PDD-21-0004

Every appearance2 of 2 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 90% of 157 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Dec 8, 2020
   Board of County CommissionersP119Public hearingApproved

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Large-Scale LARGE SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (REGULAR) – CPAL20-(08) Villages of Pasadena Hills - Transmittal of a Proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To the Future Land Use Element to Chapter 2 Goal FLU 6: Including Text And Figure Revisions To The including Core Reserve, Village Separator Provisions, and Effect on Existing Development Approvals, And Figures PH-5, PH-6, PH-7, And Ph-8 Revisions To Approvals text, and figures PH-5 through PH-8 revisions to Village I Borders; And As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date borders.

   Approved minutes

   Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda by roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:32:01
   ▶ 1:32:0132m

   Starkey

   1:32:01P119 was published in the Tempe Times on November 4th, 2020. Yes.

   Ernie Monaco

   1:32:09Good afternoon again. Ernie Monaco Planning and Development. Item P 119 is a well she's loading. I'll just read it. Is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAL 20-08, Villages of Pasadena Hills. This is actually a transmittal of a proposed large-scale comprehensive amendment to Chapter 2, Goal Future Land Use 6. It includes the core reserve, the village separator. The effect on existing development approvals, the text of that, and the f and figures P. H. five through pH eight, revisions

   1:32:39to village eye borders.

   1:32:44You can change things. Here you see a map of the Pasadena Hills area plan boundary. The recommended action is this to authorize the transmittal. Oh, I keep you had it, just put it there so they can see it. Yeah. Authorized transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, amending village separated provisions, effect on existing divan approvals and figures page 5, 6, 7, and 8 village eye borders to the Department of Economic Opportunity, DEO, and other reviewing agencies. Now, this is the key to understand what we're gonna do today. With the agreed upon core reserve text revision proposed by there are four choices here.

   1:33:14The VOPH property owners group, POG, to reduce the wetlands buffer from 100 feet, if their upland habitats exist else to 25 feet. The second option is the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee recommendation. They wanted to reduce the wetland buffer to match the existing code, landed on section 805.5, so that it would be consistent with the rest of the county. As you know, the VOPH is a specific area plan that's very unique, and they had more strict regulations on how to develop the site. And they hadn't wanted to be consistent with the rest of the county. And

   1:33:44then the Parks and Natural Resources Department has responded to the revised text. And the fourth option is have a discussion and give us the direction of where we think uh where we where you would like us to go with with how we define the buffer of the core reserve. I'm gonna get into a little bit of that detail here, but I want to give a little bit of other information first. Next? So we're going to talk about the Corps Reserve, the Village Separators, the Effect on Development Approvals, and the Village I Border Revisions. Now the village separators, the effect on development approvals and the village-yeah border revisions are all in consensus with the property

   1:34:15owners group the uh the the Religio Pasco Hills Planning and Policy Committee and the LPA. So that's not really there's nothing controversial about that. Uh it's a controversial strong word. It's in consensus basically. So we want to really want to focus today on the core reserve. Next.

   1:34:33So there's comprehensive plan policies that support the recommendation to revise the core reserve. And you can see policy flu 6.2, uh the natural resource protection 62.1 conservation framework. That's in your agenda memos. Keep going. Next.

   1:34:48Now, the Corazert overlay is illustrated in the next slide is figures PH-3, the open space system. And this is what it says specifically, it shall be specifically defined by the existence of Category One wetlands within these areas in combination. with the following parameters and resources to the extent that such resources are adjacent to defined category one wetlands. Next.

   1:35:10So there's the map. It's an old map. It's going to be updated as part of the changes we're making. Next.

   1:35:19So The revisions one through five below are the ones that everyone seems to be much of the consensus has been in that sense. Yes. Okay, that's between the POG, the property owners group, the P the Planning Policy Committee, and the LPA agreed to all those together. That was a lot of talk, and we worked that part. Next.

   1:35:40This is the actual changes. It's a red line text, but it's in blue because there are various parties that have added things. But you notice that the POG basically crossed out a few things and they've added that sentence within 100 feet of the category wetlands limits. They removed the contiguous one-a-year floodplain, the category two and three wetlands. And this is all rem and this is all regarding the definition of the buffer of the core reserve. And then finally they they struck it's they wanted a twenty-five foot buffer. So that's where we're coming from. That's the starting point. Next.

