremy Couch, um Mr. Draper, we can certainly have Jeremy talk about that, but I'd rather have the neighbors and talking neighbor to neighbor. Um and if if if they have any
more questions, they've got hopefully have my phone number and I'll get them in touch with my team. So I think it'd be helpful for Steve to explain that improvement to the intersection uh which Miss Miss Blackburn asked about. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Steve. Good afternoon. Steve Henry, Lincoln
Associates 5023 West Laura and I have been sworn. Um, do we have an Elmo? >> And I've got extra cop copies if anybody wants one. Uh, but essentially what we're doing is again this is a relatively small project. So, we looked at the intersection and trying to figure
out what this project could potentially do to help the intersection, help the capacity of it. And when you look northbound, the the right turn volume there is almost 300 cars in an hour. The through volume is only 50. So, what we
were proposing, you can see it here. How well >> Yeah. Let me uh Thank you. >> Got one more. >> What we're doing is um >> Steve, let's get a motion to receive and final
>> so moved. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I. So, so what we're doing is to try to help balance that is we're taking the the existing through lane and making it a shared through right. And so what that will do is allow, you know, a little
better distribution of the traffic between those two lanes. Um, and we have spoken to, uh, both DOT and the county. Uh, and they are supportive of of this geometry. It doesn't really change the timing of the signal because that northbound lane, it doesn't change, you
know, it'll it'll run with the south. It's just a matter of being able to put some of those right turns into the through lane because right now when that when it happens the right turn backs up into the through lane. So this way it allows that to function a little bit better and that's what we're proposing
here. >> Okay. >> But we're not adding we're not adding a lane. We're just modifying the lane geometry and the signals. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any I don't did Jeremy want to speak to
you or No, it's not necessary. I don't >> I don't think it's necessary. I'm making sure that um Miss Draper has his phone number so so they can continue to talk. Um so I did I was remissed to ask you to receive and file my PowerPoints. So if you could receive and file those two
PowerPoints that I had given to you all. >> We did. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. those like sign. >> So I can catalog those three things again for the record. Um along our
Huntington Ridge common property boundary 10- foot type B buffer with a mand with an opaque fence, no wood or chain link. Remove the second paragraph of condition 24. Change our minimum lit width for our town homes from 20 to 24,
which also addresses Miss Drapers Mrs. Draper's concern about property values. And these are 24 foot town homes are a very nice town home product. So we'd like to add that as well to make sure that you know we're going to do what we say we're going to do regarding the quality of these town homes. And we're
available if you have any more questions. Thank you. >> Any questions? >> If not, I hear a motion. >> Anybody? So, >> um, >> yeah, I'll move approval of the, uh, item with the modifications to the
conditions as stated by Miss Willight. >> Second motion in a second. Any further discussion of the motion? >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I like sign. Okay.
[Applause] >> All right. Going to take a fivem minute recess. You >> did a great job. Go home and go to sleep. >> Busy taking care of >> cup's not big enough. >> It was one of those days where I had
breakfast at 12:30. Huh? >> Didn't even have Didn't even have a chance to All right. How you doing, David? A couple gave her zoning. Yeah. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. That was after the hurricane. >> You tell the whole story. Yeah, he's big and old man. >> Shepheric joint. He's he's great. We think he was a
service dog at It's a little bit Now, I mean, he literally has a life safety hazard ongoing on >> good. >> He built a >> property has no water and sewer
>> and it's a private school. >> It's a long ball. >> I hear you. I'm ready. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Like call the meeting to order again. >> Start where we left off. Moving to the ordinances here. Item PC3,
you are sitting as the local planning agency for that's PTE25-0332, an ordinance amending the Pasco County Landing Development Code sections 522.91, 901.1, 901.6, 901.7, 901.8,
appendix A definitions, and other sections as necessary for internal consistency. This is to be presented by staff. >> Okay. Thank you, Chris. Good afternoon members of the planning commission. Rebecca Bogue with planning development and economic growth here today to prevent infrastructure
standards land development code amendment. All right. So this slide I'm just illustrating that um the changes made to 522.9 is for internal consistency with our proposed 901.7 updating a cross reference. Uh I also
need to note that the reference in the red line in the packet is incorrect. It should read 901.7D not 901.7E. We're also updating section 91. F to reference our current uh resolution for the county typicals for our major roads.
Currently, our codes references a resolution from 2004, current resolutions from 2019. We're also adding language to indicate that we're putting these typical sections in our development review manual, which will hopefully make them easier to find.
Okay. So, here's um 901.7. We're doing some more updates for cross references. We're also updating 901.64 um the pavement design standards. Currently, our codes requirements for
pavement design standards are in conflict with the pavement design standards in the green book. So, we're updating that for consistency. And the bigger change we're presenting here today is a rewrite of our bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We are
consolidating sections 901.7 bicycle facilities and 901.8 pedestrian facilities into one comprehensive section. Our goal is to improve bicycle and pedestrian on-site connections, update it for consistency with the Florida green book. We're adding a new
definition for multi-use paved trails. Um, we're hoping that this uh proposed LDC will improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and strengthen the county's position uh to require land development to construct segments of our
multimodal network. All right. So, uh kind of overview of the the biggest changes here. So currently our bicycle facilities is applicable in resident res 3 future land use or higher in type 1 streets or
subdivision collectors and the facilities required include a bicycle lane uh which is a 4ft shoulder or a 12ft multi-use path. What we're proposing is a lane de development code that would be applicable to all development sites regardless of the
future land use. Um and it would be by street type. So on our arterials and collectors would have to comply with our accepted typical sections which currently reflect a 12-oot multi-use pail on the south or east side of the roadway. An 8ft multi-use pave trail on
one side and no bicycle no bicycle facilities on our residential streets. When we presented this to the ODT and HRT, there was some concerns about requiring one side of the road versus the other um and questions about what we
would do in the event that there is an existing alignment. Our goal with this rewrite is to ensure consistency. So, ensure consistency with our typical sections and to ensure that we have a consistent connected alignment for our multi-use paths on at least one side of
our streets. uh specifically our major roads, our arterials and collectors. Uh we also have language in the proposed LDC that states where there's an existing alignment, you're to follow that existing alignment. So State Road 52 is an example where there's a multi-use path on the north side. If
someone comes in with a development on the south side, we'd be requiring a sidewalk there and not an additional multi-use path. So on to pedestrian facilities. It's very similar to the way the bicycle facility section is currently written. It's applicable to resident res 3 future
land use or higher on all street types except for alleyways. Their uh developments now are required to provide sidewalks on both sides of the road. Currently, they're required to provide a 5ft sidewalk on subdivision collectors and a 4ft sidewalk on
residential streets. We're proposing a code that is applicable to all development sites. A five foot sidewalks required on the opposite opposite side of the street of the multi-use pave trail. Subdivision collectors have to provide five foot sidewalks and the
residential streets were up upgrading to a 5ft sidewalk uh rather than the four it currently states. We got some questions on this regarding how this proposed LDC would affect rural areas. In section 604, which is the northeast
rural overlay area, there's language there that would exempt developments in the northeast rural area from building sidewalks. Um, and our rural typical sections for our major streets do require a multi-use path on the south south or east side currently on our
>> major roads. We're also adding um a section here to require pedestrian circulation and connectivity on site. So this section would require site developments to connect all principal structures via sidewalks. They all principal structures
have to connect to each other to the public sidewalk. And where there are parking lots with a 100 parking spaces or more um they have to provide a safe direct path from the principal structure to the parking lot. We're also adding a payment in lie of
construction option. So this would apply to development sites where site constraints would make it difficult to or impossible to build the bike or pedestrian facility. In that case, they would submit a cost estimate to the
county. We'd review it um and take a payment in le of constructing or where we have a facility that's already programmed in the CIP. Uh we wouldn't make them build it just to come back and tear it out. This is a graphic depicting our vision, what we hope this proposed Luc would
create. >> This kind of represents like um an urban area where we have the 12T multi-use path on the south side on our major roads. Um 8 foot on the subdivision collector, no bicycle facilities on the residential roads and nothing on our
alleyways. Um, I forgot to mention in prior slides that we did bring this to the Tampa Bay Builders Association for review and comment. Um, most of their comments involved construction materials, what would be allowed um for the boardwalks,
multi-use paths, and sidewalks. Uh, we did communicate with them that we're willing to work with them, review those comments um, and continue to make revisions as we move this forward through the process. This was also presented to our internal staff from public works, uh,
transportation engineering, parks, wreck, and natural resources. So, with that, we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendments consistent with comprehensive plan. And I'm available for your questions. >> Can you go back to the slide about the
applicability? >> Yes. Uh, this one or by >> Yeah, that one. >> Okay. Um, for pedestrian facilities under the new ordinance, all development sites, does that include an MRS
subdivision? >> No. Well, the way I understand MRS usually fall within the northeast rural area and those would be >> they can be anywhere. They can be anywhere where there's a res one, a r flu,
>> then I would say no, this does not exempt that. But if that's a concern, we can certainly consider making that change. >> So then what's the necessity? So the MRS subdivisions
and conservation subdivisions are limited to I think flu categories that are lower than res 3. So what's the necessity to apply this
now? I mean the in the current code the applicability is to res three flu or higher then why the need to make all flu included. So the intent here is the way it's written right now with res three future
land use or higher. It makes it kind of difficult to interpret and administer because then there are questions such as does that include MPUDS? Is an MPUD uh future land use or higher? Is a commercial property higher than a future land use?
