Okay, so do I do it? Okay, so I was already married. Refresh my screen. I am going to. I'm going
to head and call today's meeting to order at 630. Can I have a roll call, please? Mr. Chris
Curtis here, Mr. Vessey here. Mr. Zambellas is absent. Miss Francis here, Mr. Rochlin here. Miss Earley here. Miss Swenson
here. Miss Weaver here. Okay. At this point, would everybody rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance to
the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. And at this time, please remain standing. We like to do a moment
of reflection. Tonight's reflection is one of Easter. And unfortunately, the passing of
Pope Francis. Part of Easter is to learn that we can. Argue together passionately, but that
we can also disagree with grace. And perhaps tonight we can share our opinion, but we can disagree
with grace. Pope Francis. Promoted peace, unity. And he was a champion of the plight of
the poor. And I think that this board could always be reminded that we're here for all the citizens of Tarpon Springs, just not those that are able to come,
but maybe the poor that always aren't able to represent themselves here. Amen. Thank
you. You can be seated. Okay. Okay. The consent agenda. We have the minutes from our March 17th, 2025 meeting. At this point, I'd like to hear a
motion. Chair, I'd like to motion that we accept the minutes of March 17th, 2025, as submitted for approval. Is there a second? Second. Okay. A motion
and second. All in favor? Roll call please. Miss Weaver. Hi. Miss Swenson. Yes. Miss early. Yes. Mister Rocklin. Yes. Miss
Francis. Yes. Mister Vessey. Yes, Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. Thank you. At this point, I'd have our attorney explain to
those in attendance the quasi judicial announcement and the swearing in of anybody who wishes to offer testimony. Thank you. Chairman. Good evening. My
name is Ethan Evans. I'm here to explain in part the proceedings. We're here for tonight. As chairman said, it's known as a quasi judicial proceeding. So I'll read you a little blurb
here to familiarize. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Planning and Zoning Board acts in a quasi judicial, rather than a legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is
not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply the law that's already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the
hearing, and apply those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, in order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider
evidence at this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues. If the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established
in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant
has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. At this time, if anybody wishes to speak, testify
tonight. If you could stand up and I'll swear you in. Please. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth in your testimony this evening? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There are two items on today's agenda. We'll start with the first one.
A resolution 2025 Dash 29, conditional use for a child care center in the T5D district of North Pinellas Avenue. Transit
code 301 North Pinellas Avenue and application number 25, Dash 21. And this is also quasi judicial. Okay. Allie King,
principal planner with the Planning and Zoning department. Again, this is a conditional use request under resolution number 2025. Dash 29 for the property at 301 North Pinellas Avenue.
The property is approximately 16,800ft■!S in size. It is locad in the City Special Area Plan, specifically the North Pinellas Avenue Character District and the T5D North Pinellas Avenue
transect zone of the Smart Code. The applicants are requesting to get conditional use approval to allow a child care center and preschool at this location that would provide educational and
daycare services to children that are 2 to 5 years of age. The applicant has indicated that there will be nine staff members. That includes a director, assistant director and teachers, and they're licensed
to have up to 70 children at that location. The typical drop off time is 7 a.m. In the pickup time is 6:45 p.m, and those are also the hours of operation for
the facility. The property is outlined here on the screen in red. It's located at the corner of Reade Street in North Pinellas Avenue. The special area plan boundary is the dotted
white line here on the screen. The everything to the east of the white line is located in the special area plan, and everything to the west is not in the Special area plan. All the properties along North Pinellas
Avenue are in the T5D transect zone, including the special Arts. The subject property and then the adjacent properties to the west outside of the boundary are in the R m residential
multifamily district and then to the northwest. There's some properties in the GB General Business District. This property has operated as a child care
facility and preschool for a very long time. Records in the planning department has indicated that as early as 1926. However, that facility ceased operation in 2023. The Land
Development Code states that if an established conditional use ceases operation for more than one year, they have to file for a new application. So that's why you're seeing again tonight.
This use requires a total of ten parking spaces on site. There is a parking area. The spaces are not striped, but it can accommodate approximately five spaces. However, there is an
area for overflow parking on the adjacent property to the north here. That the is under the same ownership and can be used for the proposed use. One thing to note is both the subject
property as well as the overflow parking property do not have direct access on North Pinellas Avenue. So that helps with some circulation and potentially provide or prevents backups on
North Pinellas Avenue. Just zooming out slightly with looking at the context. Again, the property is in the North Pinellas Avenue character district of the Special Area
plan. This is primarily focused on retail development as well as moderate residential and mixed use residential development. The areas outside the Special Area plan are within the residential
multi or Residential medium Future land Use category. Overall, within the very immediate context it's very mixed use. There are residential, retail, office,
institutional and mixed use uses. Very close proximity to this property. So it's really a mixed bag. Looking at this aerial picture here, you can see that the existing structure as
well as some of the outdoor play areas are really oriented towards North Pinellas Avenue. That provides a little bit of separation and buffering from the existing residential uses that are adjacent on Reed
Street. There's also some existing mature trees and vegetation, as well as a privacy fence that also adds additional screening and buffering. Looking
at your conditional use criteria with regard to the Land Development Code, they are not proposing any sort of modifications to the existing site. It's been utilized as a child care center for a long
time and in the past, with any application, any future modifications would be required to comply with any sort of local or state codes. Looking at compatibility, as I mentioned,
the property is in a mixed use area. It is very common for child care facilities to be located near residential areas as well as places of employment. This allows for easy access for
parents to pick up and drop off their children to and from work. The adjacent residential homes do have some buffering by the building being closer to Pinellas Avenue, and some of the mature vegetation on the
property. And as I mentioned, the overflow parking does not have direct access on Pinellas Avenue, which helps improve some of the circulation. Getting to the site. The use is consistent
with the comprehensive plan as well as the special area plans. North Pinellas Avenue Character District, meaning that it's in a mixed use district. The site is
within the city's historic district, and the building is identified as a contributing, altered structure. They again are not proposing any sort of modifications, but if there were any future exterior
modifications, they would have to be reviewed for compliance with the city's historic guidelines and processed accordingly. The property is not on an environmentally sensitive site. Looking at property
values, the property has been utilized as a child care center for a preschool since 1926, and only recently had ceased operation. Operation. And the application again is not
proposing any sort of changes on the property. So property values are not expected to be impacted. Use is not going to adversely impact any sort of public facilities or utilities.
Represents efficient, orderly development by utilizing a vacant structure and downtown. And then lastly, all requirements of the Florida Department of Education will have to be met. And the
applicant will have to obtain a local business tax receipt for the operation of the childcare facility. This again is operating in an existing building that has to that has been used in this manner for
several years. The parking can be accommodated and it is not expected to adversely impact general health, safety and welfare. Staff does recommend approval of this resolution. We
have two conditions that we are recommending. The first is prior to the issuance of the local business tax receipt. We would like the on site parking lot to be striped in accordance with the Land Development Code. That
would include one Ada accessible parking space. And then the second is the local business tax receipt must be obtained within 12 months. This application was properly noticed, included 124
mailed notices, and we have not received any sort of responses or inquiries, and I'm happy to answer questions before we do that. I'd like to ask if there's been any ex-parte disclosures or
communications with the applicant or any any anybody do any independent research as to the site. Or does anybody feel they have a conflict of
interest? Now's the time to disclose that. I drove by the area. Okay. I don't think that counts, but that's okay. I think last meeting I started on this
end. So this meeting, I'm starting on that end. So. Okay. So I don't have a problem with what I see. I'm just curious.
