PDD-21-0353

Every appearance2 of 2 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 95% of 66 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Jun 22, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP45Public hearingContinued

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the August 24, 2021 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 10:57
   ▶ 10:571m

   Ron OakleyChair

   10:57Okay, now approved for uh P forty-five.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   11:00Yes, sir. Item P forty five was published in the Tampa Bay Times on April 28th, 2021.

   Denise

   11:05Okay.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   11:06Good

   Denise

   11:06afternoon, Commissioner. Denise Hernandez, Planning and Development. Item P45 is PDD 210353. Uh, this is a uh ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, and this was actually listed as a continuance item. So the request is to continue to the August 24th, 2021 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 in Newport Ritchie.

   Jack Mariano

   11:25Move to continue time certain.

   Ron OakleyChair

   11:27You

   Jack Mariano

   11:28got a motion?

   Ron OakleyChair

   11:32Anybody gonna give me a second?

   11:36Got a motion a second. All those in favor for uh Moving this item to time certain. So say aye. Is this also a road call? No. No.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   11:48Okay.

   Ron OakleyChair

   11:49All right, motion pass 5-0.

2. 2Aug 24, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP84Public hearingNo action

   Approved minutes

   No action was required as this was the first reading of the proposed Ordinance. The second reading was scheduled for September 28, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 3:52
   ▶ 3:5216m

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:52Item P eighty four was published in the Tampe Times on April twenty, twenty twenty one.

   Denise

   3:58Item P eighty four. I'm just gonna read this into record because Mr. Monaco, who's my colleague, will actually be doing a presentation on this. PDD 210353, just for purposes of housekeeping on this one, you will be accepting public comment. This is the first of two public hearings, and the adoption, this is the correction, is scheduled for September 28th, 2021, at 130 in Newport Ritchie. Your agenda memo state stayed city. So that is the correction. And Mr. Monaco

   4:29will present the item.

   Ernie Monaco

   4:30Thank you, Denise. Good afternoon commissioners, Mr. Commissioner. Great to be back. Uh where's the the clicker? I'd like to read it into the ordinance. Oh actually, Denise, you read that right already in the ordinance? No? Okay. For the record, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Chapter 600, Overlay in Special District Areas, Section 602.8 T, VOPH development and administration review fees. And map change to Exhibit 602-E, V O P H

   5:00Master Roadway Plan, Exhibit A, Tyndale Road, East West Street A, a right-of-way realignment, and other amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, severability, inclusion to the land of M code, and an effective date. Okay, no action is required because this is only the first hearing. And Denise mentioned that it was September 28, 21 is the final adoption, because that's when you have to do take action. The proposal is basically two pieces. It's a map amendment and a text amendment. And the map amendment is Tyndale Road right-of-way. That was in the highway vision

   5:30plan. I'm gonna I'm gonna show you that in a second. And the second part is the text amendment is just the distribution of the the development and review fees. On the map here, you'll see V OPH is in that area, the area to the s the bottom part. I'm gonna blow that up real quickly so you can see that as well. Uh what you see in the the gray line that goes towards the bottom is what was existing, proposed right of way for Tyndale Road. Unfortunately it went it bisected the uh Pasco utilities a lot and they were they need that

   6:00lot not to have sick uh people coming through there, the public coming through. So they actually requested us a few weeks ago or actually a few months ago You we can't have that for security reasons. You could you please relocate the right of way? Um and so we looked at the situation. I notified all the landowners in the area and what we did is we actually have an improvement. It actually is straightened. It still is on the the PCU property, um but it actually is much by having it more straightened the linear feed is reduced, which saves a lot of money in and in that sense. And there the lots

   6:31are more are are also still very marketable. In fact some lots are more marketable than others. So that's this one here. And the whole reason again was just to prohibit public access from bisecting a utility site because they need it now to think about the water treatment that we need for V OPH in the future.

   6:47of this is related to the development review and administration fees. That is the additional fee that all the OPH developers pay. They pay $400 per residential unit. So out of that $400, what happened in the very in the original, what we passed back in January 26 is we didn't specifically state how that fee was going to be distributed. And the POG, the property owners group, basically has paid for all these documents here. And it costs about $1.6 million to put all this together. So we so we are charging

   7:17this fee and then converting that to credits. Part of that is credits for planning fee. Credits. So if out of the $400 per unit, half of that or $200 per unit is going to pay back the property owners group for all the work they did in this. 125 per unit is going to fund the operations and management of the free cred fee credit registry. I will come before you in a few weeks actually with a consultant that's very interested in doing this. Um but automatically again what's nice about this is it just comes right out of the fee. This is an additional fee that everybody pays in V OPA. The remainder, $75

   7:48per unit, is going to cover initially the cost for the development review that basically current planning has and undertakes. Once the $200 per unit pays back the POG, that $200 in the future from that point on goes to the planning and development department. So initially the planning department does take a big hit in the beginning, but once the POG is paid off and we s we persist for seed about 10 years, that'll go back to the planning department. The purpose again is that annual operating funds are needed for the free fee credit registry. The POG needs