I'm I'm confused by that statement because you're mixing and matching. What does a zoning district a zoning district is irrelevant of the future land use category? There's if an MPU is a zoning designation, not a future land use
designation. And so I'm not understanding the difficulty in administering this. >> I would say that a PUD is future land use. So I think the I have a PD future land use. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And
>> so that same issue would be there is the the issue is what do we mean by a res 3 future land use or higher? And there's some ambig ambiguity in that. Okay.
And I'm just not seeing the ambiguity. >> Okay. I the lower ones are the agricultural ones, conservation and res one. Everything else is a higher future land use employment center, town center, land
development. So where's I'm I'm confused as to the ambiguity. >> And furthermore, they're changing. >> Aren't the future land uses changing and updates? H. >> Yeah. So, we're also trying to create
something that we won't necessarily have to completely revise when we update our future land use. >> Well, if you're going to change all the if we won't even have a res 3 anymore, then won't you have to change this? >> Well, I I've got a question, John. I'm
Mr. Vidy. Um, actually, I'm scrolling through this, Rebecca, and I'm not finding in the actual reference of the res 3 in the draft code. I always viewed this when I was working on it with you is it's attached to street type and that was it. That's your only qualifier applicability. So I'm not quite sure where the land use is coming in now at
this point because I don't see >> because it's in that in the land development code. >> It's in the current code. >> Okay. What section please? >> 9018. >> Yeah.
the red line. >> The red line 9017B on page >> 9017B >> of the red line. >> All development sites is defined in appendix A of the code. >> So currently um >> Oh, that's I was looking actually for
the res three here. Okay, got it. Okay, >> yeah, >> good afternoon. Nick Ren, county engineer. Um, I think the MRS concern is is addressed because MRS accessways are not streets. So, this says that you have
to build sidewalks on streets that are residential and on subdivision collectors, county collectors, arterials. MRS accessways don't constitute streets. >> So, I don't think it creates an obligation to construct sidewalks along
MRS accessways. I'm not sure there's a need for sidewalks in rural type subdivisions. Let's say somebody wants to come in. Let's say we want to build them. I'll use an example. I think one of the commissioners lives there, Arista. They
don't have any sidewalks. I will say >> tell you that in my own neighborhood I don't have any sidewalks and we all live on acre or better lots >> and because our lots are big and we don't have a bunch of traffic I can literally walk right down the middle of
my street any time of the day and not really worry about getting hit by a car. So, I'm not understanding the need that just because it's a street that it necessarily has to have the sidewalk. >> Even better,
>> I do understand when we have dense developments, that does make sense to me. But when we have more rural type developments, what's the what's the need? >> Yeah, Arista isn't even a good as good of example as like out, you know, by Bellamy Brothers, the fiveacre lots out
there. You wouldn't need sidewalks in it, >> right? I don't think it's our intention to to build sidewalks on in rural areas and we have discussed internally with staff, >> but that's what this says. >> We have discussed internally with staff um rewriting this to add something that
would exempt those rural areas. We just haven't figured out exactly how to write that yet. >> Well, then isn't it premature to bring this to the planning commission as a proposed ordinance if you haven't figured it out yet? We do our best.
>> Something you might consider is maybe by lot size. >> Okay. >> Question on the multi-use pass. Just for my clarification, if you could flip back on one more slide. Is the specifying of the location south
or east? Is that just just to have typical schematics and all that? Is that >> Yes, we're hoping >> for that. >> We're just hoping to align this LDC with what's currently reflected in our typical sections. >> Okay. >> So, how does that work for a traffic
circle? I think most of our traffic circles are done through with FDOT standards and I believe that those are they 8 ft along the traffic circles but I know we build them right now like in our various subdivisions um with
multi-use paths on one side and from what I've seen the multi-use path kind of terminates at our traffic circles goes to a wider sidewalk and comes back down. So shouldn't that be reflected or should there be some language? The problem is there's now am you you create an
ambiguity in the code say it must be on the south and east side and then okay I've got a traffic circle. Well I actually before I came here tried to sketch what that would look like and I'm like is this a bull bunch of bull's eyes? We
would have to make concentric circles around the traffic circle. >> I hadn't thought of that. >> Then at what point at some point the the multi-use path is no longer on the south and or the east side if it's going around in a circle.
>> Yeah. And you may be difficult too with roads that are diagonal to try to figure out all are we going to hold it to the north uh or the south uh parameter or the west parameter. So that's >> isn't the south and east just a recommendation for guidance. There language in there that
>> well the language says it it will be other than unless it was a previously approved approved MPU. >> That's the way I read it. D >> that's arising from my question. can certainly take those concerns back to our team and see what we can do to address them. I don't have definitive
answers for you right now. >> Yeah. Instead of specifying um a cardinal direction, you may just want to say on one side of the road, you know, that you have your multi-use and the other side of the sidewalk. That way it can be decided based on the situation.
I think the trouble we have with that is if we have a developer comes in, they're like, "Oh, there's We want to make m make sure that everything's going to be consistently aligned, and we don't want to run into trouble where, well, we don't want to
put it on this side, put it on the other side, and then it doesn't get built on either side because nobody wants to build it on on even one side." Well, you're if the ordinance is forcing them to build it, then you know, I actually sketched this out
to myself as well, just what does it look like if they're all on the south and east side? And the conclusion that I came to when I drew the sketch was somebody's living in the world where they're fantasizing that no one ever
ever has to cross the street. Well, you do. So whether we decide to put them on the right side, the south side or the north side or the east side or the west side, there's inevitably going to be a situation where some pedestrian or some
bicyclist or some golf carter must cross the street. So as long as the appropriate intersection precautions are taken, I'm not sure I understand the difference. Well, I think we're talking about two
different things because we're talking about the multi-use trail which is more expensive to construct than the sidewalk and who's ultimately responsible for that and I think she was trying to set the standard >> the ordinance sets forth who's responsible for it. What I'm getting about is specifying and I think that's
why the the builders when you met with the builders they had concerns that you're you're trying to regulate by ordinance which side of the street it goes on. And I think that what you'll end up doing, just like we have alternative standards
looked at for every development that goes through when we create an ordinance like that that is too rigid, all you're going to end up doing is processing a bunch of alternative standard requests to change it because there's never going to be a
situation in which everybody can comply with that. It would it makes more sense that the county engineer down here who's in charge of these transportation decisions looks at that and then decides what's the best thing for that project
rather than regulated. Otherwise, you're going to be processing alternative standard after alternative standard because there's going there's inevitably going to be ca cases that it doesn't work. >> I agree 100%. Yeah. attacking on a case- by case basis
instead. >> I feel like that could be potentially problematic. Um because what we're our goal is to kind of create a standard and just like we don't want a bunch of alternative standards coming in to request a different side of the street.
I don't know if it's reasonable to ask one person on our staff to make that determination which side it goes on for each and every project that comes through the county. Well, if I have a neighborhood that's not connected to another one, what difference does it make?
>> Part of what this is proposing is to apply this to site developments. So to individual site developments, not just like amputes or larger developments. So if we're applying it to site developments, then in my perspective, we
need to identify which side of the road it goes on because we're not planning to build the whole thing in one go. We're trying to apply to site development projects. similarly to how we build sidewalks
right now, which is typically through site development and in combination with our C CIP. I'm still not sure I see the logic, but >> I tend to agree with uh people that are talking about this up here because
there there, as you said, it's never going to be a consistent side that you want to be on and people are going to have to cross the road. >> That's what I get. And if I'm riding on the south side of the street on my bicycle and I need to get something to something on the north side of the street, well then I don't have a place
to ride my bicycle on the north side of the street, do I? I've got I've got to cross the street. Inevitably, at some point in life, you got to cross the street. You know, it was used to joke in my office for many years, the DOT would love a world where we never have to make a left turn. Well, unfortunately, reality is we have to make left turns.
