PDD-21-7529

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. 66% of 267 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Mar 25, 2021
   Planning CommissionPC5Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:00:26
   ▶ 1:00:2623m

   Denise

   1:00:26Okay, now we'll move on to item PC five.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:00:31Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:00:34Jessica Coel with the Planning and Development Department. Item PC five is Memorandum No. PD217529 in the name of Meadow Oaks Development LC, New Life Ministries, and River Ridge Homes Incorporated for a change in zoning from R1 Rural Density Residential District, R4 High Density Residential District, AC Agricultural District, and MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to Master Plan Unit Development District. I'm sorry, Denise. I apologize. No,

   1:01:04you're fine.

   Denise

   1:01:05So that that big box is not in the middle for

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:01:07you. You can go to the next slide, please. Thank you. This is a picture of the I'm sorry, if you could go back one. There we go, sorry. This is a picture of the current aerial. The property is located in northwest Pasco County on the south side of Hudson Avenue, approximately 1.1 miles east of Colony Road. Next slide. This is the picture of the current zoning in the area. Next slide. And this is it an image of the future land use we jumped one two soon. No, you're okay. It's just touchy.

   1:01:39I'm sorry, my bug might hijack me. You're fine.

   1:01:45The subject site consists of platted residential subdivisions and undeveloped lands. The subject site is both in the north and central market areas, but outside of the rural areas and outside of the urban expansion areas. This request includes addition of acreage to the existing MPUD, Also it included is the creation of Tract U for development of 65 single-family detached units. Creation of tracked U I'm sorry. Changing of the product type from track J from single family attached to single family detached, also

   1:02:15decreasing those units by two in that parcel. the creation of development standards for Track U and single family detached track units on Track J. a modification to the development standards for tracked T and S, And the proposed minimum lot dimension standards. Reduced to 40 feet wide by 105 feet deep on all tracks J, S, T and U included in this proposal. Next slide. Among

   1:02:45the proposed changes to the existing Meadow Oaks MPUD conditions of approval is the removal of condition number 11. That required the developer of Parcel T to provide a buffer plan that was agreed to upon with the property owner to the east of Parcel T. Should the buffer plan not be agreed upon The condition required that the item be brought back to, at the time, Development Review Committee, and be re examined for the use of the forty five foot wide lots. At the time, staff recommended

   1:03:16denial, identifying the transition of the area as not equ equ adequate for the forty five foot lots, yet felt if the parcel to the east, which is zoned agricultural, could agree to a buffer plan, this would be acceptable for the transition.

   1:03:36Decided that the buffer plan would be a great opportunity, however, this current application is proposing to remove that condition. I would like to mention that according to our current land development code, when tract T is developed. The tract will be required to establish a 10-foot type A landscape buffer that consists of a continuous row of evergreen shrubs and trees planted at 60 feet on center unless relief is sought at the time of preliminary plan review and approval

   1:04:07by the applicant through an alternative standard request. Next slide.

   1:04:13LDC Section 402.2C8 allows for the variations from this code to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the Board during public hearing on any application for an MPUD zoning amendment. This application is seeking relief from section 901.6 D11, the continuation of existing street patterns and street access to adjoining properties. This section requires streets within the proposed development be connected to adjacent areas to provide proper traffic circulation.

   1:04:43The current Meadow Oaks and PUD conditions of approval, specifically number 21, allow for private streets within and connecting individual villages only if the streets are not required to provide access to abutting neighborhoods and properties. The developer intends to utilize private streets within the parcels J, T, S, and U. Currently, to the south of Parcel G U is proposed parcel U is the reserve at Meadow Oak Subdivision with private residential roads. Of those roads, Maryland

   1:05:14Court and NeTee Drive, a butt And uh abut the proposed parcel U. This existing subdivision has access to Fairwinds Road, Maxflee Drive Subdivision Collector Loop. And The connecting and the connecting subdivision to put post parcel U would not benefit from the existing Connecting to the existing transportation network. There are no deficiencies in the existing transportation network that would allow

   1:05:44for this connection to alleviate any vehicular trips.

   1:05:51The applicant is current proposing to connect an emergency access from Parcel J to Amberwood Street. This would provide less disruption of the homes that have current access to Amberwood Street, but also provide a benefit during emergency situations. Next slide.

   1:06:11The proposed request has been reviewed and is found to be consistent with the land development code and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Next slide. And this petition comes to you with staff recommendation of approval. With the associated conditions of approval included in your packet. Thank you.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:06:28Thank you. Are any questions for the staff?

   Chris Williams

   1:06:33Mr. Chairman Mariano. Ms. Cole, I just want to confirm So the addition of these units does not exceed the original Approved number of units for meadow oaks, is that correct?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:06:47Correct. It actually reduces the total units proposed.