Did you say there would be nine employees? Is that. What was that? Yeah, the applicant said nine employees. How many? How many parking spaces there on site? There's space for about five spaces. But then they have
the entire property to the north here that can be used for parking. Okay. That's all I have. I'm sorry. That's all. Okay. That's all I have. I have
questions on the parking also. You continually say the overflow, but actually overflow to me is above and beyond what's required. What's required are nine. I did drive by, and even
in the application it said there are 4 to 5. If you really look at it, I'm not sure what the Ada if there's really five there or four there. It's pretty small and 12ft is what's required for
the normal. And being a previous daycare mom, I know that's daunting heaven because I've been there before. But my concern is on the overflow. The
overflow is not easy. It's not Ada. It's grass. There aren't sidewalks or anything. So how do we deal with that? And what is the requirement? Because we only have five spots, we need nine.
What's the requirement for the land to be like four spots? Sure. So for shared parking you can you can have shared parking on adjacent property within so far distance. That's one
allowance in the land development code. This would meet that requirement. It's also under the same ownership. So they they can have that. And that can be used for some of their parking requirement. As
far as improvements to the property. I think that's up to the board. It's not part of the subject property, but it potentially could be part of the
application or conditions. So it's okay to have grass turf as a parking lot for a daycare
facility. And additionally no real sidewalk or entrance unless you go across the lot around and into the facility. So the
parking parking lot standards are not necessarily based off of the type of use. So that just because it's a daycare facility, that doesn't necessarily play into how the code is written.
But I understand what you're you're saying. The property has been used for parking in the past. There's nothing that's necessarily requiring it to be
upgraded in any manner. But yes. So it really shouldn't say can be used. It must say it must be used because you don't have
adequate parking. And the facility itself, it's counted as part of the parking. Yes. I,
yeah. So your questions you may want to reserve for the applicant. Yes. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Baskin. I do not thank you. I think it goes this way. So should rock. Yeah. Yeah, that's what he's saying. I quit.
All right. Thank you for your presentation. My question is, you have three different lots on this property. Are they all under the same ownership currently? There's technically
two. And yes, they're under the same ownership. And do we have any indication when the facility was previously used for pretty much the same type of operation
and occupancy, what the capacity of employees and students were at that time? I would defer to the applicant on that. I don't know that. I do have a quick
question. Based on the previous questions, there are two two properties. If the owner should
decide to sell the property that's taking care of the overflow, then what happens to the use? So let me clarify. The
application is for the 301 North Pinellas, which is the solid red line. The parking area that I have labeled as overflow parking would be for the shared parking
agreement. So for I guess, clarity and for assurance for the board, probably one recommendation is you could have a condition to solidify that they have to provide a shared
parking agreement. So that basically kind of ties that together. That is a requirement of the code to have the shared parking agreement. But you could add that as a condition, just to
add assurance. I think we kind of have to if there are nine employees, I think we kind of have to. Yeah, that would be one option. Go ahead. Thank you. So
just just to reiterate, you said that the use doesn't really apply, doesn't really pertain to the parking, right. As far as the use of the building. Correct. The design standards of
a parking lot aren't tied to a certain type of use. Correct? Correct. Okay. So just I want to put something in perspective because I think we're getting we're going down a path that's not necessary. I frankly, I remember when we were going
through the mobile food truck, we asked to find out the parking requirements for the distilleries and I believe whiskey distillery. Tarpon distillery, I think it was like seven that they were required to
have. So, you know, let's just put this into perspective as far as a daycare. Maybe there's nine employees. We have the shared agreement across the street, which is more than enough. The
daycare employees are the only ones going to be there all day, might not even be there all day. And obviously, you know, distilleries are for literally for people to come for an extended period of time and
stay. So I just want to put this into perspective that, you know, we're going down this, you know, for actual bars and restaurants on the same strip of land, just, you know, just a few hundred
feet down. We have seven spots required for a place for people to come and drink. So, you know, just want to put it in perspective. Just to clarify, that's seven right for distillery was required. I can't
say it's definitely seven. But the calculation is based off of the square footage of a building. So yes. All right. And nothing's changed significantly since the last time this was in operation. Just a little bit
over a year ago, right? No no, no. 2023. This is more of a just a courtesy. Something that's required because of every time. Because it lapsed. Okay. Thanks.
Okay. I guess it's me next. First of all, this is a conditional use. So if the ownership of the overflow parking should change. And this
is understood by the church. Okay, so if the overflow and obviously the, the church actually always uses the overflow, but if the overflow ownership should change, then
that applicant does not meet the conditional requirements. So that in and of itself should satisfy the fact that that whether you had a shared parking
agreement would be good, but not necessary because the condition change, because it's a conditional use. If that if you lose the parking, the condition
changes and therefore they would not be able to operate. Correct. So I mean they could go through the, you know, the functions of having a shared parking agreement, but they're doing it
with themselves. And so that being said. The other question I have for you. Is need. Okay.
Right now, how many daycares are in that particular area? Oh gosh, I could not answer that. I can't. There's only that's the only one. The other one is in Sunset Hills. The other one is
at Methodist Church. They have a daycare. I understand. Okay. So? So there's one on the western part of the city of Tarpon Springs. There's one that
services the eastern part of the city of Tarpon Springs. But there's. But this would be one that services the residential area and center of Tarpon
Springs. Would that be fair? Yes. Okay. And with regard to the criteria for employees, is
that based on the requirements of a daycare with that many students? I think that's regulated. You need don't you need I don't know. I guess that's a question for the applicant. But but defer to the
applicant. Licensing may require and that may be a condition that we look at that licensing based on licensing. The applicant will
maintain the licensing required for the number of students, but the number of they would have to comply with any sort of state regulation that, you know, that
they they must follow state requirements as a, as an additional condition. All right. I think that that answers my
questions. I'll let it go. Go around one more time. If anybody has any additional comments. I have one I wasn't sure what Georgiana said, but there are
requirements. It's three parking spots per 1000ft■!S for a daycae center, which would mean at 3300 approximate heated square foot or 3500 total square feet. It's
going to be at least ten. So that's the requirement for the parking for the number of spaces. Yes. Okay. I'd just like to add that anything like that would have gone through the technical review committee.
Correct? Yes. This went to the. So it wouldn't be something that would have to come to us to decide. Yeah. I was just stating the actual design standards of like, like curbing, striping, that type of stuff of a parking
lot is not tied to the use. Yes. Numbers is we definitely have standards for that. Okay. Without any other staff I mean board questions. I'm going to go
ahead and let the applicant let the applicant has a presentation or wants to address any questions. I'll let you please your name, your address and who you represent. Sure. I
appreciate the floor. And thank you, everybody, for giving me the time. My name is Alex Pappas. I work with Alpha Alternatives, representing the church. Our our address is 123
Tarpon Avenue, suite 225, in downtown Tarpon Springs. So happy to address any questions you might have about parking. Specific to the overflow lot.
Just to address directly address the questions that came up. If that lot were to convey to somebody else. The church is prepared to enter into a formal lease agreement to license those
spaces. So regardless of whether or not the lot would transfer ownership, the lease would continue to exist thereafter. At least through the term of that
lease. So having said that, if they were to sell one or the other, they would. It's in their best interest to ensure that that lease continues to the benefit of the daycare, because
without that lease, it would clearly impair the value as it's built. Right now, the best use is as a daycare. So without the parking, therefore it can't qualify as a daycare a daycare.