>> Yeah. >> This is a traffic. Just don't do it on a red light. >> So, but this is what this this is what these sessions are for. So, I think these are good suggestions. I think we need to take them seriously because I think otherwise you're going to be
caught in a situation where you're going to inevitably put sidewalks where they don't need to be. >> I I think the intent, Mr. Sharon and planning commission members are to make sure or try to have continuity with different site developments. So they
they work together because as Rebecca has said, they're they're one-offs. You know, we we approve, you know, a platin site plan, then a platin site plan, and we wanted to standardize our requirements as best as possible. That was the intent.
>> Yeah. And I think that's Mr. Moody's intent to do it as best as possible. just give some flexibility that it doesn't just always have to be on one side or the other. >> Right. >> Well, but I I mean I'm I don't know. I'm I know this is very weird for me, but I'm kind of on the side of the county
that I mean I think that I I know I don't I'm hesitant on I'm hesitant on what the what the problem is with trying to come up with a recommended standard and then and then have somebody come in with an alternative standard. And there's going to be cases just like with any kind of ordinance, there's always cases where an alternative standard is
going to be needed. Um, so I I don't I don't know. I mean, clearly if makes more sense on side of the road. >> I agree with you. And that's that's my issue with being too rigid in
>> my issue is the language of the ordinance, Jamie. I >> Yeah, >> they're I don't have a problem with them trying to standardize, but you have you have to go into this with an understanding that that's an impossibility.
you're not going to standardize that. >> I wanted >> they can have a recommendation that we want to recommend it or it's generally our policy to do these things, >> but I don't want to create something and I'm sorry because I didn't want to use this language that's more restrictive
andor burdensome on the developer >> by the language. I think we need to be very very careful here. So I want to point out when as we're creating requirements right now we're we're operating in an area and we can
all sit here and deny it but there is a state law that stops us from that in theory stops us from passing any more restrictive restrictive or burdensome land development code amendments comprehensive policies etc. And maybe
they'll win in con in front of the Supreme Court. I don't know. Who knows how that'll happen, but I think we should all be conscientious of that and maybe try to think about that as in the language that we're proposing while we're under this period where there's
some mystery as to the applicability of that particular state statute. >> Well, I think from what Mr. Engel said, I think that's exactly what your understanding of what we're trying to get done here is, isn't it, David? Yes,
sir. >> The but the staff has to have some flexibility to make those determinations without coming and asking for an alternate standard. >> Yeah. I mean I I'll use I mean just take one of the bigger take like the OP or
something like that where they have approved sections for roadways with you know recommended you know pass sidewalks on various sides of the road. That's essentially what I see this as. And um maybe there's cases there where there are certain situations where they have to deviate
where you'd have to deviate in this situation too. But I it sounds like that's all they're trying to do is trying to standardize it somehow. >> And Mr. Chair, we did extend this draft to the TBBA. They had some comments that we were going to handle between the LPA
and the board of county commissioners just regarding the construction material and things like that. I I Rebecca, I don't recall that they had any questions about where we're going to put the multi-purpose pathways on which side. They didn't object to that. >> Okay. >> All right.
>> The other thing to think about, too, is um by designating, okay, multi-use paths are going to be on the south side of these arterial roads. So if you had two identical pieces of property, one on the north side, one on the south side, in theory, by having this ordinance, you
would make all the properties on the south side less valuable than the one on the top because it's going to be more expensive to develop that property because you have to have the multi-use path on that side. So you know, PE property owners that are on the south side of an arterial may be upset about that because suddenly their property is
a little bit more expensive to develop than it was before the ordinance. Uh I understand again I I I I see both sides of it. Uh what Jamie's saying that you know >> you feel very strong in both ways. >> Yeah, I feel very strongly both ways.
It's uh you need to standardize it but at the same time it's it creates problems. >> I just think this is this bringing it to us at this time with a lot of unanswered questions just seems premature. There may be some good things in here
and I think there's some good intentions. I think the staff has good intentions. I think it needs to go back and think about the different situations and scenarios and how will we handle this and how will we handle that and maybe tweak this
and then bring it back. >> Can we liken this discussion as more of a workshop? I mean, if you have if this is the only questions you have, that's good and we'll go back and and look at it and come back with something better. Is there any other is there if there may be something else that you pick up that
you want to discuss with us today so we're on target? >> Well, I think those are the biggest for me. I I hate to over regulate
which side, but the other one was the applicability. I'm right now making making subdivisions that go in res one forced into sidewalks I don't
think is reasonable. People People in rural neighborhoods don't demand sidewalks. They don't need sidewalks. Like I said, where I live, I can walk right down the middle of the street. I don't need a sidewalk. It's all good.
There's enough property between the edge of pavement and the rightway line. That that's not actually necessary. And in all honesty, if I'm walking down the street, it's only to go see my neighbor because it's a long way for me to walk
to. It's not like I'm going to be walking to Publix from where I live. So, I'm just not sure that that's necessarily applicable in all that sidewalks are applicable in all cases. >> Well, then taking those really two items
into consideration, we could just handle it as a workshop. Does everybody agree? Yeah, it's makes sense to me. >> Okay, >> we still need to take >> Should we continue? >> Yeah, >> Mr. Chairman, I just point out two things. Um, I own a home. I had six acre
lot. We had sidewalks. I was in the end of a culde-sac. And number two, I think the the commissioner that Mr. Moody was referring to would love to have had sidewalks on our street. So, it's uh it can work either way. >> Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. >> Yeah, there's places where it's obviously needed for you near schools. I mean, we talked about the sidewalk and 5A, you know, so it's >> Okay. So, is there anything else you need to bring? >> No. On a positive note, because I don't want you to think I'm just critical of
your ordinance. I think a sidewalk fund in this county is long overdue. What I would ask though is that you speak to Penllis County. Penllis County does it a little bit
differently. And the first time I was ever involved in it, I was a little taken aback. I'm thinking, how is this my problem? I was involved in a development where they asked us to build what amounts to a sidewalk to nowhere. And there was no
impetus for any of the other sites around there to develop or redevelop and build sidewalks. So it would have been a complete waste of taxpayer dollars, I'm sorry, of developer dollars and of no benefit to the taxpayers.
And they said, well, we don't take a payment in lie of the sidewalk. Your obligation is to build 470 some odd feet of sidewalk along your frontage. I need a sidewalk
over on this street so that these kids can get to school and it just happens to be about 470 some odd feet. You need to go build it. I'd ask you to consider that approach because one of the things that happens is this. If if I'm asked to do a cost
estimate for my client for a sidewalk, I'm doing it in today's dollars. By the time the county gets around to building a sidewalk, it's going to be in five years or 10 years from now's dollars and potentially by your language in the ordinance 15 years later dollars. And I
just actually just checked. I looked up what was the average rate of inflation from 2005 to today. It is 65%.
So a dollar in 2005 is a $165 today. So by the time you guys get around to building the sidewalk, the cost of the sidewalk is going to have gone way up and you won't have enough money to build the sidewalk. That's one of the problems we have with collecting mobility fees and building roads seven, six or seven
years later. Road costs a lot more money than we ever collected in mobility fees. So maybe it's maybe it's a better approach. And I'm not suggesting that we have to do it this way. I'm just asking you to go consider it that where can you put those dollars to use? Don't make a
developer build a sidewalk to nowhere today. Go make them build a sidewalk to somewhere today where somebody where the people can benefit from the sidewalk, not just stuck in a bank account. We did the same thing with the trees, and you know, we're going to get to that later. >> Yeah, that's a good idea.
>> We stuck all the money in the tree fund. We've had the money in the tree fund for years and years and years and now I got a room full of citizens down here going, "Hey, where's all the trees?" >> Well, let's maybe >> we're going to get the money. Let's do something. Build something. >> Maybe we could refer um the list of
priority projects that the MO adopts and the board sits on it. Um and there's sidewalk projects on that that are unfunded. Maybe we could prioritize the use of funds and get out on the street. >> Great thing to consider. Yeah. >> All right. So we we will honor David.
>> Okay. Is that all? >> Uh I want to make sure I understand your >> primary concerns here before I leave. Um so changing applicability to address land use specifically rural areas and addressing how we deal with diagonal
streets and traffic circles. Was that was that it? >> I think just the restriction of the language and east south and east side. >> Yes. the language reads right now shall be um right >> I think there should be some flexibility in that >> right I I understand that it may be the
desire >> right >> but it's when you use the word shall and you're mandating it that where we're having some heartburn over it we we understand that it could be our general policy to require it on this side or that side right >> but there's always going to be an edge case and you got to you got to be able
to do that with you you guys have to be able to be nimble and to move your you're hamstringing yourself. >> Understood. Thank you for your time and your comments. >> There's some folks that we're going to have public comment. >> Both.
