PDE-25-0007

Every appearance5 of 6 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. 64% of 619 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 1 of the 6 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Oct 8, 2024
   Board of County CommissionersP41Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance By The … County Land Development Code; Amending Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Section 802.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 802.2 Applicability; Section 802.3 Tree Removal; Creating Section 802.4 New Development; Section 802.5 Existing Problem Trees; Section 802.6 Tree Protection; Section 802.7 Trees Of Special Significance; Section 802.8 Heritage Trees; Section 802.9 Tree Mitigation Fund; Appendix A Definitions; And … And An Effective Date.

   Open this item →No recording
2. 2Oct 22, 2024
   Board of County CommissionersP74Public hearingContinued

   An Ordinance By The … County Land Development Code; Amending Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Section 802.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 802.2 Applicability; Section 802.3 Tree Removal; Creating Section 802.4 New Development; Section 802.5 Existing Problem Trees; Section 802.6 Tree Protection; Section 802.7 Trees Of Special Significance; Section 802.8 Heritage Trees; Section 802.9 Tree Mitigation Fund; Appendix A Definitions; And … And An Effective Date.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to the December 10, 2024 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 10:05
   ▶ 10:051m

   OakleyChair

   10:05that clears it up. Okay. So the Publication on seven on P seventy four.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   10:12Uh seventy-four. The first public hearing here also was uh moved from the October eighth meeting. uh to the meeting today. It was originally published in the August seventh, twenty twenty four edition of the Tampa Bay Times.

   OakleyChair

   10:29Okay.

   10:31All right. And this is continuous. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh item P seventy four is PDE twenty five zero zero zero seven. Uh this is an ordinance amending the land development code for tree preservation and replacement uh standards. We're currently working with uh stakeholders and wrapping up uh uh a new version of the ordinance which will be brought back. Therefore this is being requested for a continuance with date uncertain and we will republish to bring this back.

   StarkeyVice Chair

   10:57Why date uncertain? Why not like the next in two meetings? I I don't want to leave a date uncertain. We've got to get this fixed.

   OakleyChair

   11:05It may be because it's been continued a number of times already. So we have to republish anyway. Yeah.

   OakleyChair

   11:12Okay. All right. Move to any data uncertain.

   Mariano

   11:16Second.

3. 3Mar 20, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC15Consent agendaNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance By The … County Land Development Code; Amending Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Section 802.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 802.2 Applicability; Section 802.3 Tree Removal; Creating Section 802.4 New Development; Section 802.5 Existing Problem Trees; Section 802.6 Tree Protection; Section 802.7 Trees Of Special Significance; Section 802.8 Heritage Trees; Section 802.9 Tree Mitigation Fund; Appendix A Definitions; And … And An Effective Date.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:20:15
   ▶ 1:20:1557m

   Moody

   1:20:15The next item on the list is item PC 15, which is the proposed tree preservation ordinance by Patrick Dutter.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:20:24By the way, this is regulatory.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:20:33All right. Uh good afternoon. Patrick Dutter, Planning, Development, Economic Growth.

   1:20:40All right, long time coming. Uh tree ordinance update. I think it was requested by the board um I don't know, probably close to a year ago now. Uh so some updated language to eight oh two. Um so first I want to talk about the uh exemption adjustments. So there are a lot of pieces to this. Um, you know, we we're we're tasked with looking at, you know, um There a lot of clear cutting going on. Um there was concern about s why are we clear cutting every

   1:21:10tree, uh if we could keep some of the larger trees somehow. Um so that kind of opened up this code section and then the the team um wanted to clean up some items while they were there, some some loopholes that we kinda discovered throughout the years. So since we had eight hundred open, um we wanted to take that advantage. So So that's why you see some adjustments to some stuff you might not be expecting. So the first is is exemption adjustments. We remove the exemption of getting a permit to install a fence or a wall, remove the exemption of getting