Yeah, but it wouldn't that be an internal issue because it diminishes the value of the church owned property. If they if they sold that overflow parking. The conditional use
would lapse. And they could not. So that's an internal that's an internal mechanism. Yeah, exactly. I just bring it up to address it directly because it was mentioned. And also I wanted to alleviate any concern that
that would happen. Okay. I, I have some confusion and maybe you can clear it up. Sure. The
overflow. Well, first let me back up and ask you if you were aware of how many parking places are are legally required to support the daycare center with
nine employees? I'm not. I mean, as far as I understand, you know, that's what the technical Review Committee suggested. And second to that. I'm sure the
state's criteria is just as rigorous as whatever the city has. Having said that, there's more than enough spaces to accommodate whatever our prospective tenant is looking for, because that's what they
told us directly. And they obviously having operated another currently operating another facility, have a better understanding. So them engaging with us to sign a lease is a good indication that if they're
not concerned, they're going to expose themselves and their security deposit. And I just don't think that's something that they would do knowing that they would never qualify. What
lease are you talking about? I'm sorry. Where? I mean, we're negotiating a lease right now, but through those discussions, there's never been one instance where they referenced the
parking that was between the subject property and the overflow as. So you're saying the parking, the additional parking required would be
covered by a lease? Correct. Correct. From. Well, the it would be the church that would be entering into a lease.
Correct, correct. Okay. But. You do understand that should that lease ever end or. You know, not be in existence, that then the
daycare would not qualify. So it's paramount that spaces be set aside somehow. And you're saying through lease, but set
aside somehow to meet the requirement and I understand square footage is involved things of that nature as to how many spaces are required. And
obviously, I don't know your square footage. I don't know your employee roster, but that's
the only catch, I think for most of us is just the parking. Okay. You need three spaces per
1000ft■!S, I believe. So I think that would bring us to about ten spaces. Okay. So if you have five, then you have to have five
more. Certainly that's that's what's contemplated at minimum right now just between the tenant and the owner. But is the school going to be temporary or
do you plan for it to be permanent? I don't I don't want to I don't want us to get off track and off track. No, no, some of these things are
landlord tenant issues and not when, when they have to do that internally. If, if they're going to rent it out, if the church is going to rent it out for daycare
and it requires so many spaces then and they have the overflow parking. It's up to the tenant who's going to rent that space to run a daycare, to ensure that
they have the spaces they need. Otherwise, if they do not, then they don't know. Then they don't meet the conditional use. If our conditional use says you have so many spaces. Okay. And those
spaces get pulled away, they violate the conditional use and they get pulled. So that's my concern. Yeah. Well that's their concern. That's between the landlord and the tenant to
negotiate. We're just saying yes. We're just saying you got to have so many spaces. Okay. How they get them and what they negotiate is between a landlord
and a tenant and not this board to tell or negotiate the landlord tenant issues with regard to how many spaces they should acquire. Or this telling
you they need seven spaces. Chairman. I mean, if it were because we're getting we're getting into discussions, want to finish questions and then not overflow its overflow if it's
beyond ten. Next question, next question. Can I ask a question. Go ahead. Thanks. Of you asking me I. I forgot your name. Pardon
me. Alex. Alex. Justin. There seems to be a bit of focus on the parking. I understand. Now, I'm also a real big fan of Chuck
Child Care and the VPK, so everyone is in there, but that looks like an abandoned lot. Would you agree that what's across the street is a parking
lot and what's called overflow parking right there just looks like an old lot with the house torn down. Are you does that look like a parking lot to you? Are you referring to the overflow parking? The one that
says overflow parking? Does that look like a parking lot, or does that look like a lot that had a house torn down? I mean, I know the way that it's been used ever
since. Forgive me. I didn't say how it's been used or how long it's been used. I said, does that look like a parking lot? Are there five delineated spaces
that could be used for the adjacent tenancy? I mean, there's no markings, but it's certainly used as a parking lot. And if I can interject, there are wheel stops on that property
that delineate some parking spaces for when the church is utilizing that space. So there are some I can't see those. And forgive me for being so direct, but I'm just trying to find out.
Is it a parking lot or is it just kind of a space that gets used? And I appreciate the conditional use thing, but it seems a little bit loose in it's
how it's being used. So to tie it more directly to the daycare, what's been contemplated is just opening up the fence to allow for direct pedestrian access
from the point where you park to enter into. So there's not direct access to the daycare right now. I mean, they're essentially connected. So as is
they just need to remove a panel of fencing. And so you could appreciate the concern that it clearly says that a daycare of X
number of square feet shall have ten spaces. It doesn't say it shall have five plus maybe some. It says thou shalt have ten. So how many? Let's say there was a
gate there connecting the daycare to that lot. How many spaces? Through a formal licensing agreement, would be
enough to. It laid out in the paperwork and that. So TRC committee says that you should have ten. Okay. So and I would guess forgive me for being so
bold that there should also be an additional Ada clearly marked spot, even though there is one in the front that you're going to use as a turnaround. It just kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
I don't see an issue with. Situating the parking lot that way, if that's what's being requested. I mean, and to the extent that. However you want to
identify the spaces in front that are paved as Ada or whatnot, if you know, we can only fit two formal Ada spaces there if that's what's needed. The church is in a position to
offer as many spaces as necessary to actually reach reach the threshold that's being requested with direct access
through a gate that connects that lot to the daycare. And would the church be willing to
accept as a condition of the board's motion, that there is a formal parking sharing agreement in addition to the conditional use that's already there, but
something that rides on top of that? Would the church be willing to enter into that agreement and provide that agreement as part of the conditional use application?
Just to be clear, you're referring to a formal lease, right? Yeah. Of course. Did that make sense to ask that? You got
a couple of nods that I did that make sense? I'd like to make a motion as it is, as it's written currently. Chairman, if we're there, I just the staff has written it. I just there's one additional concern that I have.
I just want to make sure my motion is heard first before any additional conditions are. You may want to add this to your motion as well. Okay. Thanks. Okay. If you want to hear me out, if you want to add it. All
right. Okay. Did everyone get asked all their questions? I think that. Okay. And you said something that I think bears probably consideration for a
motion is the reason there's a fence around there is to secure the students or the children from any outside. Sure. Okay.