   Chris Williams

   1:06:49Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:06:50Minimally, but it does reduce them.

   Chris Williams

   1:06:51Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:06:52Thank you. And one quick question too, on the the buffer removal for the landowner east of parcel T, wh why is the applicant proposing to remove the the buffer requirement that was approved by the DRC?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:07:05To be honest, I I would prefer if um the applicant's representatives speak to that. But just to be clear, it's not removing a buffer requirement. It's just removing the condition that would require the applicant developing parcel T to engage with the property owner to the east of parcel T to agree to a buffer agreement. That's why I wanted to make sure that you understand according to our current code, unless relief is sought through the alternative standard process at time of preliminary. plan review, they will be required to establish the ten foot type A buffer that is noted in our code.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:07:34Okay. Yeah, because I also know in the the agenda memo are that the the current owner is selling. So yeah, I just want to make sure that the the subsequent owner is

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:07:44I have spoken with both um I think he's actually at the kiosk to speak, um, Mr. Campbell and his potential buyer. Um actually the realtor for the potential buyer. They've been provided with the information that they have requested about this petition.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:07:57Okay, thank you.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:07:59Yeah, Mr. Chairman just for the record, I I do have a conflict on this item, so I will be recruusing myself from voting on this item. Right.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:08:07Any reserving comment?

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:08:09Yes.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:08:12Alright.

   1:08:14Very good. Thank you very much for your presentation.

   1:08:20So the applicant's here virtually?

   Denise

   1:08:22The applicant is virtually present, yes. And they do have someone on WebEx

   Charles GreyChair

   1:08:27and

   Denise

   1:08:27we also have someone at the kiosk.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:08:29Okay, so do we want to ask the applicant if they'd like to Speak first or hold their

   Denise

   1:08:35powder. So the applicant is Ms. Wellhite?

   1:08:41Hello again,

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:08:41Commissioner. Uh Barbara Wilhide. We We would like to hear what the um The comments are and then we can respond In rebuttal.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:08:53How can go? That's good. Then we'll go to the uh app the to the uh public there.

   Denise

   1:09:00Did you want to go to the kiosk first or to WebEx?

   Charles GreyChair

   1:09:02Let's go to the kiosk first, right.

   Denise

   1:09:05Okay, if Mr. Campbell would please come up.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:09:11Uh James Campbell, [address removed]. I have not been sworn in.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:09:17Okay, let's give let's do that for Mr. Campbell.

   Clerk

   1:09:21Sir. Sir, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is a true so help you God?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:09:30I do.

   1:09:32I'm here to speak to uh parcel T, which is to the uh uh west of my property. And uh

   1:09:42The 10-foot buffer. My request is to have a PVC fence six foot tall put along the entire uh West side of my property. East of the East of uh parcel T And uh that 10-foot buffer should start at my property and then 10 feet beyond that should be the PV PVC fence. It also requests that the uh shrubbery be included in that too. Uh I have two reasons for that. First of

   1:10:13all, uh Looks like they're going to reduce the lot size. And second of all, I have a letter In nineteen uh two thousand and six from the attorney representing the owners it said uh I'll read it Be that as it may, my client is prepared to install a six foot PVC opaque fence along the entire easterly boundary of the property. Uh huh. This is in the uh file of Ms. Coralyn Burns. Also, I don't want any uh trees

   1:10:43cut down on my property line. And uh That's about it. Thank you very much.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:10:55Yeah. Before he leaves.

   1:10:59Mm. Can I ask one question, please? Um how many feet is his property line that he's disc that he's talking about?

   1:11:16The uh M can you hear me now? Anybody hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. My question was your eastern property line that we you're referring to, how many feet is that line?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:11:32Uh approximately thirteen hundred.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:11:35So it's a quarter of a mile.

   1:11:38Thirteen hundred. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. And uh I think we had somebody on WebEx.

   1:11:49Yes

   Christopher Poole

   1:11:50this is uh Jeff Hobbs with um Metalogs Master Association.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:11:55Okay.

   Christopher Poole

   1:11:55I have been sworn in.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:11:57Thank you, Jeff.

   Christopher Poole

   1:11:58Um So so one of my concerns was the connection into Amberwood and now that it's just an emergency Connection. Object to that. Um the community's concern is with traffic, with the connection into Hudson of Maxfly. We believe that the the traffic will go up quite a bit. And we were hoping that that the county could do something along Um fair winds and backs fly to help reduce the speed

   1:12:29of vehicles going through Through the community. Whether that's four way stops or or roundabouts, something like that, they could help us out. Other than that, the community is not objecting to this change.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:12:43All right, Jeff, thank you so much. Are there any questions for the other? For Jeff.