   1:21:40a permit for the creation of a survey. We allow for the removal of high-risk trees on residential lots with without a permit. There is state statute language that was adopted, I think, a year and a half ago that's required us to have that language in our code. And remove the exemption to remove small tree or trees smaller than uh five inch DBH on residential lots. Um This is already implied with the uh introduction piece uh in the exemption. So some cleanup items there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:22:10Explain a couple of things. Remove the exemption of getting a permit to install a fence or wall. Sure. So what's the implication of that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:22:20Um so I I think we saw and I have uh Mike Woodard here, he is our our arborist working in central permitting. He deals with every single tree application that you come in. Uh I believe there it was um people I think were taking advantage of that by saying they're going to have a tree or fence or wall, and we don't really have permits for that. Um so people were using that to say I'm gonna take down this tree because I'm gonna put up a tree or fence or wall. Now we're not restricting anyone from doing that. You just gotta get a permit first.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:22:49So How does that save a tree?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:22:53Well, it doesn't save a tree, but it just it gets rid of the loophole where they didn't have to get a permit. To what end?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:23:01But So uh is it I guess what I'm asking is it a fee raising exercise? The goal of an ordinance is to save the trees. If it doesn't save the trees, then why are we doing it?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:23:15I can answer that. Mike Woodard, Pasco County Arborist. Um, the biggest issue was coming from natural resources not being able to review fences being placed possibly in a wetland. So we're not saying no, it's just for coun for uh natural resources to review for wetlands and for us to make sure that it is on the property line and not just a random fence across a backyard. Um we were getting people doing that and clearing out quite a number of trees that aren't for

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:23:39a property. I got a big backyard. Agricultural property. I want to get a horse or a cow. Are you telling me I can't cross fence my yard to create paddocks for the livestock?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:23:53Right now the exemption's only for delineating a property line.

   1:23:59So for agricultural properties, people put in fences anyway and they basically have to go around the tree. Since it's in your property, you could go around to say a grand oak that would require a permit and that's what we would ask people to do.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:24:10Okay.

   1:24:12And then just sim The follow up to my question Same thing with getting a creating a survey.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:24:21Right now code allows trimming to proper pruning standards to be able to access a site to do any surveys of trees. I've encountered one person who had a really odd it the tree came up out about five feet and then crossed horizontally across the property and they couldn't bring a truck into survey. And that's the only one I've encountered where people couldn't work. around the trees. And they did come to us and ask how they would do that first and we worked with them on it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:24:43So if are you saying a surveyor needs to get a permit to conduct a survey?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:24:48No, to remove a tree to conduct a survey because they shouldn't need to. They can work around the trees generally to see what a site is. I've done it myself and I have never had to remove a tree.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:24:55And then the the exemption on five inch DBH trees on residential lots.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:25:03That issue did you want to speak to that or you want me to do that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:25:04Yeah, I c I can answer that. So if you read the intro to the exemptions piece, uh it says a tree removal permit is required for the removal of all five inch diameter of breast height, except for the following circumstances. In that it's saying five inch or greater, it's implying that anything less than that doesn't need a permit.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:25:23Right. So you're saying it needs a permit to take something out that's less than five inches?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:25:27No, you you don't have to have that permit.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:25:30Only if it's five inches

   GreyChair

   1:25:32or more.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:25:32Five inches or more.

   GreyChair

   1:25:34What are high risk trees, Patrick? High

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:25:37risk trees. Mike?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:25:41So that um statute, Florida statute one six three point oh four five requests that an arborist writing an arborist letter to exempt from permitting certify that the tree cannot be mitigated below a moderate risk as determined by a

   1:25:58basic risk assessment. They don't have to do a full risk assessment, a basic risk risk assessment of that tree. If they can certify that, then they don't need a permit to remove the tree. And that's what that uh exemption speaks to.

   GreyChair

   1:26:09I I'm not sure. It's it's still not clear quite clear to me. Is it clear to everybody else? No. So maybe you could

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:26:17dumb it down

   GreyChair

   1:26:17a little bit.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:26:18When a new development is created, they have trees that they have to place on their lot. They're all going to be about two or three inch caliber. Many phone calls I get after people move into those uh subdivisions is they read our code and go, oh it's less less than five inches. I don't need a permit, correct? But it was part of an approved plan for their home. And that's a discrepancy we're trying to get clear for

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:26:38people to do. The Chair is asking about he's asking about the high risk tree removal in the statute. I think that's what

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:26:45Oh the statute states we cannot require a permit if they possess that letter and it meets the state law's requirements. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:26:58Does the statute use that exact term? Yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:27:01It does. Does the statute define what a high risk tree is? Yes,

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:27:04as defined by the basics. It is an ISA document and a methodology from the International Society of Arborists to determine the risk of a tree as relating to human infrastructure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:27:16But what is the risk? You asked the question right before that, but what what is the h what is classified as a high risk tree?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:27:22What makes for a high risk tree?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:27:25It's somewhat situationally dependent, but you have to have a target nearby, like a home or a car, people walking by even. So you have to have something that can be damaged, and you have to have an issue with the tree that you can't trim or do any sort of mitigation to, like a dying tree, for example, near a home. is a high risk because you cannot resolve the issue. But one branch over the home can be trimmed to remove that level of risk. And that's what that risk assessment's supposed to determine.