   8:18to get redeemed their planning fee fee credits. We did similar to the idea on Connected City. Now they're in their fifth year. We pay back half of those planning fee credits for Connected City. It was a 10-year timetable. We want to repeat that same pattern here. And the additional funds are provided for planning and development department. Now just as a side note, on May nineteenth the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee Agreed. They had no problem. They approved the proposed map amendment as a recommendation. They added the one condition to the development review fee. They wanted the Planning and Development Department to

   8:48designate a special person to review VOPH projects. The Planning Department responded and say, Well we need time to think about this. By the time I went to the LPA, we ex they the we explained to the the uh the Planning Commission that it was just not practical for us to actually designate one person. And I'm gonna just go over some of the reasons here. Terry Petos is here as well, Brad um Brad is here as well to talk about this in case it becomes an issue. But at the end of the day, we do not recommend a dedicated V O P H reviewer with that with those fees. So when it comes on May, sorry,

   9:18on September 28th, that's when you make a decision. This is just for information now and to get public input. So let me review a little bit here. The reasons why the planning department does not recommend a dedicated VOPH reviewer is because the unpredictability the unpredictability of the preliminary development plan submissions, it's gonna make it too cumbersome, too difficult to implement. government agencies cannot hire and fire like that way. You don't know when you get a lot in, you don't when you get a little in. And you can't release people given that's kind of schedule. The condition but designate only one person

   9:48to handle B O P H projects, that's seventy five dollars doesn't even cover that. Uh depending upon particular applications, there's a lot of experts in the county that we rely on. Now they're making the planning department basically track everybody's hours. Really gonna that's really difficult to do. Okay, I mean they're still gonna do their work, but uh we like to them to focus on things they have to do. And the intent of receiving the review fee was to compensate for the extra work needed to operate the VOPH review, not necessarily to fund a particular position. And finally, existing PDD revenues must be used to meet service delivery needs. So

   10:19we do not recommend, we actually want you to think about. uh uh uh re really approving what the LPA approved, which is basically not that recommendation for a single person to be used in that case. So b and September twenty eighth, this will be the recommended committee action.

   10:36Any questions?

   Ron OakleyChair

   10:38Any questions? For any. This is a public hearing. We have a Mr. Two?

   Joel

   10:50Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Joel II, to and associates, Palm Harbor, Florida. I'm here on behalf of the VOPH property owners group that I've had the privilege of representing now for about 13 years. They are the group that funded all the enabling documents and all of the substantial revisions that have been made since then. I just want to clarify a couple points. We're in support, obviously, of the text amendment, and we supported that with the policy and planning committee. But I do want to discuss the reviewer aspect

   11:20very briefly. But before I do that, just to clarify, under the current enabling documents, these property owners that have funded $1.6 million over the last 10 or 12 years. They currently have the right to use their administrative fee credits against the entirety of that $400 review fee, which over time would allow them eventually to recoup theoretically the money they funded on the county's behalf. They have agreed, they voluntarily

   11:51agreed to defer that by only being able to use half of their credits, in other words, only $200 at any one time, because they recognize that we do need funding for the fee credit registry and for the review of plans. But they're now going to be waiting twice as long. To get a payback through those credits. And of course, this was to level the playing field because not every property owner out there funded this. You had 10 or 12 that funded all this money, and this was

   12:21the only way. uh that Mr. Goldstein and I could come up with for them to ultimately recoup Mm-hmm. So they're happy to give up half of those credits and defer their payback. Uh but our thought process was that if they were willing to do that and to continue to to share this venture that because I now have one MPUD VOPH on the agenda today, I literally have six more engaged in and process, Mr. Hobby has,

   12:51two or three in process. We have a large batch coming through. We have a proposed development agreement that Chairman Oakley and Mr. Biles and Mr. Goldstein are aware of where we're going to have one master developer funding approximately 17 million of roadway and utility infrastructure up front. in VOPH. So our point is we're getting enough traction in VOPH. It has very specific rules, its own land development code provision that only applies in VOPH. The

   13:22problem we're running into in the MPD reviews is we get random assignments of reviewers and we continually get someone who's not familiar with VOPH or hasn't done one. Our request wasn't to have one person designated exclusively to sit in one corner and only do VOPH. reviews and then be idle the rest of the day when they could be helping others. The point was to at least designate one that would be the primary

   13:52reviewer for whatever view PH matters were pending at any one time. They then fill the rest of their time doing all the other MPUDs, but it would provide us consistency. I think it would streamline the process, we would get more consistency Consistent review, the conditions would be more consistent, and I think it would help expedite. This doesn't require the addition of any other people. It's just simply allocating your workforce to have a designated VOPH reviewer. Now, obviously, if we get more VOPH