   1:12:54Okay. If not, um

   1:12:58Can we hear from the applicant?

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:13:06Sure, it's a barbable height. Um Trying to reach my client. I don't know if he's on. Not sure maybe he can't answer my phone. Um So r regards to Mr. Campbell This would be we'd be happy to work with Mr. Campbell. It's a little difficult when somebody just comes to Planning Commission when when um I sent them a letter and they're aware of this, so it makes it a little bit difficult. The difficulty is that Mr. Campbell has a patio

   1:13:37and a part of his driveway on my client's property. And so some of his requests is dealing with that is trying to to have us have a a wider buffer and a fence that starts off of our property line in order to accommodate his encroachments. So Mm. The code already set forth what's required to achieve compatibility um between the uses. So it isn't something that we have to try to figure out because the code already says

   1:14:07what to do. That being said, I don't mind in between now and the board, you know, discussing with Mr. Campbell and see if an agreement can be reached, um But it's not just a buffer because of his encroachment. It makes it a little more complicated from a design standpoint. So Um

   1:14:31you know, that uh we'd like for the the Planning Commission to recommend approval and move forward with the understanding that we will vivo Reach out to Mr. Campbell. um and try to work out what we can do Because he does have an encroachment Um which needs to be resolved because if not we're going to remove his patio and remove his driveway. And so there's a lot of opportunity to work together here. kinda surprised that he chose this forum to um

   1:15:01engage in a conversation that needs you know, specific attention.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:15:08Okay. And he re he referred uh Barbara, he referred to a letter I g I guess from the property owner saying that they would r install a six foot Opaque fence, is that correct?

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:15:21Yeah, I imagine that's a attorney. This is a old an old project, so I imagine that was somebody represented the project. Um before.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:15:29Okay. Well in any ca i either any case I think what's required is that you reach a resolution that's satisfactory to all parties and then if not you it reverts to the county requirement. Is that correct?

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:15:46We we're asking for that to be chang changed. Well, yeah, our ten foot buffer, true. We're yes. We are asking the existing condition to be changed 'cause there's Um and that if we don't reach an agreement that it'd be the land development code. um requirement for a type A buffer. But again, I I think we can work with the neighbors directly. Uh There's no basis to for the county to require more than ten foot black parts, that's what their own code requires. Um but again w we need to deal with the fact that he's

   1:16:16got an e he's got a property up for sale under contract with pretty significant encroachment onto our property and so have to deal with both of those and and really can't be done in a in a meeting like this. So

   Charles GreyChair

   1:16:31Okay. And uh are there any questions from the dais?

   Chris Williams

   1:16:34Yeah, I I would like to ask um one One question. How how long has S encroachment been? How many years do you know?

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:16:44Well yeah.

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:16:46Jamie, do you know?

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:16:47Yeah. Jamie's

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:16:48our

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:16:49project

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:16:49inform.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:16:50Yeah. Jamie Girardi, uh ninety four hundred River Crossing Boulevard, suite one oh two. Um I have not been sworn, so I don't know if do I need to be sworn. Yeah,

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:02go ahead and swear in, Damien.

   Clerk

   1:17:06Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God. I do. Thank you.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:12I'm not sure if you're

   Charles GreyChair

   1:17:12Jamie is uh just note that Jamie is speaking uh you know not as a member of this planning commission on this particular subject.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:21Yeah, as far as I know the the survey that we received on the property did indicate the encroachment of the driveway and the the patio that Barbara referenced and as far as I know it was constructed when the house was built. Which Mr. Campbell could would have to testify on when that was.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:17:37No, it's been it's a considerable period of time.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:40Correct.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:17:40Yeah.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:41And I and I think Mr. K mean i if if I heard his testimony correct, I mean what he was asking for was a fence n that didn't start on the property line. I mean he was basically acknowledging that he is encroaching on the property because he mentioned that He would like to have the fence installed ten foot west of his western property line. which is about the amount that he encroaches on to the applicant's property.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:18:05Okay.

   1:18:08Okay, well I think there is a there is a mechanism to to resolve it. So uh If there's n are there any other questions?

   Denise

   1:18:18I'm being told that Mr. Chairman can say somet uh I'm not sure if it's allowed, but I think he can answer a question because I think

   Charles GreyChair

   1:18:26Who is this?

   Denise

   1:18:26Mr. Campbell who's at the kiosk.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:18:29well we typically don't allow two bites at the apple. Do you Does anybody know? Wanna hear a response from Mr. Campbell?