But if somebody were to park on the overflow lot, because obviously you've got to draw a drop off and pickup line. What
you mentioned about putting a gate or I would not remove a fence panel, but I would put a secure gate on the on the back
to the overflow lot to allow parents to park without having to walk along, alternate 19 with their children as an access point just for people who wanted
to drop off. And because of the drop off line, because Reed Street is a one way street and cars park on both sides and you could cause a traffic jams if parents wanted to pull into the
overflow lot, take their child out and walk them to the daycare, rather than maybe having to walk through alternate 19 that they would be able to access the property from the
gate. Sure. Secure gate is that that's a rational, I think a rational, yeah, that's being requested. I'm sure that can be accommodated. And second to
that, I think it's the state's obligation to dictate what's appropriate for licensure for the actual daycare itself. And the intent of that lot, again,
isn't necessarily for parents, it's for the employees. I understand that I'm just looking at that for to the extent that if you've ever been down Reed Street and I have many times
cars parked along the street and accessing, it's a one way. If there was a drop off and pickup, traffic could back up on Reed Street, so the residents of Reed
Street would have a problem of and I mean, Georgiana, if you would add that to your motion. I think it's I think we've gotten extremely way off track here
because parking is not for us to consider. I and I want to bring this back to staff, and I'm going a little out of order. But considering where this is heading tonight, I think it's proper. Is this our concern? Is
this under consideration for us to go and consider the parking considerations, or is that handled at a level before it comes to us? So you you can
consider parking as part of your conditional use use. But as far as comply with the requirements, I'm sorry to hear from staff's perspective, they comply with the requirements of the code
because we allow for shared parking. And they meet that requirement of shared parking based off of the code. However, you can consider different
aspects for conditional use. But what I'm trying to say is that it has met all the safety standards, and nothing has significantly changed since the prior use of this as it's being
considered today. Right? Correct. Nothing's changed. Has has any of the parents ever complained to you about feeling unsafe or asked for any type of anything else? Protection. Have you ever had complaints previously? I took over
management of this property in October of last year, so I can't speak to that. The church has never expressed any concerns of that sort to me. So. And they
were the operator prior. So that's as far as I can comment directly to. Thank you. So I'll if that's what's going to get this done, I'll amend my motion to add, I guess, consideration
of a safety. There has been public comment. I just want to remind you have to have public comment. Oh, okay. Oh I'm sorry, I thought that we haven't had there's nobody here on this side. What I would say is just
just where the back part that faces the overflow parking. Just a gate. I know, I just think that. Yeah. So I'm sorry we didn't have public for the protection of children. It would
be easy for us, wouldn't it, to say. Well, they used to do it that way, so we should just keep doing it that way. So at this point, at this point, unless there's any questions of the applicant, I'm going to go ahead
and open up for public comment. Anybody want to speak in favor or against the applicant? Any
comments? Thank you. All right. At this point is there? I guess we've not received any correspondence or phone calls. No. Regarding this okay. So I'm going to go ahead and close the
public comment. And at this point now we can go ahead. I'd like to make a motion as it's written. And I guess with the consideration of I don't know how you want to word it as a
safety, basically that they have an access point, whether it's through a secure gate at the. From the site into the into the
overflow, overflow parking. I'll make that motion. Second. We have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion?
On that motion or in general on the motion? No. That's how the procedure works. So we're going to start on my end this time then. Okay. Roll call please. Discussion. Discussion. All
right. So I want to remind everybody that I hope that we in the future use the same level of scrutiny for parking for business applicants, such as mobile food trucks and
restaurants. Okay. This fits the comprehensive plan, which means, in and of itself, what Mr. Cody was Chairman Cody was mentioning is that we only have one other daycare. Okay. And this is not
outside research. This is me just living in this community for 41 years. And I know the other daycares because it's the daycare that I went to. It's called the Tarpon Learning Center used to be Rising Star.
That is the only game in town. And we used to have this one. Okay. And believe me, if Mr. Pappas thought that this was going to be an issue tonight, you would have had an adorable 2 to 5 year old little Greek kids
and other kids sitting over there. Okay. This was not what he expected. Tonight. We're out of control up here. Okay. So put the condition on it if that's what has to happen. But we need to get in perspective here. And,
you know, if want to be taken seriously, we cannot be getting out of line talking about things that are just not in our purview. So those are my comments. I'm all for it. This
is like we have this is the only second daycare in a town of 26,000 people. Okay. So those are my comments and I don't
finish my comments. And so that's why I'm approving this. You know, that's that's why I'm in favor of this. And if this gets continued, it's an embarrassment. I don't I don't want to go back and forth unless
there's issues with regard to the motion at this point. Okay. What's chairman. I'm going to call for just just that the planning department had the two
conditions imposed, and also that we brought up the fact that all state requirements be satisfied for the duration of
the conditional use for the licensing requirement. Yes. So my comment and discussion is, first of all, first and
foremost, I am not against this at all. However, my thoughts were that we should be consistent and forward thinking. That was my response and I was
thinking of things like what if some time before the daycare goes away, if it ever goes away, the church decides to use that property then? Okay. And
everybody's saying, well, that's their problem. But I think what we need to do is back up and there are parking requirements for businesses, for daycare, for
restaurants. And we have addressed those with with almost all of the changed uses we've discussed. Is there adequate parking? So I think that's my
confusion. Shouldn't we have some sort of permanent additional five spaces? You know, that would take care of that issue in the future? That's
where I'm coming from. But this is conditional use. So that's why nothing's permanent. That's literally what we're considering is conditional. It's not permanent use. It's conditional.
Okay. Go ahead. Okay. First of all the parking is a county Pinellas County requirement as well as a city requirement. Are we here to change what the
county or the city is telling us is necessary? Plus, it's not overflow. It is not overflow when it is not above and beyond the requirement. It is a requirement. It's not overflow.
It would be overflow if it was beyond ten parking spaces already existing. I think they call it an overflow parking because it's not overflow in
this case, it's. Oh, okay. Can I, can I add just go ahead and just before just just to reiterate, chairman mentioned
earlier when we were not in discussion is we cannot. Impose or ever even know what a private agreement like lease agreements. That is not our job, that we
can't enforce them. We not like. If you remember when we did the Moses Tucker, those are private agreements. We have no business knowing what they say. Those are private lease agreements. We can't say, you have to do this.
We can't impose how a business operates, okay? We are only allowed to consider what is put forth before us as a conditional use and not to go outside those
bounds. They're very clear in a quasi judicial process. So again we need to kind of step back. You know, let's remember same thing with the coach. There were no parking requirements for
coach. And honestly nobody you know like what happened. But you know mayor Mayor Vatikiotis did not have to impose those additional 18 spaces. He was under no obligation to do so.
But he did. So we can't be making issues under things that are just not under our purview. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and call for the motion. I think you wanted to make one addition. You wanted to
make one addition to it. And that that they meet the state requirements as well as the two conditions that the planning imposed. Fair enough. So there's two additional conditions. One
is that they meet the licensing requirements that the state would require for that facility as far as staffing. And two, that there would be an access, I think it would be on the north,
the north end of the property into the what they've defined as the overflow parking. I just call it the additional parking lot. And if you're good with
that, I mean, yeah, I made the motion as, as written by staff, which include those conditions. So I think that I'm going to I'm going to call for the motion as amended. Can I have a roll call
please? Miss Weaver? Yes, Miss Swenson. Miss early. No. Mr. Rocklin. Yes, miss. Frances?
Yes, Mr. Vessey? No. Chris. Curtis. Yes. Okay. Next. Thank you for your time. Bring the
little kids next time to block. Next item on the agenda is ordinance 2020 506, Land Development Code amendments.