   1:36:09Then this is the text from the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee. And what they did is they wanted to strike out the number and just say section 805.5. They want to remain like the rest of the county. Next.

   1:36:21And this is just for if your information what what section eight oh five point five says. Right now it says the minimum twenty-five feet upland. But the the feeling was if you ch make a change in the land development code, that would force to have a change later. And they didn't want to do that. They just want to be consistent and that's why I wanted you to see that. Next.

   Starkey

   1:36:38I'm I'm not sure you explained that really well.

   Ernie Monaco

   1:36:41The Planning and Policy Committee did not want to put a specific number On the text because they felt like in the future if that defin if that number, the twenty-five foot got changed, they would still be stuck with that number. And they wanted to have consistency across the county. So that's why they said don't put the twenty-five foot in, put the specific reference the code instead. You see, so later on, like five years later, if things change, they don't have to go back and change again. That was that's all that was. Now at this time it's

   1:37:1125 and 25, but that's what they wanted. And then Parks and Natural Resources gave us uh response to all this. And I think it's really important, so Keith is here to walk us through that as well and really understand why these things are important. The Parks and Natural Resour uh Natural Resources recommends that the original Complant text, which is what I showed you originally, if you t if you looked out and didn't look uh go look at the blue part. Included the in which includes the 100-year floodplain, category one and two wetlands, contiguous to floodplains and uplands, and the 50-foot buffer to the core reserve, okay? They don't want

   1:37:42you to touch the original text. And because of various reasons, which Keith will also go into, he wanted to add this paragraph. Naturally vegetated uplands may include disturbed areas that can be restored to a state. that can offer equivalent functions as provided by natural wildlife habitats as determined by the County Administrator or Designee. Areas that may be excluded from this designation are areas cleared through bona fide agricultural activities, and not and this is important, and not as preparation or development, that cannot reasonably be restored to natural wildlife habitats

   1:38:12as determined by the County Administrator or Designee. Next. Now I want to make it clear the Planning Department does have a recommendation. Uh Planning Department recommends that the BCC approve the language for the Corps Reserve Text proposed by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources. What I had just read, the Planning Department supports fully. Wanna make that very clear. Unfortunately Terry Petos is not here today. Um he has a funeral, but he wanted to make sure that this was very clear in our minds. Next. Okay now I'm gonna turn this over to Keith. Who

   1:38:43is the technical expertise in this area, he can explain why these things are important. Uh Terry will not be here, but Pat Gasway will also is also on WebEx and he can walk you through the reasons why he felt that it was important for the POG to have these things.

   Keith

   1:39:02Good afternoon, Keith Wiley, Parks Recreation, Natural Resources. So I'm gonna try to simplify this. Uh hopefully a map will come up in a second that's gonna show I think really just paint the picture. Um but to to kind of Ernie, you did a great job, I think, breaking the summary down. But where we started ultimately was that a special district was was approved with a lot of conversations with the property owners, a lot of incentives were exchanged back and forth, and the core reserves were one of those things that were were required to make a 20,000-acre special

   1:39:32district come to life, right, at the end of the day. So uh where we Where are we s can you z yeah, I think you should be able to zoom out to get the full perspective. So really what you have is is is you have a conservation Strategy within a special district. And I'm just gonna kind of read, really kind of paraphrase the the actual objective: is the county shall protect the resources. that are unique within this area, including the Ridge, Lake Pasadena, Kirsey Lake, Buddy Lake, and significant clusters of wetlands and

   1:40:02upland habitat around these core regionally significant systems. So that was ultimately the goal. The goal was also to connect them to all the systems where you could. So I want to be clear on all the options that Ernie presented, with the exception of option three, that's that's my team's um recommendation. Every other option, if you look at this map right here, everything in green is the core reserves. Everything in orange, little red dots, and I think there's some blue, is is areas that were identified to be protected as a part of the core reserves. Any

   1:40:33of the other options other than three basically remove all of that open space from the from the from the special district. So out of 20,000 acres, that's approximately 800 acres. Really, again, the the ultimate focus was to protect significant, essentially significant uh environmental features, but also to protect that unique flavor of the district. I just wanted to be clear because it's a lot of information. And we've been talking with the applicants for a long time. And I wanted to make sure that the board understood that ultimately Any

   1:41:04decision to either reduce, uh effectively reduce the buffer, as Ernie had described it, um, from the core reserves ultimately reduces that unique character. You it doesn't really give you the ability to achieve the original intent.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:41:17Which is?