   Chris Williams

   1:18:38Um the reason I asked that question, maybe our attorney David can answer it. I was the impression that if somebody encroaches on property and it's for a number of years that property therefore can be The individual's property. Is

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:58that

   1:19:04And there's a lot of factors that go into that analysis and we don't have all the facts but Regardless, it's not really relevant to the Planning Commission's decision here. I mean you Okay. Yeah, I do make a decision at what is required for adequate buffering between the two properties, but The encroachment is really a private issue between The applicant and Mr. Campbell.

   Chris Williams

   1:19:26And Mr. Chairman, I was looking at some old aerials. It it looks like it wasn't built with a house. It looks like sometime around Two thousand five maybe? I'm not sure there weren't other encroachments before then, but It looks like somewhere in that neighborhood.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:19:45All right. Than thanks. Thank you very much, Chris.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:50Mr. Chairman by the other citizen um for response from the applicant about traffic calming on Maxfly. I think that needs to be Addressed by the applicant.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:20:03All right. Barbara would you like to speak to the traffic uh speed I g primarily the

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:20:07speed issue? I think I think he was speaking to you all. He he was speaking to you on asking the county for help at the county road. So I I understand that that there is a process that communities can go through that's spelled out in your code. for speed pumps or bumps or whatever they're called these days. So, um I heard it to be a reach out for help to the county.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:20:31So Barbara, uh my understanding though, is there's a portion of MaxFlat that is a developer's responsibility to build. So I'm not sure does it have been entirely constructed by the developer?

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:20:44It has it has not. Um we are extending this is the last phase of Meadow Oak's almost built out project and we are extending Max Fly. We're required to extend Max Fly to Hudson Avenue. And it will be a county road.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:20:59I understand that, but the reason I say it's not entirely a county issue is because In theory, that portion of Max Ply could be constructed by the developer With traffic coming. So that that's a developer issue.

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:21:13Barbara, would it help to put up the M P U D plan, the master plan?

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:21:18I I don't I don't know. I mean it does Does somebody at the county if the county wants us to construct a speed hump on their collect their subdivision collector roadway, That would be surprising to me. Um but

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:21:33Well to be

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:21:33clear

   Jaimie GirardiVice Chair

   1:21:34traffic, Barbara Barbara, to be clear, traffic calling is not always a speed bump. It could be Other forms of traffic colonials such as roundabouts, chicanes, or other And I I don't think that the the resident was necessarily requesting speed bumps. He was requesting I think some type of other design that would slow traffic.

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:21:57I don't get the impression that the extension Oh The traffic combing is within their neighborhood, the current neighborhood is where I get the impression that the conversations come from. But what I'd be happy to do is again between Planning Commission and BOCC If we can be part of a solution with the community and five developer client and the county, let's sit down with the public work folks and see what what can be done. Um be happy to do that. I'm not sure we can do that here at a

   1:22:27planning commission hearing either, but hap absolutely happy to sit down with the county, the master association representative, um Mr. Hobbs. and and my client and see what we can come up with.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:22:41Okay.

   1:22:44Well that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Um

   1:22:50Any other comment from the dais? David, anything from you?

   1:22:58No, I don't. Pardon me, David?

   1:23:02No. I have nothing further. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

   1:23:08Um do I hear uh a motion? There's no further comment.

   Chris Williams

   1:23:13I'll make

   Charles GreyChair

   1:23:13a motion to approve. So we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:23:20I will second with Ms. Willite's confirmation that she'll address the issues before BCC.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:23:26Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion is signified by roll call.

   Clerk

   1:23:39Chimie Giordi abstainings in the vote. Peter Hansel. Aye. Roberto size.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:23:45Right.

   Clerk

   1:23:46Christopher Poole. Aye. Chris Williams? Aye. And Chairman Charles Gray.

   Charles GreyChair

   1:23:50I.

2. 2Apr 20, 2021
   Board of County CommissionersP58Public hearingApproved

   Zoning Amendment (Consent) (Regular) - Meadow Oaks MPUD … Unit Development Substantial Modification - – Meadow Oaks Development, L.C, L.C., et al - – Rezoning request Request from a R-1 Rural … High Density Residential District, and an A-C Agricultural District, and … on approximately 63.23 acres - – North West Pasco County, … east of Colony Road (PC: 03/25/2021, 1:30 p.m.; NPR Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC: 04/20/2021, 1:30 p.m.; NPR Hybrid Virtual Meeting)

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation with the amended condition regarding the trees by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 3:29:12
   ▶ 3:29:1225m

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:29:12thing. We'll move on to B fifty eight.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:29:19Item P fifty eight was published in the Tampa Bay Times on march tenth, twenty twenty one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:29:26Item P58 is PDD 217529 in the name of Meadow Oaks Development LC, New Life Ministries, and Ridger River Ridge Homes Incorporated. For a change in zoning from R1 Rural Density Residential District, R4 High Density Residential District, AC Agricultural District, and MPUD Master Planned Unit Development District. to an MPUD master plan unit development district.