This is legislative amending article two of the District Regulations section 20 5-12 HB highway Business District
application 2523. All right. So this is an ordinance for you all to consider and provide your recommendation to the Board of Commissioners for a Land Development Code amendment to
the highway business zoning district. And it is to allow a school of general education as a permitted use in that zoning district. The Planning and Zoning Department received a request from a local church
organization. It was the gathering with Jesus to consider this requested amendment. Staff did review the Land Development Code as well as the request, and
looked at the permitted uses. I didn't want to interrupt, but can the attorney can you do a little bit of a direction here? Because this is a land use amendment and not a quasi judicial. So a little bit of
direction for the board about how to consider this, because it's not a quasi judicial hearing. It's a land development Code amendment. Right. So I won't because we're not we're kind of skipping a he gave an
instruction for the conditional use quasi judicial hearing. And this is not that. So I think we need to for the board to understand what we're considering tonight, an instruction from the attorney before we and then also you
don't know I'm thinking I'm thinking about how to word it here. I mean, because it's different considerations. We don't have to give findings of fact. We don't have to, you know. So I just want to make
sure that the board's just a presentation and public comment. That's all. That's all. It's a legislative item. Yeah, it's a presentation of public comment. It needs a different instruction for us, but no application, no application of fact law or
anything like that. But that I mean, different, different process. But I mean, that is reiterated for everybody because
I think we understand we've been at this a while. I have, we have, but I'm just saying this is a different because we have people here tonight for this
amendment. But this is not an application I just want to make. I mean, I just want to the attorney has to give those instructions. I'm just trying to make sure that that's clear. And it's on the record. This is a
legislative item, not a quasi judicial item. There's no applicant tonight. Thank you. No problem, I said that was legislative. Okay. So again, the we received an application or a
request I'm sorry, from the gathering with Jesus to consider this amendment. Staff did internally look at this request and determine that that was an appropriate request. And it also
made sense for the zoning district that it was requested for. So we did forward this to the city manager, and he did direct staff to prepare the ordinance. That's before you
tonight, and it does recommend adding the school general education use as a permitted use by right in the HB zoning district. So to provide you with a little bit of background, historically, schools of general
education were really primarily public schools, which were most desirable in areas close to residential neighborhoods. That was most likely the mindset. And the decision in 1990, when the
Land Development Code was originally drafted and went into effect. This really allowed for students to potentially walk to school. It also helped with bus routing. But over the years, as
you all know, schooling options have really expanded and changed. They allow for now, you know, charter schools, they allow for private schools, religious based schools, and
there's a whole slew of different types of general education. Just for clarity, general education is basically K through 12 education. These
types of schools are a little bit different, and they typically tend to locate along primary transportation routes because they can serve students locally as well as in nearby communities. So the walkability
aspect isn't as crucial to those types of schools. They also tend to be smaller in scale, and they typically don't offer traditional bus services. So they need different context, essentially from a public
school. The highway business district is intended to provide predominantly high retail and highway oriented uses along the major roadways. The HB zoning district is basically found
along US 19, and at the very northern and southern extents of alternate 19. That is really the only areas in the city that that zoning district is located. That
district currently permits a school of special education by right. And some examples of what a special education school is are vocational and technical
schools, as well as instructional schools like dance, gymnastics, linguistic and drama schools. Things of those nature. So after looking at that, as well as some of the
conditional uses, like a daycare facility and seeing the similarities and characteristics. Staff did feel like that was an appropriate addition to the HB district to add a school of general
education, primarily because of its similarity to vocational and technical schools. So we felt that it was a necessary update to the code because, again, it
was drafted in 1990 and these codes are living documents. They have to be amended from time to time. So we do recommend the additions to the code. And in
the drafted ordinance, you'll see in section two is the section 25.2, the Highway Business District standards, which is the strikethrough
underline. It's very minimal. It just adds the school general education under permitted uses. And there's just a couple scrivener's errors that we've updated in there. With that I'm happy to answer questions about
this recommended amendment. Back on this side. No, no. This time I get to start. No no no, we started the same. We don't I'm not we're not going back and forth anymore. No. That's why we
did it. We went back and forth last time. You're right. Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. All right. Thank you for the presentation. We're currently updating the land development
code. Correct. It's on the docket. Yes. We'll be doing some updates because that's what because that's when we did the comprehensive plan update. That was the next part. Right. So you're that's literally underway
right. I mean I'm just I know you're busy, but yes I'm not saying I'm not saying are you not a full fledged update. But yes, it is not being me. I'm just I'm just trying to make a
point. Okay. So. Before when we were doing the comprehensive plan, we didn't find that this was a necessary change. Did we? I mean, not not this specific change. No, I'm just saying
necessary. That wasn't necessary until apparently now it was a request. Okay. But necessity and having a request, I mean, necessity is almost. How would you define a necessity? A need, right. Yeah. Well, we get
amendments requested from time to time. I'm just saying. But it wasn't when we did the comprehensive plan, which goes hand in hand with land development code. In the comprehensive plan, we didn't find that this was necessary
change to make based on community needs and everything that we did during the comprehensive plan, correct? No, but what I will say is that a n. Can I can I yes or no? It's I'm asking the question. It's not a
yes or no answer, but it's a yes or no question. Chair. I would ask that. Okay. But you control how staff answers. I'm not. I'm just saying, you know, if staff
wants to elaborate on the letter, please let let that is inappropriate for you to be interrupting right now. So go ahead. Let her let her answer the way she I just want to clarify that the HB zoning
district is compatible with the Retail and Services land use category, which was one of the amendments and updates that we did in the code. And the public Semipublic use falls in that category, which is this use
falls under that category. So it's an appropriate type of use under the comprehensive plan. I just wanted to make that point. The FTT, the fDOT overpass, you know, that's been considered.
Where's that going to necessarily go if it ever comes to be? I don't I don't believe that the final design has been decided at this time, but it would be near Tarpon Avenue. Correct. Would you say I, I
can't say well, the final design is so the other I one question I had was, do you know how many general education schools are on us? 19 currently? There are
several schools. There's two up and down. There's two. There's two zones that are general education ones in Dixie County, one in New Port Richey, and it's an online school. So I just want
to ask you that. So currently but in Tarpon Springs, there are no general education schools zoned on the very small strip that Tarpon has on US 19. Is that correct? They're not
allowed currently, right under the zoning district? No. So no one's ever asked for this before? No. So but now it's a necessity. Just I'm just
clarifying that. Okay. And the as far as the as the city manager directing this to staff to do this, what was his
direction, how the process works is when we received the request, we look at it internally, determine whether or not we think it's an appropriate request. And then we go to our our director, which is the city
manager, to say, do you want us to process this? He looked at it and he said, yes, go ahead and process it. That's the direction. He said it was okay. Actually, I did a public records request to say that it was okay
to submit to the commission is what he said that was. Well, that's the process is it goes to you first, then the commission. That's how the ordinance works. Right. But as far as his response, so those are the questions I have for you.
Thanks. Okay. No questions. Next. Thank you. Do you have any questions, Mr. Vessey? I just want to I just want to ask. Thank you for asking. What are
we actually looking at here? We trying to prepare for someone to make an application. Is that what's next? No. So this came
about when the gathering of Jesus contacted us to inquire about zoning. They are located on us 19. They wanted to expand
to allow for a school with their church. We told them that that is not allowed in that zoning district. There really was no avenue to allow it. So they submitted a request to for us to
consider the amendment to the code. So that's what we have processing. So really it's to look at the it's not specific to their church or anything at all or their application. It's
looking at the highway business district and the Tarpon Springs to determine whether or not a school of general education is appropriate in that zoning district. So it's a precursor to a possible application. Yes. We
would have to consider at the time that it comes up. So nothing this isn't really determining anything specific tonight. Just for clarity, for clarity how this is drafted.