   Keith

   1:41:18Which was really to to protect the unique characteristics of V OPH. And from from reading, now I wasn't a part of that process, um, but from reading the you know all the information. I think ultimately that was the goal. And I think any decision to deviate from that gets away from that. What the policy does allow is it allows as site plans come in that individual applicants can negotiate modifications to that to that to that map, which is fine. But the applicants wanted to something a little more concrete now.

   1:41:48And I think as Ernie had described, Most of them actually I think want to be treated like the rest of the county. So any other option other than three effectively makes that special district. Pretty much. Like every other part in the county. So that's that's what I wanted to get across. Now I'm here for any questions. But I don't know if the applicant gets a chance to speak.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:42:08Yeah,

   Ernie Monaco

   1:42:09put

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:42:10the

   Ernie Monaco

   1:42:10pats

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:42:10on.

   Oakley

   1:42:12Hang on.

   Keith

   1:42:14Pat,

   Ernie Monaco

   1:42:15are you there? Pat or Christy? Yes sir. Okay, we're gonna turn it over to you and you can explain the reasoning behind your proposal.

   Pat Gasway

   1:42:24I'd be happy to. Thanks so much. Again, Pat Gasway with Height Design representing the property owners group, and I have been sworn. Um I think what we need to do is remember where this process started a couple years ago, and that was to try and take the opportunity to make the regulatory framework within the villages of Pasadene Hills more market friendly and prepare for an economy that now

   1:42:54we're experiencing. The notion was to remove the things that were onerous or particularly harmful to the continued success. If you'll recall back before we started this process for phases one and two of these modifications. We hadn't issued a building permit that was outside a previously entitled property.

   1:43:24I think it's important for the board to recognize that the original intent was to do things differently. The idea was to try and remove some of the things that were making it difficult for the development community to try to bring this. overall plan uh into fruition. So when we looked at the laundry list of things that should and could be changed, this

   1:43:54is one of those opportunities where we need to take stock in the differences between the OPH and the rest of the county. In the rest of the county, where we have substantive significant wildlife areas, you put them in environmental planning units and we Have critical linkages and the preservation of those key eco-corridors are something that does have regional significance and consequently should be

   1:44:25involved in greater regulation. Now, along with that additional regulation and preservation comes the obligation on the county's perspective to purchase. Those properties and not unfairly take the property from the property owner. It this is not the case in V OPH. These expansions of uh preservation areas as written. have no limit. They

   1:44:55literally simply occur to the full extent of any vegetation that exists adjacent to the category one wetland or a hundred year floodplains. And unfortunately, that creates problematic issues in the implementation. Our our firms have been implementing these rules now since 2008. And uh you literally can find yourself in the circumstance where category one wetland located on one property owner's property. requires in

   1:45:25these rules the preservation of upland habitat in properties that are not even subject to that application. the the the tendency of these rules is to create more challenge than it does clarity and consequently um The impact of having rules that don't exist elsewhere in the county, the confusion that comes from those rules. And the lack of

   1:45:55compensation to those individuals radically affected by this mandated preservation, we think is problematic long-term to the county. It seems wiser, while we're here, improving the regulatory framework to a more market-friendly condition to adjust these rules to a predictable amount. Yeah. I mean, I believe that the the property owner group's proposal of a hundred feet from the edge of the category one wetlands

   1:46:25was fairly generous. It certainly is predictable. And whenever we make rules that are predictable, the development industry handles it in stride. So the the nature of the fact that these rules become problematic, they're ill-defined, and are in fact unlimited in the preservation that they require, we believe is unfair, and we believe is problematic to the implementation long term. And we believe that it creates takings of

   1:46:55property that without compensation is something that the board should attempt to avoid.

   Starkey

   1:47:04Okay, yeah.