   3:29:53Next slide. This is a picture of the current aerial. The property is located in northwest Pasco County on the south side of Hudson Avenue, approximately 1.1 miles east of Colony Road. Next slide. This is a exhibit of the current zoning. Next slide. And this is the exhibit of the current future land use. Next slide. The site consists of platted residential subdivisions and undeveloped lands. The subject site is both in the north and central markets, but

   3:30:22is outside of the rural area and outside of the urban service expansion areas. This request includes the addition of acreage to the previously approved Meadow Oaks MPUD boundary, creation of Tract U for development of 65 single-family detached units. Changing the product type on track J from single family attached to single family detached. decreasing proposed units by two. creation of development standards for Tract U and single family detached units on Tract J, and modification

   3:30:53of development standards for Tracks T and S. The proposed minimum lot dimension for tracks J, S, T, and U are forty foot wide by one hundred and five feet deep. Next slide. Among the proposed changes to the existing Meadow Oaks U MPUD conditions of approval is the removal of condition number eleven that require the developer of Parcel T provide a buffer plan that was agreed to upon with the property owner located to the east of Parcel T. Should

   3:31:23a suitable buffer plan not be provided and agreed upon between the property owner to the east of Parcel T, the Pasco County, and the developer, Between the Pasco County and the developer, the project would be required to be brought back to the Development Review Committee to re-examine the use of the 45-foot-wide lots. This condition was a result as staffs recomm recommended to deny the applicant's request of the 45-foot lots. Yet the board thought it would be sufficient if a buffer plan could be provided to transition from

   3:31:53the eastern parcel of pro par the eastern property of parcel T into the development of parcel T. With the current provisions in the land development code, the development of parcel T as zoned MPUD adjacent to the parcel to the east as zoned agricultural would require a 10-foot type A landscape buffer that would consist of a continuous row of evergreen shrubs and trees planted with 60 foot on center. unless relief is sought at the time of the preliminary plan submittal through an alternative

   3:32:24standard request. Next slide. LDC Section four oh two point two C eight allows for variations from this code to be reviews reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners during a public hearing Held on any application for an MPUD zoning amendment. LDC section 901.6 D.11, continuation of existing street patterns, and street access to adjoining properties, requires streets with the proposed development to be connected to adjacent areas to provide

   3:32:54for proper traffic circulation. The current Meadow Oaks MPD conditions of approval, specifically number 21, allows for private streets within and connecting individual villages only if the streets are not required to provide access to abutting neighborhoods and properties. The developer intends to utilize private streets within parcels J, T, S, and U. To the south of proposed parcel U is the reserves at Meadow Oaks Subdivision, with private residential roads, of

   3:33:24which Maryland Court and Neety Drive abut proposed parcel U. The existing subdivision has access to the Fairwinds Max Flee Max Fleet Drive Subdivision Collector Loop. And connecting the subdivision to proposed parcel U would not benefit the existing transportation network in relieving vehicular trips from existing roadways. connecting Parcel J to Amberwood Street would disrupt the homes that have primary access from Amberwood, with little benefit to the vehicular trip juice distribution. Parcels

   3:33:55J, T, S, and proposed parcel U will all have access from Maxflea Drive. The applicant is proposing an emergency access only connection from Parcel J to Amberwood Street, as the connection would serve a benefit in emergency situations but would not be as disruptive to the homes accessing their lots from Amberwood Street. Next slide.

   3:34:17The proposed request has been reviewed and is found consistent with the LDC and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Next slide.

   3:34:27This is the proposed master plan with the s uh specific parcels S, T, and J um in the northern portion as seen in the gray of this map. Next slide. And since the Planning Commission meeting, um the Planning Commission requested that the applicant reach out to the property owner and come to an agreement with the property owner to the east of Parcel T. And they have provided an exhibit that is included in your conditions of approval in your packet. That demonstrate the Colo uh c

   3:34:57collaboration to establish a six foot vinyl fence in a specific location adjacent to the property, not necessarily the entire linear distance running north and south along the eastern property boundary, but for a general location that was depicted in the exhibit. Therefore this petition comes to you both. From the Planning Commission and staff with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval included in your packet.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:35:26Question. Yes. Um so is this part of the Meadow Oaks Golf and Country Club? Or is that somewhere different?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:35:36I believe there is uh some of the subdivisions in Meadow Oaks that are part of that country club, but I don't believe all of them are. I'm not certain.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:35:44So um and again I'm sorry I'm on this landscaping thing today, but I'm I'm looking and is the applicant online?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:35:52Yes, Ms.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:35:53Okay. Well they'll I'll discuss this afterwards. So um I'm looking at the um Google Earth. And I'm seeing Sorry, but many homes with Zero landscaping and I know our code requires that every lot has to have a forty by what has to have how many trees?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:36:17Six thousand square feet and less it's one tree and then it goes up based on the lot size, not necessarily the house.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:36:23So everyone is supposed to have at least one tree. So um and I for some reason there's looks like there's n no street cheese in here from what I can see here. But um would the applicant agree that every home will have a tree in the front?