   Christopher Poole

   1:27:54And you're you're saying that's determined by an arborist. It's not a full risk. I say

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:27:57certified arborist.

   Christopher Poole

   1:27:58Okay, so it's not a full risk assessment, but it's a it's a basic

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:28:01risk assess risk assessment, which is not so basic. There's quite a lot of criteria they look at. They look at, like I said, the targets, what's there, what's not there, the condition of the tree, the species of tree, in the location it is. So there's a lot of leeway for argument in it as well.

   GreyChair

   1:28:19So it's not really what kind of tree it is or what the diameter of the tree is. It's Other issues. Yes,

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:28:25the the

   GreyChair

   1:28:26specific condition

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:28:27of that individual tree, yes. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:28:31Mike, I've got a question for you before you go down. It's the go back to the that exemption on the this the slide here says remove exemption and getting a permit for the creation of a survey But the I think the the section of the code that's stricken is not just a survey, it's geotechnical tests, anything else. So in order for geotechnical tests to be done. We've got to get a surveyor out there to survey the trees and then submit a permit to remove a tree that's in their way to get the drill rig in there to do the test. Is that right?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:29:02Possibly, but I don't get very many requests for that. Um

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:29:06Well now you don't because I don't know because it's

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:29:07exact.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:29:08I mean I don't get

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:29:10people calling to ask about it either very often.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:29:12Well, 'cause they know it's it's written in the code, that's the way it's always been. I mean that's a good thing. It's gonna create quite the delay on on

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:29:19I mean I can tell you I have had multiple sites where we've had to go in and clear trees for the purpose of getting a drill rig onto a site that's that densely forested. That's not uncommon.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:29:34We do it all the time. And question for you all, how often are those trees something that would need a permit? Um we tend to have a lot of invasive trees, the palms and pines we don't require permitting for.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:29:46Well, I I mean again, if if it's stricken here Then all of a sudden what kind of Pandora's box do we open up? Hey, that w tree was eight inches, or that tree was six inches, or that tree was four inches, or I I mean That exemption's pr present now and all the all the people I've worked with. All are careful and we usually walk the site with them to make sure that care is taken and we carefully choose the route that they get there. We're not going through a twenty four inch tree to Get a rig in there.

   Christopher Poole

   1:30:13Yeah, by by practice we typically try to use five inches or, you know, above is kinda so we're we're not gonna touch anything that's that's above five inches, but so we try to wind our path through it, but yeah, that I mean that's a very good point.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:30:28Okay. So maybe modify that language to bring back the piece about um professional geo geologist, geotechnical stuff.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:30:36Let me ask a question about these.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:30:38Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:30:40I didn't hear the board getting upset. About Geotechnical engineering companies. removing some five inch trees to do geotechnical explorations and I didn't hear the board screaming that we're losing all the trees in the county because Mr. Gray decided to put or Mr. Moody decided to put up a fence along his property line. The issue is

   1:31:10develop developments that result in the clear cutting of trees. Sure.

   1:31:17At least this portion and I know you haven't finished this. This doesn't solve clear cutting problems of developments. This just makes more bureaucracy for a homeowner or a geotechnical engineer or a surveyor. Sure.

   1:31:37Small amounts of trees and a lot of times just like the gentleman said, nuisance trees and exotics and I I I'm just not understanding why we're going to this level. That's does this doesn't seem to address the issue.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:31:51Sure. And and I think we attempt to address the main issue further along in the the PowerPoint presentation, which we can talk about. I think these were were smaller cleanup things that danced around the subject and maybe things that we could improve to make even the smaller projects a little bit better to keep some of our trees. Um but ultimately if it's something that we want to just Just keep the language as is and just focus on the large development stuff. That's something we can do, assuming the board is that's

   1:32:21the bo what the board wants, I guess.

   1:32:25Would you like me to keep going through the right-of-way?