   Keith

   1:47:08So I'd like to just add two clarifying points. Uh through all the negotiations that Mr. Gassaway referenced, uh my team did work with um agreeing on fixing the actual map so that way through any type of FEMA expansions that we wouldn't that the map wouldn't actually get larger. So that was adding some predictability to it because there was a concern by by the applicant that the mapped areas would grow larger if any of the FEMA maps would change. And we also listened to them and we increased the allowable uses from

   1:47:38a stormwater and floodplain mitigation perspective, that we made those allowable uses within these areas. Giving the planning process a little more creativity and flexibility throughout the planning. And I would also remind the board that we again through site plan submittal, currently in the policy as written, that there are opportunities to go ahead and modify that map, those maps depending on the project through that process.

   Starkey

   1:48:03So I have some questions. Okay. And I'm gonna say this is co this is complicated. Where's David Goldstein? Is David at home? He's

   Joel

   1:48:13probably online.

   Starkey

   1:48:15David, David, are you online?

   Joel

   1:48:17Mr. Chairman Mariano's Joel two's also online. At the appropriate point I'd like to speak for the property owners group.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:48:25Okay. Well is it me or is it Joe? I would recommend that you continue with public comment. If Mr. Two wants to speak, now would be his opportunity.

   Starkey

   1:48:35Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:48:36I will wait.

   Joel

   1:48:37Mr.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:48:37T.

   Joel

   1:48:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Joel too. I'm legal counsel, as you know, for the property owners group for the village of Pasadena Hills, and I've worked through this two year process with Mr. Gassaway, I just wanna to briefly on behalf of the property owners group who feel very strongly about this point. Needs to find. If if you recall when we when we started this process the the mutual goal of the county and the property owners group was to

   1:49:09attempt to level the playing field. Within the bounds of reason to try to level the playing field with respect to the rest of the county. And as Pat pointed out, the real problem we have here is that everywhere in Pasco County, there's a very defined wetland setback of 25 feet from the category one wetland. Everyone knows that. So what the property owners group continually ask is why why are we

   1:49:39subject to something that is much more stringent than the other competing developments throughout the county? Uh in areas where you have preservation areas and eco-corridors, as Pat said, you do protect those, but there is an ordinance that requires the county to acquire or to negotiate to acquire those areas. In Pasadena Hills, these property owners are at risk of having literally hundreds of acres of upland, developable upland.

   1:50:10taken under the guise of preservation with no compensation system whatsoever under the plan. And in my view, it's a classic land grab. I don't think at the end of the day it will be legal if any of these property owners oppose it. Um Mr. Marcobi was not available today, but he called me, he author authorized me to represent for him that as far as his property owners in VOPH. He 100% supports the POG proposal

   1:50:40and opposes what natural resources is proposing. Um, I think it's also very important that your policy and planning committee They voted unanimously to abide by the countywide setback requirement, which presently is 25 feet. So their point is we should be treated exactly the same as other areas of the county. Your planning commission voted, I believe that also was unanimously, but they voted uh

   1:51:11because of the natural resource objection. They did vote to go with a hundred-foot setback rather than 25 feet, which provides a lot more protection than anywhere else in the county. That itself is going to use a lot more. Lot more developable upland. But we spoke with the property owners group this morning. The property owners or group will abide by the Planning Commission recommendation, even though it is more adverse to them than what the policy

   1:51:41and planning committee recommended. But there is no way that the property owner group is going to go with this natural resource. Proposal. It is going to be a major problem. It's not fair, and it's completely inappropriate to impose that. My final comment, and I respect Mr. Wiley's position, but his comment is that somehow this natural resource protection is absolutely critical to maintaining, quote, the intent or the character of Pasadena

   1:52:12Hills. That respect.

   1:52:16What makes Pasadena Hills unique is the village planning concept, the concentric circles, the concentration of the density in the center of those villages, the different size villages, the village separators which we're maintaining. You are not destroying the integrity of the VOPH planning system if you go with the property owner group proposals. These are two completely separate issues. And this issue has nothing to do

   1:52:45with planning or the look of DOPH. It has to do with grabbing land to preserve land in the public interest without compensating individual landowners and treating those in Pasadena Hills completely different from every other landowner in the county. And I respectfully submit that's a problem. And that'll become a problem down the road when natural resources tries to take 200 acres of developable uplands from one of these V OPH property owners. And

   1:53:16and and and it'll be your problem at that point when they file the takings claim. That's the problem. So thank you. We we we we urge you to take the Planning Commission recommendation. Um and approved that is is the property owner group request. Thank you.