>> Okay. Is there a list? >> Mr. Chair, there are no individuals pre-register to speak on this item. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to say that I I live in a rural place >> and I've >> We still need your name and address. So,
>> Melanie Lambertson, 184 Spring Lake Highway, >> Brooksville. >> Thank you. >> Um, I live in a rural place and I have walked and run in my neighborhood. It's not really a neighborhood, it's just rural
>> and uh I have felt I agree with Mr. moody that I can run or walk down the middle of the road some of the time, but um it's as a matter of safety, I would feel safer
uh on a sidewalk off the road, not because I think somebody's going to mow me over, but because cars would slow down and just be scary, you know. Um, this is this is just a safety thing for
women. Uh, I wondered why they're, you know, it's it's kind of far to go where I live, it's kind of far to go to a gym. Uh, I like being outdoors. I would prefer to be running and walking
outdoors, but it can be kind of creepy. So, I just wanted to throw that in the mix. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good. Anybody else on that subject? Okay. Need to continue or >> Well, I think he's asking for a workshop
so that there's no motions. >> You need to continue this or it's going to have to be reverted. You want to continue to a date, sir? That's fine with me. I think uh Mr. Engel was trying to avoid
any excess time taken up on it if we all had >> Well, I I think we have enough um material and uh what I'd like to do if we could just continue it to the next meeting. It doesn't matter which side of the county's on and if we're not ready, we'll just ask for another continuence.
But we're going to try to the board has wanted us to expedite this, so we want to keep moving. Thank you. I think everybody okay with that? >> Sure. >> I think that would be 102. >> All right. I'll move to continue this item to the October 2nd meeting in Dade City.
>> Second. >> I have a second. Further discussion. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I sign. Okay. >> All right. Crossing the street to item PC4.
>> Tough crowd. What was that? >> Southside or east side? >> Yeah, exactly. >> West >> item PC4. You are sitting as a local planning agency 4. That's PDE250469. An ordinance by the Pasco County Board
of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code creating section 530.25 backyard chickens and other sections as necessary for internal consistency. providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion
into the land development code, and an effective date. Okay. Good afternoon. Joseph Ryold, Planning, Development, Economic Growth. In fall of last year, the board of county commissioners directed staff to draft an ordinance to allow chickens in
residential zoning districts for the purpose of egg production as a response to the high cost of eggs. What staff is presenting to you today is the backyard chickens ordinance. Here is a summary of the proposed section 530.25 of the land development
code. allows for backyard chickens for the purpose of egg production within residential properties excluding ER, ER2, MF1, MF2, and MF3. ER and ER2 are agricultural zoning districts. They already have allowances
for chickens. MF1, MF2, and MF3 are multif family, and it's not a compatible use in those zoning districts. In situations where a commercially zoned property has a legal non-conforming use of a residence
um for the purposes of this ordinance, the property will look that be looked at as a residential property and they will be allowed to have backyard chickens. The setbacks shall be the required setbacks of the nearest zoning district
uh where they meet the minimum lot area with depth or setback regulations can be met. If the coupe is in the rear pro of the property, it can meet the accessory structure regulations which are five feet. The provisions of the pro proposed section will not supersede any covenant
or restriction of record. So an an HOA can have more restrictive regulations and the proposed regulations regarding the keeping of chickens will be addressed specifically in chapter 14 of the Pesco County Code of Ordinances.
So, while today we're looking at the proposed land development code text of 530.25, uh, for context, we did want to share some key points of the proposed chapter 14 of the code of ordinances. Section 14150
gives limits on the number of hens and prohibits roosters. There's a requirement for the property to be occupied and not vacant, and it cannot be used as a vacation rental. Section 14151
gives restrictions on the location of the coupe, the maximum size and height of it, the minimum spa, square footage per bird, also security, accessibility, and cleaning of the coupe. Section 14152, health sanitation and
nuisance. And that gives information on pest and rodent reduction, nuisance control such as noise and odor. Also addresses disease management and disposal of dead birds. Section 14153 permit process and
requirements. So there is the requirement for a completion of a UFIS course. It's basically going to be like a backyard chickens 101 best practices of keeping chickens.
There will be a one-time county permit that is required and that certificate of completement completion of the IFAS course is one of those requirements. Uh there's conditions for revocation and denial of the permit and also as well as public health emergency procedure
compliance. Staff recommends the local planning agency find the proposed amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan. And this concludes the presentation. I'm here for any questions. >> All right. The
staff was kind enough to give me a preview of this about a month ago and one of the things they said was that the class doesn't actually exist yet. Does it exist? That was at the time.
Does the class exist now? >> I believe they're still working on it. >> Do we have an estimated time when the class will be available? What I'm hesitant to do is to tell a citizen >> my old house >> here. You can have >> a 6acre lot. >> This what'll happen is this will get
reported on social media that they now allow backyard chickens. of course won't get allowed with get reported with all the facts and that the fact is you need a permit and the fact is you're supposed to take the class and then you're going to citizens going to call up and say well I want I just got my chickens
attractor supply I want to take the class well we don't actually have a class so >> when will when will pardon the pun when will all the ducks be in a row to implement >> when will the chicks be in the row >> Amanda Hill planning development
economic growth so we are working with our UF of ISO EFA's team to develop the course. Part of the issue is that the course is going to be reflective of the ordinance itself. So they are waiting for us to have a finalized version of that ordinance before they actually go ahead and prepare the course and have it
online. And like Joseph said, the code of ordinances will be brought to the board for adoption along with the adoption hearing for this land development code amendment. So the intent is to have that course ready by that adoption hearing. John, do you want to teach that course?
>> No, I don't. >> No. >> Want John? >> I don't. I >> This is one of these ordinances I will tell you. You know, >> I I have chickens. I've made no secrets that I have chickens. Um chickens won't
be chickens will be for some people and they won't be for all people. And >> my house. I'm sure some people will follow this ordinance to the letter and they'll do just fine and then there'll be some problems along the way, but I don't know what else you do.
>> Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> Only question I had in in the 53025 backyard chickens intent and purpose. Does that language in the third line where it says excluding er ER2 MF1 MF2
is that saying what it's intended to say? >> It's been changed Jamie. We actually worked on it um to make it clear for the intent and we have language that will be at the first public hearing with the board of county commissioners already drafted and added into the agenda for them. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Can you explain what the change is, Elizabeth? >> Oh, and do you have it in front of you? I can find it. >> I think I put it in an email to you. I can maybe find that >> while you're looking at that. So that nothing in this preempts existing provisions within HOAs that would
strictly not allow this. Okay. No. Yeah, the deed restrictions still control. If they have deed restrictions on a property, they can't have them, >> right? >> Grandmother >> and that's actually stated in chapter 14 as well, I believe. So, and the
provision of course right here >> 530. You got it, Joseph? >> I believe so. >> Is there any plan? One of the concerns I have, and this isn't any reason I would vote against this,
>> but is there any plan >> to communicate to this to the public? Again, what I said this a minute ago, what'll happen is somebody will report on social media, they allow backyard chickens, and there's going to be a bunch of people that run down to Rural
King or Tractor Supply and go get chicks without knowing what all the rules of the road are here. And I think the county has to really go out of its way to communicate >> that yes, we're allowing this, but they
require permits and there are regulations you need to follow. Otherwise, I suspect that you're going to get a whole bunch of people with backyard chickens that don't follow this ordinance. I think it's really important that you communicate this to the public.
I know there's a land development code and a code of ordinances because I it's my job. 99% of the public in this county has no do no idea that this document exists and is and doesn't know how to get to it. In
fact, I had one member of the community thought we the county was keeping it a secret. But um you've got to be able to communicate what the rules are because it's too people can easily go to the store and buy the chicks and have
backyard chickens in a matter of minutes. It's again I don't know that's anything you put in an ordinance and it's not a reason for me to vote against it. I'm just saying you need to be able to communicate that message. >> Understood. Thank you.
uh that language. Uh the ER estate residential district and the ER2 estate residential district are not subject to the requirements of chapter 14 of the code of ordinances as the keeping of chickens is permitted by right in those district pursuant to sections 509 and
510 of the code. >> One question I've got is we we define poultry as foul chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese. And then article three is keeping of live poultry. Then we just define chickens.