   1:32:38Okay, um new development adjustments, um removal requirements at tree survey. We will continue to allow representative sampling. Um we added clarity what the tree survey entails for the tree inventory. We added clarity to what the tree inventory entails as well. Um so oftentimes, and um the engineers that are Here I don't have the issue with, but some other engineers provide us tree surveys, entry inventories that are not very clear. So we're just provided some additional

   1:33:08direction about what we want to see on the tree survey entry inventory. Um in terms of retention and replacement requirements, um

   1:33:18Nothing's really changing there. Still need a tree plan. Um you need to include the replacement calculations showing how trees will be planted equal or above the removal amount. Um projects can still and deficit can still pay into the tree mitigation fund. I have that covered in another slide. So um like I if you if you review the red line text, it looks like a lot, but a lot of the stuff is is clean up and clarification stuff or Or just shifting how the code section reads a little bit.

   1:33:48Um problem trees and tree protection um cleaned up and expanded on the existing problem tree section, uh expanded on removal criteria and added the requirement for replacement plantings. Um so we have uh basically You're you're removing tree or you have problem trees on basically non-residential lots and then everything other than that. Um so we have basically two separate sections that talk about if you're removing a tree on a residential lot, uh this is the stuff you need to provide us. Again, just adding

   1:34:18some more clarity about what we're looking for. Uh we did the same thing on non-residential. Most of that language still or existed previous to this. We just cleaned up some of that. language and uh format it formatted it a little bit better just to make it read a little bit more clear.

   1:34:36All right, so this will be a fun one. Um, tree mitigation fund. Um so the current code uh currently uh for residential development, you have to pay uh if you're removing trees, right, and you have a deficit, $50 per inch, not to exceed $500 per unit. For affordable housing projects, it's $10 per inch, not to exceed $50 per unit. For non-residential

   1:35:07with a building, it's fifty dollars per inch not to exceed $500 for each 2,000 square foot of the first floor. And then for non-residential with no building, it's fifty dollars per inch. So that's what the current code has. Their proposed code is is in attempt to kind of simplify that a little bit. We're not really breaking it up by residential or commercial. We're going by how much land are you disturbing and of that land that you're disturbing What how many trees do you have on

   1:35:37there? So all project types, it's gonna be $70, $75 per inch. Also all project types. There's it's gonna be an additional $150 per inch for heritage trees. And I'll cover what a heritage tree is in a future slide, and Mike can probably help me out with that too. But that's generally larger oak trees and larger magnolia trees. So the larger oak trees and larger magnolia trees, you're paying not $75, you're paying $150 if per inch if you need to remove those trees.

   1:36:09And then of course the in lieu of payment clause that we currently have, we're changing that a little bit too. Like I said, we're doing per disturbed acreage. So in lieu of payment per inch, it's gonna be uh $2,750 per disturbed developable acreage until May 1st, 2026. And that amount is going to increase to 3,500 after 5126.

   GreyChair

   1:36:34So does that mean? If the developer wants to pay Twenty seven hundred and fifty dollars.

   1:36:43He can clear cut it whatever trees he needs to clear cut.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:36:47Uh yes, if if whatever their whatever deficit they have, so between uh inches that they're going to replace and maybe you know they're gonna h hopefully they're gonna save some trees, but inches that they're gonna replace, um there's a a number that they come up with. Well, okay, we're we're in a deficit of five thousand inches. Um so it's gonna be now by developable acreage.

   GreyChair

   1:37:09And those inches is that diameter in inches or around the tree? Uh D B H diameter.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:37:17So Patrick, you and I have had this conversation Um I think the code needs more clarity about

   1:37:24when what projects these new fees are going to be applicable to, not just for the initial change, but also for your change in One five one twenty six. Um That I didn't know you were changing it again on five one twenty six until just now. Um so I think The timing of who pays these incr these changed fees. I don't know if they're increases or not, but whatever they're Needs to be clearer in the code.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:37:53Right. And and we have language that I'm about to read that I think should potentially solve that issue. Um so uh we have uh a lot of MPUDs that have conditions of approval that mention um specific ordinance, the older ordinance in terms of tree mitigation. Uh And so we have some language that we want to read in that was not included in this original code to hopefully help with that. So resolution number 08-284 is hereby amended and superseded by this section 802.4.

   1:38:25These mitigation rates shall be applicable to all applications for construction plans, operating permits, or mass grading plan that is not completed prior to the effective date of the 2025. Mm-hmm. So that's added language.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:38:37Yeah, I just think you're gonna have to add similar A similar trigger for this increase on five.