   Barbara Wilhite

   3:36:41Hi, this is Barbara Will Hype. Um I can see that Jamie Girardi is on on the project engineer. And

   3:36:52And I can see Jim Quendenning is on as well. He's the um developer. We would need for one of them to jump in on that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:37:05And we're not talking live oaks here.

   3:37:09Uh this is Jamie Girardi, uh 9400 River Crossing Boulevard Suite 102, and I haven't sworn. Hey Jimmy. I bought the good afternoon. Um The developer intends to comply with the conditions of the code. Um I don't know Specifically that it'll be in the front. But I can speak to the majority of the houses that are out there at Meadow Oaks have been out there since the late eighties, early nineties at least. So that's probably why it appears that some of them don't have landscaping

   3:37:39that meets the current code.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:37:44So um they will they won't put them in the front?

   3:37:51There's a lot of front yard there. Plenty of room for a tree or a palm tree.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:37:56I mean if if you want to make that a condition, I don't think that'll be a problem.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:37:59Great. Thank you very much. Recommend approval.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:38:03I gotta have

   3:38:04public hearing. You got a public hearing, you got an applicant presentation. You just ask your question. You're just getting ahead of the game.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:38:14Okay, do we have

   3:38:15Just a comment. Just to make a comment.

   3:38:19Okay.

   Jack Mariano

   3:38:20All right. Uh I I like the connection that you have from Hudson you gonna connect to Hudson Avenue?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:38:24Yeah.

   Jack Mariano

   3:38:26Very good.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:38:26Continuing the Maxley extension per the development order, yes.

   Jack Mariano

   3:38:29Max fly, yeah, thanks.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:38:31Okay.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:38:32Uh do we have anyone?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:38:34So let's let's get back on track. Okay. Barbara, do you have a presentation or are you gonna rely on staff's presentation at this point?

   Barbara Wilhite

   3:38:42So that was a pretty detailed um presentation. I'm ready depending on any public comment, I'm um we're ready to discuss any public comment, but uh I don't think I can do that as well as Jessica did.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:38:53Yeah,

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:38:54good job. Anybody on WebEx or email for those items?

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:38:58I do not have anyone on WebEx or email for the website.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:39:01Is anyone at the kiosk for item

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:39:05P fifty eight.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:39:07P fifty eight.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:39:09Chao.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:39:11No one at the kiosk.

   3:39:15Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:39:16I believe there

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:39:17was somebody who

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:39:17was planning on

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:39:18showing up. So there's there's a couple of people up for P50.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:39:23We have people at the kiosk. We have four people at the kiosk.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:39:27Okay. State your name and address.

   Calvin Branch

   3:39:29My name is Calvin Branch. Yep, my name is Calvin Branch, [address removed]. Have

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:39:38you been?

   Calvin Branch

   3:39:39My concern is this. Have you

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:39:40been?

   Calvin Branch

   3:39:41Yes, I have been. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Now my concern is this. I spent a lot of time last week trying to find out an answer to a simple question. all of the construction traffic and the heavy vehicles that are going to be accessing the building site, how are they going to get there? And I got a couple of three different answers. My concern today is this I would like to make sure that in your conditions That's absolutely quick. That other than a case of an emergency where you might have to use colony and

   3:40:12fairwinds, all construction traffic and heavy vehicles. Well access the building site from Hudson Avenue.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:40:22Okay. Thank you for your comments. Next gentleman. Our lady.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   3:40:32Hi, Pate Turner from [address removed]. This is the property that is to the east of the um property in question to be developed. So we are um I just wanted to start by saying I am the um purchaser of the property that will be um happening in June. And um when we went to first look at the property what one of our main things was was that we loved the wildlife. There's deer, turkey, gopher turtles. I

   3:41:03will be raising a family there upon purchase. Um so we are really looking at um preserving the integrity of this agricultural property and keeping the agricultural feeling and land um to be used for not only um equine purposes but to raise um livestock with cows, um, to raise chickens, to have eggs, um, to grow crops and to have greenhouses. Um so just trying to keep that integrity of the area intact. Um

   3:41:33I know that not only um is the property over off of haze being developed so a lot of that wildlife will have nowhere to go um um unless they go across the street across 52. um So we're also concerned about the buffer in between the two properties. So if we have that 10-foot buffer, we are proposing that there be a six-foot privacy fence, a six-foot privacy PVC fence in between the two parcels to