Do we need to does that mean we aren't there's no control on turkeys, ducks or geese are not allowed or >> are you looking at the chapter 14 language? >> Yes. >> Okay. The intent of those definitions and the way that I structured those amendments there is to recognize within
the animal chapter 14 deals with animals and you all these requirements of 14 will apply to chickens as well. Okay. Not ravy shots though of course but the idea was that going forward in the future to have a broader category that future amendments may be added to that if there is somehow this desire then for
turkeys or what have you and there's a couple of jurisdictions that have explored allowing ducks as well for whatever reason eggs or companionship I don't know but it's just kind of the shell of a a larger um code amendment that can be added on to in the future. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that makes sense. I just didn't
know if we needed something that says that Um, I guess we're if you think we're good, we're good. That's all. >> Are are you is your concern that the language isn't clear that you can only have chickens, you can't have
ducks, you can't have turkeys, you have quail. >> Is there an intent to restrict it to just chickens? And are we doing >> You only have rules for chickens right now. And it specifically says keeping of chickens, >> but there are no rules for the other things written yet. So there >> there are no rules for keeping turkeys.
I just do whatever I want with turkeys is my question. >> I mean we could add language to the effect that all the other things are prohibited unless otherwise amended. I mean that would resolve that. >> Yeah. I mean you know >> we can do that. That's >> does that make sense to do? >> Mr. Muns the the intent was was just to
allow and regulate chickens. No roosters, no turkeys and that type of felon, >> right? because and ease I would I would and again I know I didn't go to law school but um I would say if keeping of poultry is in there that would say that okay well then I can keep poultry but
you're only restricting chicken so all the others aren't restricted >> we can we can add I no problem >> that's what I was going to >> that's absolutely fine >> I got a question for Mr. Moody, as far as the um I guess this was established,
someone said that it was for the prices of eggs that was going up. So, in your experience, when you add all this, the prices really is it really cheaper to have your own chickens when you consider all the costs that go into it? >> Not under that ordinance. No.
>> Okay. No, my personal experience is well, there's multiple reasons people want to raise the chickens, but if they want eggs,
if you keep your chickens in a coupe and you feed them chicken feed that you buy at the feed store, the eggs you will have, well, chances are, unless you buy lean chickens, the eggs you're going to have are brown, which people pay a premium for those.
But you are going to have bright yellow yolks, which is what you get in the grocery store. And that is a chicken that is fed exclusively a grain diet. The people who pay the premium for organic and freerange eggs. They'll notice that the yolks in their eggs are
orang-ish color, and that comes from eating bugs and other plants other than just being fed corn and wheat and rye and the like. Um, if you got to pay to just feed them bag food from Tractor Supply, it's cheaper
to buy your eggs at Publix. If you want to let your birds roam around the yard and you live in the egg zoning district and can do that, well then they'll eat about half as much food and you'll get the nice premium eggs that you're looking for. And yes, you will get them cheaper. But
some people still want to know where their food comes from and I don't find any problem with that. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, that's exactly what I was going to say. The impetus to this might have been the egg prices, but that's a >> $7 might have. >> Yeah, that that's a cyclical thing that
will resolve itself, whereas this ordinance will stay in perpetuity in theory, but um but what also will will help with is um sourcing organic food and it takes some pressure off the commercial food supply and >> Yeah. >> So, that's from that respect, it's a
really good good thing. >> Yeah. I do agree with that. >> Or if you live next to John, it's cheaper. >> Yeah, just go next door. That's right. >> Take them. >> Take them. >> My neighbors are not complaining of a lack of eggs.
>> Do they get another >> Likewise, I don't have a lack of pork or beef? >> Do Do we have another four hens if there's an ADU on the property? >> I don't think so. I don't think this. >> Anybody else have any comments about this? >> Nope. I'm good.
If not, then I hear a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Mike sign. >> Was that motion with the uh amendment to the language to exclude
>> other poultry? >> Clarify 14. >> 14 is not really in front of you, but I'm going to add that anyhow. It's okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. >> Next. >> Next.
>> All right. Our last item on today's agenda is item PC5. That's PTE 25007. >> Oh, you guys didn't call for public comment on chickens. >> Oh. Uh yeah, I didn't get I didn't do that. Uh we need to reopen the
>> Is there anybody here that does want to speak about chickens? I'm thinking that you're mostly want to speak about trees. Is that right? >> Okay. Strong intuition. >> Okay. >> We're not ready yet. Nancy, >> we're not having
>> We need a presentation first. >> Can I say something about chickens? >> So, if you want to, I think we have to reopen the >> Yes. >> the hearing on it. >> Is it important, Nancy? >> No, it's just a comment. I gave it to
him to do something with it. Give us some eggs, John. Are you >> okay? >> Okay. So, our last item for today's public hearing is item PC5. That's PD25000000007, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners
amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, amending section 802, tree preservation and replacement. Section 802.1, intent and purpose. Section 802.2 applicability. Section 802.3
removal grading. Section 802.4 New Development. Section 802.5, existing problem trees. Section 802.6 tree protection. Section 802.7
trees of special significance. Section 802.8 heritage trees. Section 802.9 tree mitigation fund. Appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency.
providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion into the land development code, and an effective date. >> Thank you. >> That was a mouthful. Amanda Hill, Planning, Development, Economic Growth.
Good afternoon. So, I would like to just state for the record that there are some public comments and experte communications received by staff regarding this item, and those have been sent to the clerk's office. >> Right. I'd also like to clarify the efforts. I
know David started that discussion a little earlier on when he was responding to the citizen, but um essentially there are three separate things that are happening right now regarding trees. There's a tree mitigation fund resolution that was approved by the board on July 15th.
There is the minor land development code amendment that's currently happening. This is the one that's uh in front of you right now for consideration. and that's to address inconsistencies and put the change of contribution rate into effect. And then there is a substantive revision that's currently happening
right now. Uh staff is working on the draft coordinating with internal and external stakeholders and the intent is to bring that to you in November. So that's just setting the feel for what we're discussing today. So just to recap, over the last few months, there have been a couple
different activities um regarding trees. There was an LPA workshop at the June 5th meeting. Uh like I mentioned before, on July 15th, the board approved resolution number 25-291, which clarifies the use of funds
administration and increases the contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund. On August 7th, there was another LPA workshop regarding trees. On August 21st, the LDC amendment was brought to the local planning agency for consideration where it was continued
to today's state. And specifically, the LPA wanted to provide sufficient time for the TBBA to meet with the board regarding the approved resolution 25-291 and uh to discuss its potential implications. And as such the discussion occurred and
the board and uh TBBA ultimately discussed changing the cap for the contribution rates. So the draft that was approved by the board at the 750 meeting did not include a cap and this was discussed at the 821 meeting that we
had with the LPA. So we are now drafting an amended resolution that will include a cap of $3,500 per upland developable acre. The intent is to bring this amended resolution to the board for consideration at the 1021 meeting.
Just as a recap as well, these were the rates that were approved by the board in that resolution in July. And of note is that the effective date of section one contribution rates will be upon the repeal of section 802.3C1B3
AD of the LDC. So as such the purpose of this amendment is to remove the contribution rates that are currently referenced in that section of the code and to remove the purpose and authorized locations that are referenced in that section of the code
as well. And this would resolve the internal inconsistency that's currently in the code regarding this matter. and staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends to the LPA to find the proposed amendment consistent with the
comprehensive plan. I'm here for any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, just for the record, I want to thank the TBBA for participating in our exchange and dialogue. Um we had three things on the table when we started our final negotiations and meeting with the board
members. One was the cap because they wanted to control their financial exposure. Number two was uh grandfathering in certain applications and number three phasing in the fees over a period of three years. And in our negotiations, they backed off on two and
three. And they found that the $3,500 cap was very important to them. And uh I didn't I didn't meet with all the board members but there is a consensus of the ones I met with which is a which is three that uh there they were in agreement. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Any questions? >> So there won't be any grandfathering. They backed off on the grandfathering and so >> No, they did. They did because and and one of the reasons was valid and we really appreciate their consideration.
We've had lower two our fees have been too low for over a decade. So, you know, we you know, if they went into another county with updated fees, they'd be paying immediately. So, these tree mitigation fees are paid at the uh prior to the site plan or land development permitting.
>> Good. Anything else over here from the public? >> No, I mean I I guess just kind of expanding on that a little bit, David, though. I mean it and it does not seem fair that somebody took on a big project
and is a year into the process but just because this those fees haven't they haven't been told what those fees are and they're not due to be paid yet that all of a sudden they get hit with a different fee. That just seems odd to me. I've never seen the county do anything like that before. >> Well, that's true. In large MPUs,
it takes a matter of years to get all the site development permitting out the door. Um, we didn't even consider that and we didn't have that discussion with the TBBA about it. Um, certainly if they had mass grading, which constitutes a permit, you know, that would help them
out. But in areas they that are virgin, even though they have the zoning entitlement that, you know, under the way that the ordinance is drafted, they would have to pay the fees. >> I mean, theoretically, I mean, you could have you could have a project that's literally that's addressing round two comments today. this gets approved by
the board in a couple weeks and all of a sudden they get hit with new fees and they've been in review for six or eight months just on a simple site plan. >> Well, we have the TBBA saying, "Hey, when are we going to get this cap imposed?" They're anxious. >> They're not the only builders and developers in the world. >> Oh, they're only builders actually. They're they're home builders.