   1:38:46Add some language to that that says what projects are gonna have to pay the increase rate on five one twenty six. Understood.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:38:52So that's application complete or application submitted?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:38:56W what what specifically which which piece?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:38:59Triggers the new fees.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:39:02Appli it's going to be application submittal. So if you have your construct if you have your your application submitted. Yeah, okay. you're covered by whatever you were under at that time. If we take a year to approve it, you're still subject to the the previous whatever you were approved under or submitted.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:39:21Okay. So and The date, the operative date would be the date that the this ordinance takes effect, which presumably would be when. If you're on schedule, current schedule.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:39:32Uh I do not know the final hearing date off the top of my head. But I would obviously include that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:39:39Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:39:42Okay, um so here's a comparison chart. Uh it hopefully you guys can see it on your screen there. I know it's a little small for us here. Um so I took 10 or 15 projects to show you what these new changes would look like. Now uh these projects, what they decided to do um was pay by. Right? So what I did is I took those projects and then rather than the $50 per inch, I changed it to $70, $75 per inch. Now I understand the caveat to

   1:40:12this is I did not go through every single one of these projects and figure out which ones of these were heritage trees, right? Because that number is obviously increased when assuming you have heritage trees. So the numbers on the right are the increases or potentially decreases. And like I said, it is not including the heritage trees. What's probably a little bit more telling is the next comparison chart. So this is the what I like to uh say the in-lieu of comparison chart.

   1:40:42So uh previously, you know, you can do $50 per inch or you could pay $500 per residential lot, that type of thing, right? So that's what this is. So the those are again 10, 12 projects. The first column is in lieu of payment, so that is actually what they paid. And then what I want to do is I found the uh developable acreage for all of these projects and multiplied that by our new rate. So you can see generally the increases that you're gonna

   1:41:12see for the 2750 uh number and then the 3500 number. Um The observation that I think I've made with this is usually your more compact developments are not paying as much in tree mitigation. Your projects that are more sprawling are paying more in tree mitigation. Obviously, that makes sense because now we're triggering triggering based off of developable acreage. So again, residential subdivisions that have large locks.

   1:41:51Just a comparison chart.

   1:41:55So we also clarified tree mitigation fund usage. So we clarify what constitutes an affordable housing use at an I think the 80% AMI. Clarify the use for the Economic Growth Commercial Landscaping Program to make that clear. Added the ability for the county administrator to use the tree mitigation funds for public use. So as an example, like Arbor Day or Tree Day, if we want to do programs where people can come and get trees from the county for free, we can use that funding for that

   1:42:26or any other types of Of of similar uses. And then added a cap on the amount of the funds that the county can use for non-vegetative costs. So oftentimes the county will come in and try and use funds for the tree mitigation fund, which is great. That's probably how we got a lot of landscaping in some of our medians. But the county wanted to use um some of those funds for other than just landscaping um like uh mulch and and all that kind of stuff we're really we're really focused on trees so we put a a cap in there that okay they can use

   1:42:56some of the funds but it can't exceed a certain amount.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:42:59So just to clarify the third one, Patrick That's still for Purposes of planting trees. I mean it's not I mean, we're not gonna use this fund to build roads or correct okay. 'Cause it says public You may want to clarify that because That makes it sound like we can use the money for any public purpose. That that does that doesn't sound very good.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:43:22Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:43:22You might have make it clear that it's

   1:43:29Hmm. For some

   1:43:35By any public purpose is a little too broad.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:43:37Right. It may be clearly in here. I just probably generalized it for the slide. But I will go back and check to make sure that we're going to be able to do that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:43:43Sure. Because that's too broad.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:43:45Understood.

   Chris Williams

   1:43:46Okay. Can you can you remind me what the second one is? What is the Economic Growth Commercial Landscaping Program?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:43:52Yeah, so uh I believe three or four years ago at this point, uh the economic growth uh group developed a program to help incentivize um maybe some rundown looking development or commercial development to you know install landscaping along their frontages. Um funding used from the tree mitigation fund is used for those purposes.