   Oakley

   1:53:34All right, thank you.

   1:53:37Mr. Wiley?

   Keith

   1:53:40Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to add again, just as a reminder, this is not a new policy that my team is trying to add to the district. This is a this is a policy that was a part of the original package when approved. Yeah. I also I think um and maybe maybe Ernie can speak to this, there was a TDR concept that was proposed in the in the original uh preservation package. As for development

   Starkey

   1:54:02rights, some people aren't gonna know what that is.

   Keith

   1:54:03Yes, ma'am. So unfortunately I don't from every time we bring that up or every time I bring that up as a as a tool or a method for conservation, I'm told there's no market for that. So I I'm not a planner, but uh it would be great if that there was a market for that. But apparently in uh I think the issue is that um the number of units that are uh given through the approval process far exceed what could physically actually be constructed within the br the the boundary of the project, therefore nullifying any effectiveness of a TDR. I don't know if I got that right, but That's correct.

   1:54:34That's correct. So that might make us all pause and think. But um anyway, so I just wanted just to remind the board that it's it's not this is not a new policy, this is something that we're trying to call to the board's attention that was a part of the original approval. And I'm here for any questions.

   Starkey

   1:54:49Okay. So I do have some questions. Um and I don't know who they go to. And I did meet with Pat. And you know as a as a for as a landowner and that has had land taken. I I get the the taking but my under My understanding was that Increased densities were given in lieu of these spaces as part of the deal. But now you're saying there's no market value for those densities. So now I'm now I'm that's

   1:55:19causing me to think because really we're given we're given nothing that's of value.

   Keith

   1:55:24So again, in reading the whole file and the history of the project, what I understand, all 20,000 acres, there was an exchange of densities from what we're doing. was originally there. There's a whole again, it was the whole package. I mean the village separators was a part of this. Okay. I would feel more comfortable honestly if someone from if planning spoke to this, but Um I think my team's understanding is there was an exchange and increase of densities for the overall special district.

   Starkey

   1:55:51for people who weren't here when we were working on this and this was this was a lot of work and very, very a very, very uniquely planned area, which I'm very excited about because driving down roads that are just stripped out all over the county, it to me it's it's sad that we've developed that way. And this has a great opportunity to be something so beautiful and unique. And I don't wanna chip away at that uniqueness, but I wanna be fair as well. So Um So

   1:56:22the idea is we're gonna have clustered villages with open space around it, very similar to a European style development that is so charming and maybe that's what you see in New England

   Ernie Monaco

   1:56:32too. Um let me just comment because again I I wasn't here when all this was when this occurred, but from talking to people and understanding the concept of this, there were many things, not just the Coral Reserve though, that makes village of Pasini Hills very, very unique. It was modeled after the uh uh the British style of plant land planting where you have high density in the in the centers and it branches out low density. And I know that in particular that the original idea of that was to keep it more of a r of a not a a flavor where you had these separate villages. They were unique Um you had the town center in the beginning,

   1:57:02it was walkable. So all these things, all these things combined, and just look at the big picture here, really gave VOPH an award for for their design. Honestly, it was very exceptional, it was very unique, and when built, it will be very unique. to Pasco County. So I'm always for creating these new unique master plan type communities that are distinct. Uh there are a lot of things. It's not it's not but but again I and the you have to take the big picture here. There are a lot of things that make it unique. I think the issue that I see the way I interpret all this is the developers are afraid that you if you don't put a limit Then

   1:57:33they'll ask for as much as you know, the the they're afraid, okay? That parks may ask for more than what they want to give, okay? But that's the reality, you know, they don't want to give anything. But the reality, the reality is by putting a limit, it causes fairness and predictability. I think that, Pat, I may I maybe I'm paraphrasing you, but that's why that hundred-foot was put in there, because you actually wanted to be predictable. Everybody knew exactly what it was, they can get their field surveys and they They know exactly what was gonna be w used for the core reserve. Am I not right, Pat?