Now, a school general education is proposed to be a permitted use. So the actual use would not necessarily come before you if they were to do any sort of site work that might require a site
plan that would come before you. Okay, that that's all I have. I have a question. Yes. Okay. Did you have. Yeah. One quick one. So on the site work plan would
come across. I mean, I drove by this one to what about, you know, traveling, you know, into the parking lot and exit. That's
a terrible area to begin with on US 19. Would there be, you know, any kind of criteria as to that would be on a site plan that
would be on the site plan then? Okay. Thank you. My question is why permitted use as opposed to a conditional use change that
that was when we looked at the similarities to schools of special education, which is already a permitted use in that district. We felt that there were they had the similar characteristics, specifically how it calls out vocational and
technical schools. We thought that those were very similar, and we felt that it was appropriate to put under
permitted use. When you say schools are special education, I'm trying to figure out what that what do you mean by what does that entail? Sure. So I can read you the definition that's
in the land development code. A school of special education is a school devoted primarily to giving instruction in special subjects such as a vocational, technical, music, art, dancing, drama, linguistic, religious,
business, secretarial, and similar subjects. Can you do us a favor and pull up the land development code? I have a really hard time finding it online. I can try to. You're
having some issues with the you can't just Google it. It's not that easy. The only way I could understand the difference between special education and general education is just by the
email that the gathering sent the application, but I'd like to see our land development code right now in front, and I'd like that in the future. I would like to see the land development code
as it's written. It is, and it's in the draft. It is also in the memo to you the definitions. Okay. But I'm just saying I would also like a link for the for us as the board, because I
cannot find the entire land development code to save my life
online. It is not easy. It's a very important document to be a little bit more accessible. And
my next question is why can't this? And again, this must have some comments on this for after the motion is made. But what is
why can't this be under special education? Why does it have to be under general? It's already religious because because what we're taking is we're taking the word religious and putting it under general education. Is that
correct? No. General education doesn't have religious in it. Correct. But it will under this amendment. General education is generally K through 12 education. That's the main
difference. It's not a specialized subject. Providing your typical subject religious has nothing to do with any of this change at all. Correct? It has nothing to do with the direction. You can have a
general education school that has a religious basis to it, but providing your at your K through 12 education, that's what puts it into the general education. Because this is an amendment, we
can also request it not just be permitted that it be conditional. Yes, you can do that okay. And that just and I do because I did a public records request and nobody asked about any external communications, but I did.
That's actually just through our own thing. So I didn't talk to anybody but our staff. And so, Renee, in the response to the email and her request to the city manager said, I would
request excuse doesn't make sense to change the zoning, but maybe under a general permitted or conditional use. So I'm a little confused as why it's being proposed to us is only permitted because that was not
Renee's email. That was not her instruction that she asked the city manager, I can show it to you or I can send I know, I know what you're speaking of. I have it so but I just this is
extremely important because this is like on a major highway. So I have the, you know, from your director her recommendation that got the approval from the city manager said general or conditional or permitted, she
didn't or permitted by right. She didn't say permitted by right only. And when we went through the full analysis and prepared the ordinance, that's not how it was presented. We process it as a permitted use,
but it's up to the board. How your recommendation, I understand, but what I'm trying to say is that we're not getting the full picture, and I'm not going to just sit here and let you just speak lies. And that's
what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Oh, my. What section do you want me to pull up on the land development code? I just can you just show me the entire land development code? There you go.
Just I want to see where it says land development code. And you can access it just for general, for everyone. If you go to the city's website under the
document library, there's a link to the Land Development Code. I don't have any more questions. Mr. Vessey, before I make, I'd
like to make a comment first. I think I think when we get back and forth, it does no purpose. I think we need to treat everyone who's speaking with with a
little bit of grace. Okay. Mr. Vessey, you had a question. Ali keen. Yes. Unfortunately. I'm
going to follow up on the difference between special and general. Hey, I think that this has shown something that might be this is very important,
obviously, but we might be able to solve some other things too, is that I have been trying to carefully read and figure out the difference between general
and special. They're so close. Use all the same words that it's almost like they are the same thing, but somehow they got divided up. Now, I don't have a
dog in either race. I think that it's probably a good idea, but if we were going to go so far as to propose or okay, an amendment that's going to go forward,
maybe we could clean up the whole topic all together. I don't know what that is. My first suggestion would be get rid of the two categories and make them one, because they certainly sound like one. I
think there'd be a fair argument that they could just refer to themselves as special education. It says parochial or religious five days a week. Of course, the only good definition actually
comes from the Gathering's letter. I couldn't find one better for us, so it's not so much. The question is that perhaps that a getting a
definition that we might understand, since we are proposing adding an entirely new use, that I can only speak for myself, that I don't think anybody is against. But maybe,
maybe more importantly, would be cleaning up this special and general getting just education. And then we're just done with that altogether. Just an idea.
Would you have any input on that? I agree that the two definitions have some overlap, but there are some differences that put you in one category or
the other. So I see that. Help me help me understand what those differences are because I can't find them. Yeah. It's the it's really the regular instruction at least five days per week
except for holidays or a normal school year. A school general education does not include school, special education or daycare facility. Those words is
the interpretation of that by planning staff is a typical general general education K through 12 curriculum. That is
that interpretation a typical five days a week school. It doesn't. Okay, I'm looking at the wrong letter. I can't see where it says K through 12. Look at that I would I'm let me see
if I can pull this up. It wasn't working too well, but let me see. In the staff memo I put the two definitions. I don't know if it's going to work. It was being
finicky. And I'm trying to help here. I'm not trying to dive in too deep, but if I can't, I'm thinking maybe nobody else really can either. So it's it kind of goes on to two pages,
but the two definitions are in the staff memo. But really, I would say the biggest I would say that this part that I highlighted here is probably the
biggest difference. And like I said, the interpretation of that is where you get put into that K through 12 typical curriculum, whereas a school special
education based off of the definition seems more like. I'll say, topic based or more of a subject or an interest. You
know, you have the instructional type of schools or dance, gymnastics, that kind of realm, and then vo tech, vocational technical schools, those are
more specialized uses. That's the differences. Could be. But I don't disagree that there they're difficult to determine. So then this is our this is everyday in the planning
department. This is the land development code based on just what you said. That means that based on what I just heard, that means it's special. It's special education wouldn't meet five days a week. You said that's the
realm of general education. So does that mean that special could not meet five days a week and could not be K through 12? I, I don't I think that was I
don't think I don't think that it, I don't think it eliminates them from meeting however many days they want to. But. Why are we here. And I'm still
struggling with. Yes ma'am. Remember this code is from 1990, right? Right. And that's not our fault. So. So when we hear
business school, secretarial school, this is all in the definition. Just there, there were specific schools to learn specific things. Just this was
to your point of combining. Maybe it's time to combine that something we can look at in land development code, I mean, this was just separate, parochial,
like the churches, parochial and public schools from those types of specific subjects. Just to piggyback with, Mr. Vessey said,
you know, it's you can fit the definition of because I don't know where you got the definition of special education.
That's something that was made up by the city or that's something that's that that is defined in the statute. I think it was made up. I guess what
we're saying is why do we over complicate these uses when it could have just change the definition of school instead of
special education or school of education, which would encompass education of itself. Now personally, personally, I was
surprised that it would be a permitted use for a highway business and not a conditional use because of the requirements that we may look at for
conditions to make sure that, you know, you just don't throw a school on on 19, which is a great F road to put a school without without having some, you
know, drop off, drop off, you know, access points, etc, that, that we could require that that
make a school city's footprint a little bit more designed to safe harbor the kids that go to the school and not having them
access to a 19 a real terrible 19 corridor. So, you know, I just surprised that we would look at this as a permitted use and not a conditional use. And,
you know, if condition, you know, I just have a problem making it a permitted use in general. So that being said, I
just want to add, I mean, because the code not being updated in 35 years is not something as I would be bragging about, because that is not our problem. And that's kind of what
was to my point is that it's being updated now. So let's do that. Let's not cater to is no offense against a future applicant, because this is the process that is being that is
not being basically pursued properly now. So to throw back that, well, this is a 35 year old code is not our problem and it's not something that we should just be like, oh well,
it's old, so we should just update it because somebody asked, that is something. No, just let me finish. That's something that we need to fix on our own, which is I that's what I was trying to clarify earlier,
is being fixed now. So let us finish that before, because otherwise we're going to end up with a patchwork of, of these things that don't fit. And again, this other places don't have a special and general
education I looked. That's how outdated it really is. So why don't we fix that first? Because it does seem like it's a little unclear as to why this is needed, because special education doesn't say you can't
pick up five days a week. So what are we doing here? Because again, this is an amendment that will affect all of 19 in Tarpon Springs, not just a potential
future applicant. So fixing it, fixing it right the first time and going through this process.