   3:42:04help protect the safety of our animals and the safety of the new housing. development as well. So with the 35 houses being developed on that 10-acre parcel, we have one house on the 10-acre parcel. So um we would just like to um We're concerned mainly with the safety and well-being of our the agricultural piece of property to ensure many unsure of many things at this time, including um the well or septic arrangements

   3:42:34of the houses that are gonna be on the property. Um The flooding of our property while um Dirt where um they're making four retention ponds on the property, so where will that dirt be brought? Will it be used to um put as the base of the new houses being developed or is it gonna be taken out? while we are raising our farmland. Um we don't want any of the flooding to affect any of the animals. Um So

   3:43:03Also with um we are currently in X-flood zone, so we're um concerned with how the development of the 35 houses will affect our flood zone and um where will the runoff go and can we be certain that it isn't that it is going to go towards those retention ponds and not go into our area. Thank you.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:43:27All right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   3:43:30Manews

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:43:30and

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   3:43:31repeats.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:43:32How you doing? Uh my name's Steve Turner. I live currently at [address removed]. Uh that was my daughter you just spoke to. We will

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:43:40be purchasing up Have you been sworn?

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:43:43I have been sworn in.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:43:44Okay, thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:43:45Yes, sir. Um I have uh We we currently uh have a contract to purchase [address removed], which is the neighbor to the east. And um we've been given a little bit of a graph as to what's going to happen. And I know you guys like your landscaping, but I think of a tree every sixty feet is not really very reasonable in between two two different homes. I mean we're gonna have one home and they're gonna have thirty-five on just that one piece to our our

   3:44:15west. when we're gonna have them for neighbor on our west, on the north side, and on the east side. They bought a J-shaped all the pieces around us and I was hoping that we could make sure that, you know, if they're gonna have sewer or septic, I don't know. I mean I mean I'm hoping the drainage is gonna work out right. And uh another thing is we're worried about if they're gonna make the the flooding uh the drainage ditches they're gonna dig all the dirt out of 'em and what are they gonna do

   3:44:46with it? Are they gonna take it off site or are they gonna build it underneath the other harms which is gonna elevate them and with all with with homes covering most of the land and driveways. We're just concerned that the water is gonna come on us from all angles and what our property will be you know, useless and uh we're just hoping that that you guys will make sure they do that right. I appreciate your time.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:45:09All right. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   3:45:12It's hard to know what

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:45:14Jim Campbell, uh [address removed]. I'm the current current owner and I have a a contract with the uh Turners to sell my property at the beginning of uh June.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:45:25Have you been sworn in to uh

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:45:27I have been sworn in.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:45:28Okay, thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:45:30Uh I'd just like to bring up the uh question of uh the electric power line that comes from Hudson to my house. It's it's very it's It's very close to the property line. If not over. I was wondering how that's going to be handled. With any easement issues? Uh I'd just like to uh remind the uh commission about uh some facts here. Uh there was a two thousand seven agreement to provide the PVC fence. Uh with the current current owner. The

   3:46:00fence line uh has been marked by uh a wire fence since uh nineteen eighty four and the cement patio has been there since two thousand five. We we are going to be working with Mr. Clandenin in in discussing the uh Buffer and the uh fence. according to its current diagram, um the fence, its quote is is uh on the The fence must be on the west side of the buffer. Uh this will ensure that the um

   3:46:31the shrubbery is facing us and and we have the crop of uh separation between the two uh types of uh properties. I believe the MPU MBUD requires that, that it um it's the the it's the buffer is there for for us and and and to keep us uh separated from that development. Um I'd just like to remind the board that the owners are going to keep this in a natural

   3:47:01state with cattle and horses. And uh I hope the uh Commission can do everything in their power to keep this part of Florida safe. Thank you very much.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:47:12All right, thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:47:15There is nobody else here for this item.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:47:17Okay.

   3:47:20So um

   3:47:27Does the African have anything to rebuttal? Rebuttal?