   Chris Williams

   1:44:14Is that something so maybe there's a a business out there that was, you know Done way before there was a landscaping whatever, do they apply for a grant or how does that work?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:44:27Yes, I believe and Mr. Engle I think was the expert there, but I believe they will apply for the grant funding and assume they meet certain criteria. Uh funding will be released for them to uh make those improvements.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:44:39Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to the first bullet. I noticed that you got rid of the reduced rate for affordable housing projects. Is the theory that Because you'll just give them now the grants from the fund directly if they're Below eighty percent of AMI is the y they don't need a reduced rate.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:44:54No, honestly the thinking there was um at the time w we don't think affordable housing projects should um not have any less trees than anyone else, I think was the thinking.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:45:06I I get that. What I'm asking is

   1:45:11Since they may still struggle to put them all in, it it sounds like you're you're Building in the ability to That they can request funds from the Dream Mitigation Fund?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:45:21Sure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:45:22Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:45:27Um okay, so then our heritage tree. Uh heritage tree shall have a condition rating of good or better as determined by the uh ISA condition rating system. Tree species as stated below must be at the required DBH or greater to qualify for a heritage tree. Every effort must be made to incorporate heritage trees into the design of the project. So our live oaks that are larger than 34 inches DBH and Magnolia trees that are 24 inches Four inches or larger

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:45:52in C. Does that mean every effort must be made to incorporate heritage trees into the design of a project? What's every effort? Try your best. Well, who decides whether I've tried my best or not? Who's judge and jury?

   1:46:11If you would like we could strike that language. Why? you guys proposed the ordinance so I'm asking the question.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:46:18Yeah, there I mean there I think there's a lot of aspirational stuff that we have in the code. Um and I think that's probably one of them.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:46:28Okay. We'll just leave it at that for the moment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:46:30Sure.

   1:46:34Uh questions.

   GreyChair

   1:46:37Well, I'm just concerned about the payment of uh twenty five hundred dollars and then you can clear any tree you want, you know, basically.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:46:47Mm.

   GreyChair

   1:46:47I I don't know, I'm not I'm not I don't like 'em taking down hair of these trees, period.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:46:53Sure.

   GreyChair

   1:46:54And I think Sometimes it's better to have not have all straight roads. Yeah, you can go around things and And uh if you think you can Sell a lot for fifty thousand dollars, spend three thousand dollars to Cut down a heritage oak. It's a pretty Reasonable sacrifice.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:47:13That's my problem with this, Mr. Gray. His Weird Increasing the fee by twenty-five dollars an inch. If I'm Just By way of example. For a thirty inch tree, that's not a heritage tree. Actually it's we'll make it a thirty-three inch tree, 'cause that doesn't qualify as a heritage oak tree. It costs eight hundred and twenty five dollars. All right. If I'm developing

   1:47:43an M P U D On a forty foot wide lot. And that lot's worth a hundred thousand dollars in market value? You think eight hundred and twenty five dollars is gonna make me save that tree? I'm gonna kill that tree every time. That is n that is a economic decision that takes not even a fraction of a second to make.

   1:48:10I won't be supporting this ordinance. Because I don't feel like and for exactly this reason that this is gonna move the needle. What all I see is and back to my Initial comment. I see more bureaucracy for the poor homeowner that needs to take down a five and a half inch dead tree in their yard. I don't see Anything here that incentivizes a developer to save a tree. All we did was make the tree fund bigger and we already have an excess

   1:48:40of money in the tree fund anyways. The commissioner's been talking about we've had this tree fund and we haven't spent the money.

   1:48:47There were some of us that we have. We're getting frustrated with the amount of clear cutting and tree removal that's going on.

   1:48:59and the approach that was proposed. was one of incentivization to save trees, not penalties, 'cause these penalties are meaningless in the scale of the value Of a lot.

   1:49:17One of the ideas floated was we have a a density bonus in our comprehensive plan. That allows a developer to get extra density by preserving a wetland. Well I'm not gonna tell you that you can't impact a wetland. People get permits to impact wetlands every day. When there are reasons. But you don't get this isn't nineteen seventy two where I can

   1:49:48just go and take twenty acres of wetlands and dredge and fill them all to create a new subdivision. If I need to knock the corner of a wetland off to get a road around, yeah, I can get a permit to do that. So my point is I can't develop those wetlands anyways. So we give developers a bonus for Preserving something that the state's gonna make and the federal government's gonna make 'em preserve anyway. So why do we even bother with that? Why don't we give 'em a bonus when you save trees. What

   1:50:19I was hoping for when this discussion started was that this would come to us in the form of a comprehensive plan amendment. and a change in how we do business at Pasco County. One give the bonus for saving a percentage of tree canopy, not saving wetlands that I can't get permits to develop anyways. The other is more policy.