   14:22MPs in the hopper than even one person could handle, then those would have to be allocated outside. So that was the request. I don't want anyone to think that the property owners were saying we won't just quote our reviewer sitting there just doing our work because that was not the request. So we actually urge you to consider that and asking PDD to reconsider their position because, from my look at it, it costs them zero. It costs them nothing in their budget. So that's the request. We're happy to make the concessional

   14:53the administrative fees and the property owner group greatly appreciates all your support that they've had through the years, and we're anxious to actually get something built. rather than a stack of documents approved. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   15:05Thank you. Mr. Chairman Mariano. Um

   Mike Moore

   15:10And I watched the Planning Commission meeting. I don't have an I personally don't have an issue with having a dedicated VOPH reviewer. I understand this is very complex. I think back to um Connected City, you know, Epperson, how complex it was. my opinion, and we have good people, great people, obviously on our planning team. Um if you kinda have that one person that's has that knowledge base and continues I I don't know what the Planning Department thinks, but I I don't think it's

   15:40a bad idea.

   Jack Mariano

   15:43Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yeah sir. And to go along the same sentiment, I don't think it's a bad idea either. And maybe even if they had two that one or the other, at least you get that consent of the easement.

   Nectarios Pittos

   15:52Right.

   15:53Yeah. Yeah.

   15:56Good afternoon Mr. Chairman Mariano Spitos Planning and Development Department. So the the Planning and Development Department does work to build subject matter experts In these complicated planning projects, uh we have Dedicated individuals such as the manager of special districts, which is Ernie that you just heard from. Uh and then down the line into the deeper into the department, we try to build planners and planning and zoning text that can address the special criteria and qualities that these

   16:26types of uh projects have. But there's a turnover that occurs over time and it does take a a lot of time to build those that subject matter expertise. Um so we do work toward toward that goal of having one or two individuals who are very knowledgeable in these planning areas. Um But o over time that can change as people move from positions or from job to job. So that that would be the the

   16:56planning.

   Ron OakleyChair

   16:57But you you feel you can take care of that issue within the house? Within the right-of-way, so yeah,

   Nectarios Pittos

   17:03so long as we don't dedicate a specific person where they get mothballed because there's not any V OPH projects coming in in three years or something. Right. Um

   County Administrator

   17:14Yeah. Yeah. Our concern was if you set up a single position funded with this fee and this fee can only support uh twenty-five percent of a person. How do you fund the other portion of that?

   Mike Moore

   17:25Yeah.

   County Administrator

   17:26Right. You kinda make them exclusive to this and so As Terry mentioned, we don't have any problem getting a subject matter expert, but right now that you'll number you'll see later, we have forty MPUDs under review right now. And so one more Makes forty one. Four more is just a ten percent of that. So Yeah, you know, what we W I think one of avoid is setting where we're sliding other MPUDs that are in process off to the side because one comes in in this and we have to pick it up. And so The key there is build in depth in

   17:56the organization to do all these. Through the process but not hire a specific person for this.

   Mike Moore

   18:04I don't think that's a good idea. What's being asked now? Right, that's not I don't Joel, that's not what is being asked. Um From what I understand again from watching the Planning Commission meeting here, what was being said today, it's more like, hey, try to have somebody that's dedicated to that. So You know, when David's involved Whoever the developer may be, because there's multiple developer. I'm just throwing David's name out there because he's very involved. Um, you know, you have a kind of a core group of people. Easy to get to knowledge base is there. Instead

   18:35of and I I sometimes I think it'd be helpful for your team. I mean I know you guys can shake your heads yes or no, but Um being so spread out, you know they're so working so hard, you know. But you're not again, you're not Yeah. What you're not doing is saying you can only work on this project. Right. You know, Terry or Brad or whatever that needs to obviously have for team member, Ernie, what whoever it is.

   18:58because there's nothing to work on, they can do it. But I think just the request is, hey, let's just try to have somebody with that subject matter um you know, expertise on this V O P H 'cause it is so complex. Um That way everybody kind of knows who to get a hold hold of as well, right?

   Nectarios Pittos

   19:16And and we do have we will be adding a project coordinator. coordinator to the department to help us facilitate this. That's a good ad.

   Mike Moore

   19:25But anyway, the decision does have to be made today anyway. This is this is just an introduction, so

   Ron OakleyChair

   19:30Uh is anyone signed up to speak to this item?

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   19:33Mr. Chair, I only have five people signed up for this afternoon and looking at the audience I'm thinking that maybe some maybe perhaps did not sign up, but I have no one signed up for this item.

   Ron OakleyChair

   19:43Is anyone here that's signed up to speak to this item? Anyone

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   19:48who wants to speak to this item.

   Ron OakleyChair

   19:49Or anybody that wants to speak to this item.

   19:53Seeing no one come forth and That's a non-action item. We'll move on to uh

   Mike Moore

   20:02Mr. Chairman Mariano.