You know, if it's missing in our our. Long term goal. Obviously if we didn't think of it, you know it's brought before us now.
It's something that can be addressed to get it right once instead of trying to patchwork it in. So and I can if I can
just piggyback off of what you were saying previously, this is for your consideration. Recommendation. If conditional use is the board's control you could make, your recommendation
could be as a conditional use as well. So I just wanted to okay. And let you know. And that that could include that also can include the special education as well. As far as our
recommendation. Well, even though it's a permitted use now. Well the amendment is for that section. So you could you could technically I guess adjust that
as well. It's in the same code section based on these comments. Does the board have any other questions of staff before I open it up to public comment?
Applicant. There's no applicant. No applicant. Thank you. Okay, I do have a question. I realize that it might not be pertinent,
but what's the timeline for the school thinking that they're going to even want to move over there? I wouldn't know that answer. I'm sorry. Okay, I think
we've beat this thing up enough. Any public comment? Please, please state your name. Your address. My name is Cindy Stewart. I'm the pastor of the
gathering. Our address is 39918 US 19, in Tarpon. And I just want to make a brief comment. Thank you so much for all your information. And this is new for us. We're learning with you
guys. But we've been in Tarpon for 13 years now. We have a passion for education, for families, for education. We've had a college, a two year
college since 2014, which we've graduated 62 students from, and we've known since the beginning of our conception that we would eventually have a K through 12
school and we felt like this is the right time. Our church is growing. We have families that are interested in being a part of the school, and we just felt like this was the time to start
it. As to your question, when are we going to start it? We have to get all of our ducks in a row before we start anything. You know, we've done all the process with the Board of Education, with the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement. You have to get fingerprinted. There's a lot of governmental requirements, and that's the process we're in, as well as the approval of the Planning Board and the board of commissioners.
So do you have any questions that I could answer for you? I, I know it's just a comment, so maybe it's not a question I don't know. Yeah. I don't think
it's a matter of questions for you. I think it's just a matter of us as a board, making sure that that, you know, when we
look at, at something like this as a permitted use, you just have the right to apply with a conditional use. It allows the
city to put conditions in the operation that would protect students, for example. Or, you know, those are the things that that would be taking away from
from having conditions put in place. And I think it's important, whether it's this school or any other school, that that conditions be put in place, that that would, would be
consistent with like you, like you even said, requirements of licensing, etcetera. That may, you know, I don't know, permitted use. Would you just have I think you have that by
right to, to open up a school where conditions can be placed if it was a conditional use. So
but I appreciate anybody else have any comments to make. Okay.
My name is Keith Graham and I live at 6230 548th Avenue Clearwater, and I attend the gathering in Tarpon Springs. I
moved to Tarpon about two and a half three years ago in 2022. I'm currently homeschooling all my children right now. My wife
and I are and one of us works, one of us schools of kids, and we kind of flip flop back and forth. We do this to protect our children, just our beliefs, what we want to see taught in this
and that, but just with the current environment of, you know, schools these days and just the world we live in, we find that smaller is better, and we just feel like our children
would be more protected in a smaller environment with people we know that we've grown relationships with over the last few years. And I know that my family, amongst many other families, and only two of them
are here tonight, but there are many of us that are looking forward to this school opening so that our children can have a safe education, a quality education that encompasses not
only just K through 12 general education, but is going to encompass the special learning, the coding, the, you know, all the, you know, vocational things that the kids want to lean into
as a, you know, Montessori type situation, you know, it's what they're leaning towards. They're going to be taught in as as well as our spiritual beliefs, our religious beliefs. Those are going to be incorporated as
well. This is something that many people in the community desire. And, you know, it's not just tarpon. We're going to be coming from outside of tarpon to this area because we desire this
place to happen. And so we just whatever the conditional permitted, whatever it is, it is in the best interest of the future generations of this area that this school happens. Thank
you for your time and being here tonight. Excuse me. My name is Elaine Kay and I live at 5305
Peacock Drive and Holiday. Just a hop, skip and a jump above the county line a smidgen three miles away, and I. I'm part of the gathering as well. I'm an
educator. I was a math teacher and had an Indiana teaching license. Still do have my Florida teaching license, although now instead of teaching, I'm serving as a
hospice chaplain at mostly in Pinellas County, some in Hillsborough. But I want to attest to the fact of the educational ability and the degrees of the folks of the board of the gathering. So many
of them have doctorate degrees, and I personally received a Doctor of Ministry degree myself last year, something I desired all my life. And so I can tell you, I can attest to their
teaching abilities and their integrity and the quality of education that they provide, and how much interest they have in children that children develop
to their potential and realize their dreams and use their imaginations for who they can be and how they can serve their families and their communities
to the best of their abilities, and then empower others to do the same. Thank you. Thank.
Cousin. Any other public comment? At this point, I'm going to go ahead and close
public comment. Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion if it would be agreeable at this time to approve ordinance 2020 506 with
the amendments proposed by the Planning and Zoning Department. But as a conditional use for the highway business district, so that there can be further consideration and detailing down
the road, I would second that motion. Okay. Discussion. If I may start again. Forgive me.