   Pat Gasway

   1:58:05That's right, Ernie. I mean, from our perspective, the idea of having additional buffers around wetlands is a very minor part of the hundreds of pages of regulatory framework that creates an interconnected nodal development where we have extraordinary design parameters that do not exist anywhere else. And and the idea that uh at that The

   1:58:36avoidance of an unpredictable and unlimited amount of preservation adjacent to a few. Category one wetlands cannot possibly substantively diminish the extraordinary thing that we're going to create here.

   Ernie Monaco

   1:58:53So the developers want the predictability and by putting in that number it helps them. But at the same time, you have to remember that every piece is unique, everything is is got special considerations to it. So I at the same time, Parks is concerned that there may be areas that may be past that that are very vital. So it's sort of a trade-off that has to happen. So am I pretty much summing it up as a layman here? Yes. That's that that that's where the conflict exists. And we need you guys to really

   1:59:19Yeah. the text for that core reserve because we've got to like to send a transmittal package out tomorrow if we possible.

   Starkey

   1:59:25Well I think that um if everyone is saying that um the one hundred preserves the village concept with you without

   1:59:38What uh you know, I guess I'm I I could be okay with the one hundred.

   Oakley

   1:59:43Is there um Anyone at the kiosks to speak to this? 'Cause I'm not sure I I closed that all for if there was anyone else.

   Moore

   1:59:52No not you, Ernie. You just asked them somebody if there's public comment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:59:54There's no one at the kiosk.

   Moore

   1:59:56Okay, thank

   Oakley

   1:59:56you.

   Moore

   1:59:57Mr. Chairman Mariano. Um Ernie or Keith, tell how large is the superpark? Again, how many acres?

   Oakley

   2:00:05Three hundred acres. Two hundred and something acres?

   Moore

   2:00:07Three hundred even.

   2:00:11That's gonna be one obviously something that has not been, you know, done in the in the county before. Oh except always we have Starkey and things like that. This is I guess a district super park a little bit different, right? Um So obviously that's a a great benefit that all the citizens will have too and then and I'm in agreement. I think I'm in a I'm in a compromising mo mood today. So I think that hundred foot it would be satisfactory to to move forward with itself. We talk about the um diminishing an area or the um what what

   2:00:41our citizens are having to look at. We stop uh approving apartments all the time. That can cure that real easy. Um I saw a laugh there, right? Um So I'll I I mean if there's uh public comments over, I'll make the motion to to to approve P 119 um with the addition of the 100-foot buffer as as put forward by the Planning Commission.

   Ernie Monaco

   2:01:06That mo yes, as that's the Planning Commission as well. And then you know the plan the POG also wanted that recommendation as well. So it's what exists right now or what you have in your packet as an as a as an attachment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:01:18Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes, sir. So this would be transmittal. This is not approval.

   Ernie Monaco

   2:01:25Yeah, it's a transmittable, but I have to transmit the text to the DEO and I needed to know their direction on the text.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:01:31I understand that. The commissioner just made a motion to approve the item. Okay. Oh yeah.

   Moore

   2:01:36Okay. So we will say to uh add that one hundred foot buffer in the transmittal. Yeah, we can go back to that. Okay. Direction, I guess, from this report. We don't have to do that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:01:47Okay. You do vote on it, but it's transmittal. You're not adopting the plan amendment.

   Ernie Monaco

   2:01:51We're voting on the transmittal. Right. Yeah. It's just the text that goes to the transmittal. Now there are other issues in the in this slide I can present to you. Uh they were the ones about the village separator issues and the effect on existing developments and the village I borders. There's no d a controversy with that. I mean I I can go through that if you would like.

   Starkey

   2:02:09I just want to make sure we're preserving the village feel.

   Ernie Monaco

   2:02:13The village centers are not are intact. That doesn't affect the village centers. So the densities are still intact. They still go high to low as you move out. It's just particular areas that are are are buffers to environmental areas that are being preserved. Uh that's what's that's and then they're putting a one hundred foot limit on it. That's what the the POG and the L P A wanted.

   Oakley

   2:02:34There's a village. There's

   Ernie Monaco

   2:02:36still a village,

   Oakley

   2:02:37yes. Or is there's a buffer between landowners?