>> I mean, there's a lot of >> people that they don't do any commercial development. They build residential subdivisions. >> I I do appreciate that. I mean, the the cap was is a was a big thing. I I agree with that. I mean, I I can see why that was most important to them, but I still just don't I mean, I just have heartburn
with that precedent being set that all of a sudden we're going to yank the rug out from people. >> Well, you know, we have we have to start I understand. I mean, our view is we have to start somewhere. >> If you change if you change any other the county's position has always been anytime since I've been involved, if
your application was in, that's kind of what the the your application was in, then you go if it's not in yet, then you go to the new ordinance. Well, you could make a conditional recommendation based on that if you'd like. If the commission would like. >> Yeah, very good. I appreciate it.
>> One of the discussions we had though was having the fees in the ordinance not just being adopted by resolution. Part of the problem that I have with that, and it's not a problem with the five current commissioners I have,
they're reasonable people and they're they're business people and they're they're well thought and reasoned, but I may get a commission in the future that just decides, you know what, I don't think these fees are low enough. Instead
of $75 an inch, let's make them $750 an inch. and they can go in and have a resolution prepared, have it on the consent agenda like this resolution was with no public hearing
and you can have the rules changed in the middle of the game without any due process. And I think that's why it's important that the fee schedule needs to be in the ordinance. Maybe from time to time we'll have to update the ordinance with the
fee schedule, but then at least we have public hearings and we get to have the people like the TBBA and the ICSC or whoever come in here and talk to us about the fees and whether they're reasonable or whether cap should be there. And I'm not opposed to raising
the fees. I'm opposed to the method by which we're by which we're raising the fees. I think there needs to be due process. And I don't particularly find that consistent that not having due process consistent with our own
comprehensive plan. Our comprehensive plan has property rights element as well that says we will consider the Bert Harris act and in the Bert Harris act is a property
owner's bill of rights and number five in that bill of rights is the right to due process. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to hold public hearings. the board alls the ultimate decision and
they can raise them to whatever they want. What I'm asking is that they do that and allow property owners to have due process. When you do it by resolution that can be done on the consent agenda without a public hearing, that's not due process.
>> So, Mr. Moody, what you're saying is because the current ELP el land development code requires the fees to be set by resolution, we should amend that provision and then have the fees in the ordinance and sort of goes to a public hearing. >> Yes. Okay. >> And again, I it's not that I'm worried
about the five sitting commissioners we have there. Like I said, they're logical people. I'm not worried about them doing something. But, you know, the political pendulum swings over time, and I don't know who we're going to have five years or 10 years from now, and they could
decide, yeah, well, let's make it $1,000 an inch. Or maybe we get a >> the opposite. Let's just make it zero dollars an inch. Yeah. >> There needs to be there needs to be a process by which the public can come and speak, the the stakeholders can come and
speak more than just a resolution. And I did want to add some additional context, not necessarily for against what you were just mentioning, but um I know that uh Mr. Holstein mentioned at the last uh hearing that back in 2005
the fee was changed by resolution. I did some additional research and I went back to the 2001 ordinance that was done that actually put the tree mitigation tree protection ordinance into the LDC and um even in that version back in 01 uh it said here the rate shall be 100 thou
$100 per inch 200 for each 2inch caliber tree which rate may be amended from time to time by resolution of the board. So it's been a longstanding requirement within this that it's adopted by resolution whether it goes up or down. I understand that and I'm saying that I
>> doesn't mean that's a good thing, >> right? I feel like people have the right to due process, >> especially when money's concerned. >> And one of the things I've been very since I've been back on this board, one of the things I've been very consistent
about since the day I've been here is the people's right to speak that they get due process. I don't necessarily have to agree with everything that's said and people don't have to agree with everything that I say, but everybody gets their right to speak and I don't want to have a situation where, as
Jaime's pointed out, the rules can be changed in the middle of the game with no notice. >> Agreed. >> Okay. So, I think we've identified that that's an important factor in uh and what we want to see in that ordinance. So,
>> I think David, you've encapsulated what we've talked about and >> Yes, sir. Um, I recommend because of timeliness and both everybody wants to get this thing taken care of. >> Yeah. >> If you could recommend it to the board with conditions and revision requests, uh, we would carry it forth earnestly
for you. >> Okay. >> Well, when can I ask a question? >> Yes, sir. >> When is the rest of the tree ordinance going to be ready for us? it I I don't feel like it's proper to adopt a tree ordinance peace meal. This isn't this
thing in in the whole >> this just deals with the tree mitigation fees. It doesn't deal with ordinance. >> I understand. >> We won't have it to you until we understand and and there there's there's people are acting as if there's some emergency that's going to be some fire
that's going to be put out tomorrow afternoon by raising the fees. And the comments's been made in multiple hearings that the reason that the trees are cut down is because the fees are too low. Well, I tell you guys to go Google this because they just did. That the
rate of inflation since 2011, since this ordinance was passed is almost 50% in total. A dollar a dollar in 2011 is a dollar almost a$150 today. So,
we're going to raise the fees 50%. which that's keeping up with the times, but the the assertion is that the fee way back then wasn't high enough and that's why the trees were killed. Well, no, the trees the fee is about the same. The fees when you look at it in dollars
adjusted for inflation was about the same. And I've said this before and this is why I'd like you to bring this back in the hole. Fees for trees doesn't save trees. These people sitting behind you wouldn't be here today. There's been lots of fees
collected and they've got a giant tree mitigation fund and I and I appreciate that they're going to open the spot up and let some of these trees be planted. It's a good thing. But fees for trees hasn't been an approach that works. And unless you want to make it even
higher because we're basically just readjusting the fee for inflation, I don't feel like it's going to do anything. But one of the things that happened in the workshop was you showed us that Elatchua County requires maintaining 20% of the canopy. You shall
retain 20% of the trees. That saves trees. That you shall save those trees. That that that will guarantee that the trees are saved. Fees. I can just pass those on. I'll just pass those on to the purchaser of
the property. No different than when you want to raise impact fees. Who who pays those? The builder doesn't eat them. The home purchaser eats them and they're going to eat the fees for the trees. So, I don't think this approach works and we need to reconsider that approach.
It hasn't worked. And we've got nothing to show anywhere else that it works. Again, I'm not opposed to raising the fee. That's keeping it up for inflation. And I hope we do that with some due process, but it's an approach that I
don't believe is going to bring yield any different result. And I I'm not personally willing to recommend that we move this on until we've got a comprehensive solution to the trees. Collecting an extra $25 an
inch today isn't going to stop any trees from being killed, especially if they're already approved. How many plans are out there that are approved? that are ready to go. They can go knock them down today. It's not going to do anything.
But that's just me. >> Well, that's the main thing that concerns me. It needs to be done and it needs to be done as quickly as possible because we don't they don't have many trees to save. So, um, that's that's my
impetus whether it's fees or whether it's, you know, a percentage of the canopy. I can see the percentage of the canopy being important because you you're going to save trees then for sure because they can't just say, well,
you know, $3,500 for this oak tree. Sure, I'll pay that. I'll just pass that pass on. >> I'd note I quickly beat that out on the calculator. $3,500 is 46 in of trees, right? This >> So, >> that's one of those heritage trees.
>> So, I do like the canopy stuff because when they knock down those heritage trees, that just kills me. I just, you know, I just And I know it's more important to save canopy bunches in instead of individual trees. But still,
when you see a 200-y old tree and somebody knocks it down, that's just not that doesn't work for me. So >> yeah, >> and time is of the essence, you know, because especially if we're going to exempt those that are grandfathered in, people have applications in, which is a
fair thing to do, but that doesn't stop them from tearing down trees, >> right? Uh what I personally would like to see a continuence, but then staff bring back an ordinance and bring it back in short
order and bring it back in a form that guarantees trees are going to be saved. The public wants trees saved. I think the commissioners want trees saved. I want trees saved, but a fee is not a guarantee that the treere is going to get saved. A mandate that you're going
to save a tree is a guarantee that the tree is going to get saved. I guarantee you, sir, the uh the builders are going to love this that we're delaying this and uh I'm sure we're going to get a flood of site plans now, but um you know, it's your it's your decision and we'll carry it
forward. If you want to continue it, then we'll continue it and we'll we'll come back in November with a comprehensive. Again, I was recommending just moving forward because the board already adopted new ordinance um just to get this cap in place um because it, you
know, it's fair to our state outside external business stakeholders. They they they need it. >> How much time do um would staff need to um address some of the stuff that we brought up today? when we had the workshop in July. >> Well, there I mean there there's
substantive things here. Mr. Moody wanted to change the ordinance to require fees to be not approved and changed by resolution by ordinance. That's an LDC matter. Um uh Mr. Gerardi was a was concerned about
the effective date of these fees. That that's something we could bring back fairly quickly. Um and Mr. Moody, you wanted to focus, you wanted to do it comprehensively because you appreciate the inflation factor of the fees, but you want to have um teeth
in it that were really protecting and preserving trees like the Alua 20% canopy objective. I would say in terms of that last point, um staff wanted to ensure that we had the opportunity to have effective collaboration with TB and other
stakeholders before bringing it to you to ensure that they're involved in the process and that they could give appropriate feedback and November would be the earliest day that we'd be able to do that and allow for that type of collaboration. I mean, me personally, I'm not too concerned with the flood of applications
given the current market environment in the next month or month and a half. So, that's just my opinion. >> I also think November is going to come. We're going to snap our fingers and it's going to be here. So, I don't think there's any reason to >> to do it right. >> Right. >> Yeah. Take the time. Do it right.