Pardon me. Thanks. Discussion. Discussion. Discussion. Now you can talk. Thank you I think I first I applaud and am so happy
to see so many residents of the community and maybe outside the community, come and speak and passionately about your belief in the new school. That being
said, this is actually going to dovetail nicely is that no one is going to disagree with your desire to have a build a great school. That's admirable. It's
about the location and changing a long established zoning rule that really is about safety. And that's what this board has to
grapple with. And the board of commissioners will have to grapple with. That's really what it comes down to. And this will be my comment is, I think this
is a monumental change that should be taken extremely cautiously and carefully. Not that it's not a good idea. Just because we can doesn't mean we
should. And I shall quote forgive me, not ex parte, I'll just. I'll e.g. Generally planning and zoning would say that building schools near
highway poses significant risk and should generally be avoided. That's why it's not there now. Now, maybe this is a good location for that to be overlooked or something to be
changed. But my that's what the conditions would be for. Could be you can't unconditioned us 19 that you brought up as an F. And then perhaps if the school is allowed there and then they want
public transportation or use, we've got kids on a within a half a mile, arguably the most dangerous intersection in
Florida, which is one of the most dangerous roads in the United States. Remember that red dot thing we had up there? People die there all the time. It's unfortunate. It's
uncomfortable, but it is also the truth. So I don't know where that leaves us. We have a motion and a second and some nice people and it's a tough situation I struggle with also
with the words that said, the city manager put forth that we needed to do this. And again, it's that proactive rather than organic need that also brings
caution to what I'm seeing. Okay. Thank you for listening to that comment. Thank you. And actually, Mr. Vessey, is one of the reasons that I always go
back to. So planning and zoning is a comprehensive plan. Right. And then there's the land development code. Right. But they go hand in hand and often they'll say, well that's zoning. That's the code. That's no, but
that's all a bunch of malarkey okay. Because they go hand in hand the plan and the zoning. And again I want to second, thank you so much for coming out. This has absolutely nothing to do with with you and your church and everything. And what
you are asking for is 100%. You're just doing what you're supposed to be doing for yourselves. And all of my passion and my, you know, what I'm feeling is because, again, I
have to be the bad guy because of the process. And this is not how we conduct. This is not good governance. What's happening right now. And I'm not blaming the staff, even though it's just giving them a hard time. It
comes from the top. And again, it's you've been here for 13 years, right? And there's a lot it's not just you, there's a there's just a flow of things coming down that we have to just
consider now and again. It doesn't it's not about you, but because you're here again. So what's what's happening right here. My main concerns first of all are just zoning is the is
the conflict between zoning policy. So right here, like the highway business district is supposed to be for auto commercial. It's not supposed to
be day to day because it's US 19. There's a reason it's zoned that way. And the land development code is part of the zoning that you cannot separate them. So by saying that, you
know, basically what you should be asking for is a rezoning. And Renee, the director is not here, basically said, that's insane because you can't ask to rezone highway business. So their only
alternative to appease the city manager's request from you because he's trying to be nice and say yes to absolutely everything is to say, oh, well, let's just change this so that we can do that, right? Because
the staff has to do something. They can't just not respond to this to their boss. So but her like currently, you know, there's a reason that we do have these these codes. And I'm not going to listen to oh that's
been it for 35 years. And we haven't changed it because that's just a cop out I'm not going to listen to oh we haven't done anything for 35 years. So then that's why we have to do this. Secondly, again, this is
the most dangerous part between MLK and MLK and Klosterman. There are kids at night. They speed down there. There are accidents. It's one of the deadliest areas, and it's also
one of the most congested areas in Tarpon Springs. Don't let anybody fool you that the congestion doesn't start after Tarpon Avenue to where they put those apartments. It starts way back before Klosterman and in
between Klosterman and MLK. So putting a school bus stop there is insanely dangerous. And so that's where this is coming, because I do all I see, all
these adorable kids here, you know, and I it's not safe for them to be on either side of 19. No one should ever cross us 19. No school bus should be stopping there. The only school busses that stop on 19 are to pick
children up, but now we're going to be dropping them off is like insane in the most deadliest part of town. And we don't have tarpon, doesn't have much of tarpon. We don't need to be subjecting our kids to that. And
again, it's nothing to do, you know, with you. But the other thing that I haven't, you know, what's happening right now is that this. There's an there's a
integrity to the process. And, you know, in what we do here and what the department and the planning and zoning department does, and this is kind of backwards, right. Because you're all here tonight, but you're not
an applicant. So what I asked, is the applicant going to speak was a little bit of a joke because you're not an applicant, right. It's just but it seems like you are. So what's happening is that you've
requested this change. The change is coming. So it has now compromised the quasi judicial process that would further come from our from our proposal as a conditional use. Because how
could we say no to you then? You're the whole reason that we are even apparently is a necessity. Right? So again, I don't like being the bad guy
here, but it has nothing to do with you guys are just following the process. You did exactly what you're supposed to do. You're. I mean, you brought everybody out, which, you know, and I'm glad even Mr. Pappas
stayed to listen to another. You to your proposal. Right. So it has it's not a personal thing. And I, you know, and again, no one asked if I looked at any outside research. I have
watched, you know, some of, you know, your sermons and things like that. And we're a very religious city. We just celebrated Easter yesterday. So it has nothing to do with that. Those questions I was asking was
because I just didn't find that word in there. And again, it was just unclear as to what this distinction was. It has nothing to do with that. I want to make that entirely clear. We have tons of religions in this city.
It has everything to do with this process, and I don't want it compromised. And this is setting a very dangerous precedent down the road because, you know, imagine not being you
and somebody else coming to something else. And then we make this. I mean, it almost passes a permitted right, which I still think we have to hear. But if we didn't, then you'd just be you just be in like that. And I can
promise you that that is not what came from the director. And when I again, this is not a knock on staff because what staff feels is, is, is pressure to accommodate a new management
style, which is happening right now. So this is not the first time it happened. We're seeing this come down the line. And in the past, you know, it looked like a bad guy because it's
looking it's like it's not personal. So it's just a dangerous place. And as Mr. Vessey said, it is a it is a it's a monumental change. It is huge change, even though it is
not your fault. You're just saying, however, can I get this done? Can you make it happen for me? But if it can happen naturally as it is under special education, I don't see why it can't. And if it can't, then
there's a problem there. And again, after 35 years, now that we're finally amending the code, which apparently sounds like we're a little bit behind on, we need to get that done first, because we spent about almost a
half of a year doing the comprehensive plan, which again goes hand in hand with the code which the staff deals with, because we're not qualified to do that until now. So what I'm saying is, if that's problem
which we've identified, let's let them fix that. And maybe you can work under the special education anyways. So again, I'm really just talking about an amendment. I'm not technically
talking to you, but you're here. So let's face the reality. But again this is the process has been compromised by the way that this has been proposed to us. And it's like a reverse engineering of how it's supposed
to work. So when I say no tonight, it's not anything to do with you. It's just the process. And I hope that we can figure out a way to get it, get it done, which doesn't compromise
the safety of our children and anyone in our city in general on us. 19 okay. Thank you. Okay. I do have one comment and maybe
you can look at entertaining an amendment to your motion to not only to require that it be a conditional use, but also that
special education section also be deemed a conditional use as well. That would be our recommendation if you would put
that into your. Motion. Yes, I'd be happy to amend it to both definitions of both special and general. Would there be a second to that amended motion? I would
again second. Okay and okay. Any other discussion that I would call for, I would call I've got a quick question. So if the
board was to approve this the way it stands right now. What department further oversees the
safety of a school. It's not the board of Education, but who's going to who's going to see this. Let's say there is an application down the road. Who is it? The Department of
Transportation, who oversees a safety issue of a business going in on something like 19? I think that would be part of a site plan. I think that would be part of a site plan that would look
at it. Well, yeah, it would have to go through all the different departments if it was a conditional use to make sure, you know, and everybody would be entitled to their comments, but the school would fall under the auspices of the state and maybe
the county as far as licensing is concerned. They get involved with the safety aspect of things like that. I don't know. We don't know that answer. Okay.
All right. So we have we have the we had amended motion. We have an amended second, if there's no other discussion I'll
call for a vote. Sir. Are you move for. No, sir. It's closed. It's closed. Public. Public
public comment is closed. So can I have a roll call, please, Mr. Mayor? I'll vote no. Miss
Swanson. Yes, miss Earley? Yes, Mr. Rocklin. Yes, Miss Frances?
No. Mr. Vessey. Yes. Mr. Chris Curtis. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Next addition is. Been there a couple weeks, a good addition. Okay. The next item is board and
staff comments. No comments tonight. Okay. Staff. Okay. Any board comments? Thank you for do you have any comments? No. No problem. Thank you for having
me. I sure I have a comment. Yes, sir. The gentleman that came from Pappas, I the church. I apologize for saying that the
lot looked like it was an abandoned tore down that was inappropriate of me. And I hope you'll accept my apology. I
don't own it. So it's not taking up. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. I
have no comments. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.