   Barbara Wilhite

   3:47:33Sure, Commissioner, thank you. With regard to parcel T and and the neighbors adjacent, my client has been working with them. Um not sure how we we Still come to you when we've been working directly. Um, we did add language to the conditions relative to a requirement for the fence. um in the area of their actual home and then some um The and then we also have the it's a type A. Your code already requires a type A buffer. That's the buffer

   3:48:03that the code says we require. We added the fence to that. Sounds like there's an issue of whether the plantings are on the inside or the outside. Um I will let my team address that. With regard to Mr Branch's comment question. There's an existing condition in this MPUD. This is not a new project. This is a build-out. We're at the final phases, parcels of this project. And so long ago condition nineteen was negotiated for what the rules were gonna be regarding

   3:48:33construction access for all the all of the project. And so cons condition nineteen requires that construction traffic enter via colony road To Fairwind? The Max Fly. or from Hudson Avenue to Max Fly. So that's the existing condition. We are not My client does not um own all of the vacant parcels. So there are other owners So We'd ask that that condition would I mean it's still there. We

   3:49:03didn't ask for it to be changed. That's a condition that's been on this project. That's been how the construction traffic's been anticipated by not only this property owner but somebody else that owns vacant parcels. Um And so that's that's the it is in the conditions um regarding how construction traffic has always been um required to enter and exit the site. I will let either Mr. Clendenning or or Jamie address I guess if we moved our plants to the outside, um as opposed

   3:49:33to the inside. of our fence that we've offered in that condition, I suppose that would address the concern.

   3:49:41And my client will will continue to be working with Mr. Campbell because Mr. Campbell's driveway and patio are on my client's property. So they've got to work together anyhow to get that resolved. Um So I think the bo best we can do as as the county is to add to our type A buffer requirement the vinyl fence and we and the code does not dictate which size of landscaping goes on. Um so but if if putting it on the outside moves us on then

   3:50:12I could see if my team's agreeable to that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:50:16Okay. Yeah, again, this is Jamie Girardi. Um I don't know, is Mr. Clendeni on or is he not? Yeah. I think you have to unmute him. Yeah.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:50:35Can you hear me? Yeah it is. Yeah, sure.

   3:50:44Hello? Yes, sir. We hear you.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:50:47Hello?

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:50:52Hello? This is Jim Clintonning.

   Barbara Wilhite

   3:50:58They can hear you, Jim.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   3:51:02Well I I guess while Mr. Clintoning's having a problem. Again, Jamie Girardi, ninety four hundred River Crossing Boulevard, suite one oh two, New Port Richey. Um I have spoken with Mr. Clint Denning and again he is working directly with Mr. Campbell and with the Turners is my understanding. Um He wishes at this point to keep the landscaping on his side of the fence. Um his understanding and working with them is that the privacy and um the opacity of the fence or that will be provided by the the six foot

   3:51:33fence he has offered to provide. Um it goes above and beyond what's required by the code. So he would he would prefer that his residence benefit from the landscaping on his side of the fence. Um I can go ahead and speak with the other the stormwater concerns, um the the the dirt, the sort are they? and home for the dirt that's gonna come out of the ponds. All of those items will be addressed during the final design and final permitting. Um The the agencies

   3:52:03will not allow us to make the flooding problem worse on the other side of the property line, all the water internal to development. has to be maintained on site and we are regulated as far as how much water we can discharge off our site. Um so all of those issues will come out um during the um design and permitting phase.

   Jack Mariano

   3:52:28Okay. Mr. Chairman Mariano.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:52:31Yes, sir.

   Jack Mariano

   3:52:31I'll just speak to the uh Colony Road and Hudson Avenue access. I think it's acceptable doing it the way they got set up. Then not going through the main way off Sugar Creek, going Uh the development which was probably a concern I I would have had, but I think the the access you're you're putting in for transportation is acceptable.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:52:49And if I may add, the uh order that was put in place to prevent the construction traffic was actually the construction traffic was actually using the more the like the what we consider private residential subdivision roads and it was tearing them up. So that's what caused a halt of construction and caused the order to be put in place. Um when you look at the whole area as as a if you s ve span out on the aerial There's less likelihood that they would utilize Colony Road because of how it circumnavigates through Fairwinds to

   3:53:19get to the northern part of this development where Hudson Avenue is. It's most likely that they will enter Hudson, especially since that isn't a developed road yet. They just need to stabilize it to get their construction trucks in there and then propose the rest of the development. If Parcel O, which is on the southeast corner of metal oaks were being proposed with this and being developed at this same time, I would have a little bit more of concern. But given that all these four parcels, S, T, J, and U are all on the northern part of the development, I think it's highly unlikely unless there is an emergency that blocks

   3:53:49that, that they would be using colony fairwinds.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:53:53Move approval.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:53:54Back in the right-of-way.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:53:55Got a motion and second. Uh by roll call vote.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:53:59District two, Commissioner Moore.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:54:03All right.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:54:05District three, Commissioner Starkey. Uh

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:54:06Commissioner Oriano, that includes the Condition of the tree. Okay.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   3:54:11Aye. District four Commissioner Starkey I'm sorry. District 4 Commissioner Fitzpatrick. District five, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District one, Chairman Oakley.

   Ron OakleyChair

   3:54:22Aye. Motion passed five zero. Move on to P fifty nine?