   Ernie Monaco

   2:02:41There is a village separator between villages that acts like a buffer, but is actually a separator between villages. So for example, if I'm driving down the street and I'm between two villages, I will not see buildings like one subdivision that you have next to another. In fact, I will have 150 feet, and there may be kids. Playing in the ball field, other kinds of recreation uses. There may be parks, but it's a it's an area that is active, but it's still not buildable in the sense of people living there, or there's no business in that sense. It's between the villages. So you have that area

   2:03:11that separates the villages, then you've got low density, and then you've got in the center the villages that are higher density that has some of the commercial activity. And that's about a dozen or so villages will have that. That's intact. This doesn't

   2:03:25Okay. Okay.

   Oakley

   2:03:28So we need to um you

   Moore

   2:03:30know motion

   Oakley

   2:03:31I have a motion to have a second. There you go.

   Starkey

   2:03:34I seconded.

   Oakley

   2:03:36Uh by roll call vote.

   Starkey

   2:03:38District 2, Commissioner Moore.

   Oakley

   2:03:40Aye.

   Starkey

   2:03:40District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District 5, Commissioner Mariano. Aye.

   Oakley

   2:03:48Aye.

   Starkey

   2:03:48District one, Chairman Oakley.

   Oakley

   2:03:50Aye. Motion pass five zero.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:03:53Okay.

   Ernie Monaco

   2:03:55Text will go to to the DEO. That's what we're doing. We're not approving the project. Right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:03:59Okay,

   Ernie Monaco

   2:03:59for the text will go. Okay. Did you want me just to continue to exp but I think you've seen everything else in there?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:04:04It's done. Okay, I'm just asking because I didn't know how much you wanted me to go. We're

   Oakley

   2:04:08good. We're good. Yeah.

   Moore

   2:04:11Four items. Don't do that.

   Oakley

   2:04:15Okay.

   Moore

   2:04:15Yeah.

   Oakley

   2:04:17So that is the last public hearing item.

2. 2Jan 26, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP47Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment item per Staff’s

   Open this item →▶ Play from 0:37
   ▶ 0:373m

   StarkeyVice Chair

   0:37Yes, we do. Item P forty seven was published in the Tampa Bay Times on November 4th, 2020.

   Denise

   0:45Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner's Denise Hernandez Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. Item P47 is PDD 21. Zero zero zero four and this item was presented to the board at the first reading on uh December eighth, twenty twenty. There was a full presentation, so I will read the item uh the ordinance title and today we requ re we're asking you to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. So, this is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a large-scale

   1:15comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use element, Chapter 2, Goal Future Land Use 6, including text and figure revisions to the core reserve, village separator provisions, existing development approvals, and figures PH5, PH six, pH 7, pH 8, revisions to village eye borders. And as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer, severability, and an effective date. Again, this is the adoption hearing on this item. So if you would adopt it by roll call vote. We have

   County Administrator

   1:43a problem. Oh wait, you gotta see public

   OakleyChair

   1:46hearing.

   1:50Um anyone or speak to this item?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   1:53Uh Mr. Chair, there are no one on the WebEx and there is no no emails on this matter either.

   OakleyChair

   2:01Uh anyone at the kioks?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:08There is not enough of kiosk.

   OakleyChair

   2:10All right, thank you. I do have

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:12a question.

   OakleyChair

   2:13Well,

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:15I just wanna know how much um planning has gone in for trails in here. Because I I see an alternative roads map and Is this are we on forty three? Just to make sure I'm on the right-of-way. Uh P forty forty seven.

   2:32Because I you know, I I'd be very interested in seeing a map of the trails and how they're crossing some of these busy roads because we've gotten ourselves in messes. And I'm concerned that by the way for Sunco uh The one that's going through villages of Pasadena, but

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:48this is a comprehensive plan amendment, Commissioner.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   2:51Okay, so I'm I'm looking at the wrong one. I'll look at the next one. I'll bring this up when we go to this other one. Right.

   2:58I know I'm looking at that. I wanna talk to you about it.

   OakleyChair

   3:01All right. I have a motion and a do I have a second? And a second? All those and by row call vote?

   StarkeyVice Chair

   3:07Yes, sir. District two, Commissioner Moore. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Fitzpatrick. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano.

   OakleyChair

   3:16Aye.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   3:17District one, Chairman Oakley.

   OakleyChair

   3:18Aye. Motion passed five zero. Okay, we go to Forty eight, I guess it is. Yeah.