>> Well, as I tell my family on Thanksgiving, I'll see you next time. We'll be We'll be back in November. It looks like. >> Okay. Then all right, do we have a planning commission date in November? So we can >> I believe it's uh November 20th if I'm
so me right. Patty, can you confirm? >> 1020. >> So before we vote to continue though, I think we have to provide the public a chance to >> Yeah, I think they would be upset if they sat there all day. >> Yes, they came for a reason. >> Yeah,
>> we just cut them down to one minute. Patty confirmed it's 11 uh 11:20 for the next meeting. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh I think we have members of the public that would like to speak. >> Oh, Mr. Chair, first on the list is Miss Partner.
>> There you go. >> Yeah. Hi. Um Julia Bartun, 2645 Meadowwood Drive, New Richie, Florida. And uh again here in beautiful Pasco County. And um I wanted to say uh just
speak a little bit about uh trees and um I notice when a neighbor cuts down a tree that immediately there are cracks in the road and potholes form. Um we live in a you know
integrated ecosystem which also supports us and supports developments. So when we clear cut forests and then burn the trees um it impacts us it impacts our infrastructure and impacts flooding also. So the
importance of trees in preventing storm water uh runoff is integral um because of their root systems. Obviously I'm against cutting down all trees except for invasives. I'd like to see those get
cut down. Um however the standard uh should not be to cut down any live oaks uh that are more than 24 in in diameter. That is a conservation standard. Uh so um yes increasing fees
may or may not be a deterrent. I I am in support of increasing fees obviously because the fees will go to tree mitigation funds. And lastly, I would like to say that um we're so grateful that everyone is working really really
hard on this and diligently and that um everyone here uh represents the concern to maintain Pasco's uh tree canopies and to preserve our legacy oaks and and our heritage oaks uh so that we can keep,
you know, Pasco County beautiful. And I appreciate all the work that and effort that you have all put into this and and the progress that's being made and the upcoming tree plantings. That is uh very very very very wonderful. So much respect in that. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> She's a lot less nervous this time. >> Yeah, I know she's better. Thank I realize we don't bite. >> Who's next? >> Next on the list would be Miss Katherine Capello. Hi everybody.
>> Hello. >> Oh, >> Katherine, we need your name and address. >> Hello. Hello. >> Just need your name and address. You've been sworn right. >> 66. Yes. 6646 Timber Cove Lane, Newport Richie. >> Okay. >> It's great to be here and thanks. I feel
like I'm speaking to the choir, so that's a nice thing. Um, trees filter the pollutants from the air. They provide oxygen so we can breathe. >> Yeah, >> that's a big plus. Um, preserving mature trees can also
increase the value of the properties by 10 to 20%. And along with what Sonia was saying in reference to um clean cutting when they just knock down all the trees, that creates um the greenhouse effect and all the carbon dioxide that was
trapped in the ground comes into the sky and makes the temperatures hotter. So, there's some really critical reasons for um selective cutting where you go in and you choose the trees to keep and you're
very um methodical and thoughtful about the process because it matters. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> You only get one shot at it. Sorry. >> Unless somebody hasn't question. Anybody
have a question for our first speaker? Okay, I have a question then. Come on up if you >> want. I just wanted to say that Jesse Foren sends her apologies because she got a flat tire and couldn't be here. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we're gonna scold her for
that. >> Thank you. Who's next? >> Next on the list would be Miss Nicole Lynn. >> Nicole Lynn. There we There we go. Nicole Lynn, 4921 Memorial, uh, Tampa,
Florida, Sweet 300. I have been sworn. >> Been sworn. Okay. >> Um, I just wanted to bring up I have, uh, been part of the meetings that we've been having with staff. So, thank you very much. So, we have been having additional conversations since the last meetings that you all have had. Um I'm
not going to regurgitate because you had plenty of conversation all of which um we had discussed except for I did want to mention two things. Phasing was a big concern. We identified that um love for it to be part of the um
conditions that you guys propose to the board um to refer to them because grandfathering was a big thing especially of MPUDS um as you pointed out. Um, and then the uh the last thing is really just looking for clarification as
to the effectiveness in your opinion as to and maybe Miss Blair can give some clarity on that, the effectiveness of anything moving forward due to the resolution and ordinance thing as far as the fees that the board had already heard so that we know whether or not for
planning purposes when that cap that we're trying to get included would actually take effect or in in uh the midst of ongoing conversations going till November what those fees that the board already heard would go into
effect. That's it. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I can give you my thought on that. The resolution is pretty clear that that section is not effective until this repeal happens. So, it really is what it is. It's we're in limbo until anything
gets adopted for that portion of the resolution. Okay. And somebody else on the list. >> Last but not least, Miss Melanie Lambert. >> Melanie Lambert.
>> Nancy supplement. That's >> Nancy. >> Jeremy wants to speak. >> Okay. hadn't anymore. >> Nancy Hayeswood 34110. A nice place. It's nice to see y'all again. You've been doing a great job and staff, you've
been very thoughtful with all this. Um Sasha mentioned uh Angeline and I've been very impressed with it and I was talking about it to people in my groups and somebody saying
oh no it's it's got a lot of homes in there and no trees and then I talked to the canobiologist and they said that some of the land was bought by either SwiftMUD or uh Elasp I'm not sure which
but you've got swasts of trees behind these houses through parts of it and it just makes all the difference in the world and I don't know what to do to encourage that but I think that ought to be a state of the art. John I liked what
you said about 20% that sounded real good too. Um our trees save our natural resources. we need them like somebody else was saying earlier and they complement the county.
I've also noticed a lot of the egg land has very few trees on it all of a sudden. I think it's kind of odd that people are going into their egg land with their cattle and cutting their trees. I'm going by some of these places and finding cattle. They found one tree
and they're all huddling under that. I'm not sure what's going on with that. And I was wondering if that could be looked into and maybe encouraged them not to cut their trees. I'm thinking, well, maybe they're getting it shovel ready and that scares the heck out of me. But,
um, I think you all are being very considerate and I hope we have something wonderful coming out soon that will start saving our natural canopies. Thank y'all. >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioners Jeremy Couch 17937 Hunting
Bow Circle have been sworn. Um I've heard a lot of information up here today. Um I generally um feel that this ordinance was passed very very quickly without much stakeholder input at all.
Um I am an affected party, Mr. Gerard. I have an application in process for an office building and I was told by staff that I owe a lot more money than what I had budgeted for. And staff didn't really know how to determine
whether or not that this was applicable to my project or not, my personal project. This is concerning. Um, I do think there needs to be a cap. I think that's very important. I think that needs to be passed as soon as possible.
Um the people who are going to be affected are the home buyers, particularly the first-time home buyers. You know, we keep taking now. We don't like 5 foot sideyards, so we lose 20% of
the homes. And now we want to save more trees. We lose more. It's going to cost $500,000 for a thousand square foot home in this county soon. So, we really need to think about the economic impacts of what we're doing. Um, I think that the ordinance
definitely needs to go through public hearings. I'm a member of the TBBA. I probably permit and build 2,000 homes and units in Pasco County a year at zero input into this ordinance.