   1:50:43We've had lots of discussions over the last few years about the minimum widths of lots. And I think I was one of the first ones to say I'm done with forty and fifty foot wide lots. I think that was on the Hale Collier thing and that started a big discussion about this.

   1:51:02And then what happened was discussions with the T B B A And a policy memo that comes out that says you can have 45 foot wide lots. So I'll propose this.

   1:51:16How about when we're going to be able to do Barbara's client comes in for an M P U D We start with R four zoning. You start with sixty foot wide lots. And when you save that wetland. then I'll give you fifty-eight foot wide lots. And when you save twenty-five percent of the trees, then I'll give you fifty foot wide lots. And then when you give me two acres of neighborhood park, then I'll give you forty-five foot wide lots.

   1:51:42Then we The developers need to understand you give, you get. We just give right from the front end. And I think that's part of our problem. The other thing that this ordinance doesn't do, and I and I apologize, I don't want any of the staff to take my comments personally because I know that this ordinance was started under a previous ACA. wasn't David Allen that started this. I think Roy Major did this. But we'd had discussions with Roy. We told R Roy

   1:52:12what our what our thoughts were on this. and what he chose was not the incentive basis, the the regulatory. And I know you've guys got of st stuck with this and you're trying to put it over the goal line and we understand you're just doing your job. But it's not a program that I feel like is gonna move the needle. And we haven't done anything in our code. We have to look at why do developers clear developers don't just get up in the morning and say, I'm going to clear cut the trees. It

   1:52:44starts with the stormwater design. I have to start from the lowest place. And then everything goes uphill from there. Every one of our sites and I hear the commissioners complaining about it, they're wondering why are these developments four and five and seven feet higher than their neighbors? Well that's because water flows downhill. And we can only start with the bottom and we we work our way up. Unfortunately you can't change the code to stop those things or we're going to flood people. But that's why these

   1:53:15things get clear cut. But I can tell you that Twenty five dollars an inch. The only guy that that might discourage is my neighbor. And the only thing that he's gonna get discouraged about is going down to actually legally get a permit. He's gonna cut the tree down on Saturday afternoon and we'll make it disappear in the bonfire Saturday night. You'll never know. It's not homeowners that are the issue. So I don't feel like there's any need other than in if we wanna make some minor

   1:53:45tweaks or corrections in the existing ordinance to clarify things, but until you get something that's actually gonna incentivize a developer to do to To save trees? An a new way of doing business. It's not gonna work.

   GreyChair

   1:54:01And Patrick, that's the that's really the thing that's bothered me too, is that, you know, I think the problem, as he said, is n is not the homeowners, it's the developers. Because they're the only ones that go in a clear cut. Sure, and uh Yeah. Every time I drive down Little Road.

   1:54:20Yeah. And see all that area clear cut. Um that was forced. You know, you can't imagine how many calls I've gotten about that. And uh So I think that's really the fo what should be our focus is the Find a way. Practical way to Put put developers in a position where it's not economically Attractive. Cut down. A thirty four foot oak, a thirty four inch oak, I mean that's That's a

   1:54:50pretty big oak. You know, a thirty three inch is still a pretty big oak. Yeah, so Um You know, I think Uh maybe You know, that number should be decreased too. It should be a smaller oak, should even be Because they take so long to grow.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:55:10I and I I get it. I just don't think unless you're gonna start charging them Thousands of dollars an inch. And then at some point we're going to make development impractical if you have a wooded Sight. But I feel like if we do it the opposite way rather than We want carrots, not sticks. Sure.

   1:55:36then I feel like there'll be a lot more creativity. When i look at if my goal is to get forty five foot wide lots, I'll figure out how to cluster my development so I can save part of that tree canopy and and again, we're giving away density for property that can't be developed in the first place. Sure. That There was a time. I was a very young child at the time where you could walk where you could go in and blitz a wetland and do that kind of stuff and you didn't need permits. That was a long time ago.

   1:56:15And now it's ten thousand a day and that stops B.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:56:19So I do want to comment on one thing though. I'm not opposed to your idea, but I will say that I'm I have some concerns about taking away the wetland credit because that was put in place partially to avoid a taking. I mean uh I understand that you From a practical standpoint you're saying it doesn't really achieve a whole lot, but it still shows that we're giving some value for those wetlands. Okay. It may be a value that that most developers don't

   1:56:49really care about, but on the books you're getting some value for that land That If we don't give value for that land arguably we've we've given no value. Okay. And so now you arguably have a taking

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:57:01of that property.