Even the way it's written. I have projects now that the way it's written today before the cap. I have people under contract to purchase property and they're looking at a million dollars added to their development that they had
zero idea. Um I think we should only be replacing paying to replace trees over a certain size. A scrub tree, pine tree that grows this big in one year. Why would we pay $500
to remove that? It doesn't make sense. The enduser will eat this. The employees that we want to bring here and the employers when they can't get reasonable housing, attainable housing in this county for their employees will not move
here. So, I agree with the aesthetics. I understand. But I think we need to incentivize developers with increased density if they're going to preserve 20% of their land or their canopy, reduce setbacks, a give and take that makes reasonable
sense. And then further with that money, I mean, planting trees in a rideway is great, but that what that does to the county is who's going to prune the trees? Now, the county's got to pay to take care of these trees. Why don't we take this money and also purchase elamp
properties um to where we can have meaningful preservation and use in the middle of areas? I mean, there's a lot of good things we can do. It just happened. This happened really, really quickly and I was surprised and I was affected and I hope that this kind of
gets out in the open. It was well intended. I get it why it went through quickly, but it would be better to follow good due process. >> Jeremy, quick question. In the early discussions
about this, one of the things, you know, Mr. Gray and I had talked about here was providing a density bonus for saving trees. You just brought the same kind of thing up.
is there. All we've done is talk about it. It really comes down someone's got to come up with a number. You have any ideas on what kind of if one saved if let's say we had in in an
ordinance that we mandate you save 20% of the tree canopy. How much of a how much of a density >> 20% density bumpable? A 20% bonus. >> Give them a 20% bonus density. Yeah. I mean, incentivize incentivize these these type of things.
And I don't know. I mean, I'm just shooting from the hip. >> I understand. And that's me, too. I haven't thought exactly clearly through, but I'd like to see staff bring something like that back. >> Well, here's the conundrum, Mr. Moody. Most of our projects come in under
entitlement already, but we're giving a density bonus on something that's not going to be used in most cases. So, we'd have to find some other value to provide as an incentive. >> Well, I made the suggestion before
that maybe when of course Jeremy Jeremy may not agree with me on this, but maybe when Miss Wilhight and Mr. their hobby and the rest come in with their clients that the initial proposal is 60 foot
lots. And then when you save the trees and you provide the neighborhood parks and you provide the multi-use trails on whether it be the south or the east side of the street, then you get 55 foot lots. And when you provide the community garden like Angeline, then you get the
50-foot lot. And you know, if you want the goodies, you want to get down to the 45 foot wide lots, you got to give us back some goodies. Right now, we give it away. We And I know David sat up here and said, "Well, we've got certainty. We got PM26, which now we're we're
legislating via policy memo, but we've set it out from the deer. Look, we'll you come to Pasco County, we'll give you 45 foot wide lots. We need to have a negotiation session with some of these guys. We'll give you the 45 foot wide lots when I get some
things. You guys remember the in our code the MPUD is to be reserved for projects which are unique. Okay, where they have to create their own standard because they're trying to preserve wetlands or preserve trees or
some special feature of the property. We got everybody using the MPUD to just to try to maximize the number of lots I can put on a piece of property. I've seen giant square pieces of property come in here that are cow fields
with we're doing this as an MPU so that I can make 20 foot town homes under PM26 and maximize the the maximum possible number of them I can get without regard to >> I actually want to ask Mr. Couch a question.
>> Sure. Go ahead. And I apologize Jeremy. I >> No apology sir. Hi. Um, this resolution that's currently in effect that the board adopted has a lot of focus on the first section, but the last section actually has some very interesting things in it that you may
not be aware of. It's actually section three, authorized expenditures. There is the last paragraph there, number four, that talks about costs associated with the purchases of conservation easements or deed restrictions on private property. That that is purposely brand new language in there. So that's that
you can actually use the existing tree mitigation fund right now under this existing resolution to be able to do a project with the developer where tree stands are identified that are worthy of the canopy we're all talking about right now will be protected by this paragraph right now using tree mitigation funds. >> Yeah.
>> So it's not elap dollars. It's it's the tree mitigation fund that we have so much that's piled up and waiting to be used. So I would love it if someone could start doing this this idea here. And you know you're interested in using Elamp funds. Why don't you explore using tree mitigation funds under this
existing paragraph right now to save the tree stands, the canopy, and have the incentive that you're talking about? >> Purchase purchase properties that like are along the Anklet River or other places where they're they're critically important. >> Well, that's what El can be used for,
too. But this is specific to a project. And the concept behind this um actually came from one of our commissioners um legislative aids. And the idea is that, you know, you it can play out in a scenario like you're an MPUD applicant. You come in here, you work with natural resources to identify a tree canopy
stand that you want to have in the middle of your community park that you want to design around and we'll pay you to do that. That's right here in this resolution. So >> that's that's fantastic. >> No one's no one's noticed it. It's but it's here. It's it's a new step forward. >> That's very fantastic. Okay,
>> Elizabeth, >> it's because it's buried in a resolution that was in on a consent agenda to which there was no public notice or no public hearing. >> But I'm glad I'm able to bring it up right now in this context because it serves your purposes that you've pointed out. >> Thank you.
>> You need to be a that's why these things need to be embodied in the code where everybody can see them. >> I agree. >> And as M answer Mr. Couch's question about uh Angelene that ecoarter was purchased as part of the Elon program because it is a it is a carder that's
designated >> that started as a quarter. We bought that. >> But with regards to the grandfathering, I think we're all agree on on that that you brought up um as well. And you also brought up another good point too because there's a lot of discussion going on in this current environment
about affordable housing and you know so we have to balance that. You know we want to keep the trees but we also need to be able to keep the housing affordable for people to be able to have housing here in the county. So that's the flip side of it we always need to contend with.
>> I think my biggest concern about what Jeremy said is stakeholder involvement kind of lack of involvement in in the process. I know how active Jeremy is in this county and I think that that's all the more reason to continue this to to November for sure. >> Well, and I think that goes back to the
whole resolution for the fee. I mean, I think I brought up at the last meeting. I find it hard to believe that a resolution was adopted. I watched just because I happened I don't even know why I looked at the agenda, but I noticed that resolution was on the board agenda and I couldn't believe that the board was changing the feed on the trees and
there was not one person that I thought would be interested in that present at that meeting >> because nobody knew. >> Right. Exactly. That's my point. >> So, the only reason it got because one commissioner pulled it off the consent agenda. >> Correct. >> Yeah. No, nobody knew, but we we were in
discussions and I think I reported to the planning commission >> with it with with our sta exter external stakeholders for two years on it. It was it wasn't just an overnight deal, but you're right. It the actual proceeding wasn't public. >> Sure.
as far as a hearing >> and I would say since then the draft for the amended resolution has been shared with external stakeholders and they haven't provided any um opposition to what we've shared with them thus far >> had been shared with me
>> the TPBA >> their view is is let's do the cap as soon as possible that was their concern but >> yes >> but I I hear I hear you and and if the board takes a vote to continue to the November meeting we'll come back with a comprehensive a package.
>> And Amanda, I I don't mean to to sound argumentative. Again, the TB and and this is not to to say anything disrespectful about the TBBA. They're not the only developers in the world. They're not the only people who come in and apply for permits at the
county. Everybody is entitled to participate in the process. We have a state statute that says the property owners rights. There's a bill of rights in that statute. Number five is you have the right to due process,
not just not ex just exclusively for the TBBA. >> Anyways, I >> So, we have a motion. >> What was the date in November? >> 11:20. >> I prop move to continue this
move to continue the matter to the 1120 hearing. Is this in date city or Newport Rich? >> Newport Richie. and Newport Richie with the recommendation that staff bring the an entire comprehensive ordinance back to the planning commission for consideration.
>> A second. >> Motion second. >> And with your with your motion, you know, the consideration of the things that we brought up about the grandfathering and fees by resolution as opposed to ordinance. >> Yes.
>> All of those things. You got all those down, right? >> I'll watch a recording. >> I got I got >> works down there. >> I take copious notes. >> Got it. >> That's right. I know you do. >> Okay. So, we have a motion in a second. Any further discussion?
>> Not. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed like sign. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> I can still hear the can rattling. I'd like to thank all the members of the public for hanging in there and letting
us hear what you think and we'll try to do our best. >> Move to adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay. Didn't hear any [Music]
[Laughter] [Music]
[Music] Pasco County waterways and wildlife depend on you to keep them healthy. Excess fertilizer, grass clippings, trash, oils, and pet waste wash into gutters and storm drains when it rains. Storm water carries these pollutants directly into our lakes and rivers,
creating an unhealthy environment for fish, water foul, and other aquatic animals. Storm drains are meant for clean rainwater. Most other discharges are illegal. If you suspect an illicit discharge, please contact Pasco County Department of Public Works at 7278-34-3611.
>> Hey Tampa Bay, let's come together to conserve water. When it rains or rain is in the forecast, skip a week of watering and save up to 2500 gallons of water. Once a week, watering restrictions are in effect. Know your day, Tampa Bay. Go to my waterday.org.
[Music] [Music] [Music]