   1:57:06preserving trees over a certain size or a certain percentage of canopy.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:57:12So I what I'm saying is I don't have an objection to you as giving other density incentives like you're saying, but I I wouldn't want to take away the wetland.

   Chris Williams

   1:57:21Fair argument. Um Okay. Chris. I mean several years ago I I heard him talk about conservation subdivisions. And and it was an idea like okay, you preserve all this green space and you cluster your development. Mm. I'm not sure I've still today have seen one of those and maybe there are. But I'm not familiar with them but I think your ideal. But weren't those

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:57:47those were generally in the low density, like the Res One areas and they were intended for places like the northeast rural More so than, you know, the West Market area, the central

   Chris Williams

   1:58:00But again, when I'm seeing development happening out in VOPH per se, I'm not seeing That but I'd like I think your idea has merit. I think that should be something we should consider because again if you can preserve trees and and green space and then cluster development, that it may that makes sense to me. So so you have a question for

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:58:22staff. Um And Patrick, you and I have had this conversation. I mean this ordinance has other gaps, like for example, it doesn't even codify PM twenty six. Um Which is odd to me because The M PUDs were imposing these tree requirements and landscape requirements through PM twenty six. But apparently the rest of the county if you're not an M P U D you don't have to comply with those tree landscape requirements would Seems like at some point we should codify PM twenty six. Um

   1:58:52is there going to be a part Is this just part one of the tree fix? And there's going to be a part two where we do things like codify PM twenty six and Maybe put in density incentives for preserv I mean I I I don't know if this is just the the band-aid and then we're gonna do the cure later or what what but somebody help me out here.

   David Engel

   1:59:14Hi David Engel Planning and economic development director, so I've been listening very carefully. And I really appreciate Mr. Moody's discussion of the history and genesis of this effort because he's right. Uh we had a very ambitious tree mitigation and and tree preservation concept ordinance that we were proffering. And the we had tremendous pushback, frankly, from the development community. Uh the development community acknowledged

   1:59:44that our fees haven't been increased for about twenty years. and that they were aligned with that. And it's our intention after speaking to some of the commissioners that we this is the first step. This is a Band-aid ordinance. Uh we realize that this doesn't do the job. It basically anures more revenue coming into the tree mitigation fund. And frankly, the tree mitigation fund was not appropriately in agre in proactively handled by the county staff. So we we

   2:00:15are we're trying to start utilizing those funds to get them on the street to increase the number of trees in our county and increase the canopy. So what I'd like to do is taking this opportunity to having a candid discussion with the Planning Commission and also having a new ACA. Uh asked for a continuance of this matter. And not gonna just let it die, but come up with some maybe some recommendations so this band-aid first step is more effective. Yep. I don't think we want to let the issue die. I think we are all concerned about the question. Yeah, because

   2:00:45I I I mean if if the Planning Commission doesn't support it, and then we go to the Plan the Board of County Commissioners, I don't I'd like to see us work with the Planning Commission coming up with a better outcome. I think that's a good idea.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:00:59The pushback. 'Cause I watched a a lot of those horizontal round table meetings and those discussions.

   2:01:08The pushback

   2:01:12was about the tree survey. requirements and the whole crazy point scheme that was proposed and I would Tell you I still come to the same conclusion. We can make a crazy tree evaluation and point scheme and charges for taking down trees, but at the end of the day they still, in my opinion, were not going to move the needle or incentivize a developer to

   2:01:42save the trees. All they were were going to rate one, they were going to create More Fees for I guess landscape architects or arborists to go out and evaluate trees a little more paid into the tree fund And I hear you, well we're gonna raise more revenue and get the trees out on the in the community from the tree fund, but we've already got a tree fund that hasn't been so I've heard the commissioners in multiple discussions that we've got all this money in the tree fund that still hasn't been spent. So this is money that's been

   2:02:12collected years over years and the the trees still aren't out there if at least being paid for from the tree fund. So all I see this is just more money in the bank and I guess maybe we collect more interest on the tree fund, but I feel like

   2:02:28You just need a different Again, I feel like this needs to go more to the comprehensive plan and a way of doing business more so than an ordinance. We have a tree protection ordinance. And this isn't any this isn't much radically different other than it's increased the fees. Well This ordinance has been on the books, I don't know how long, t twenty years, twenty-five years. Hasn't stopped anybody from cutting it down a tree. Well Mr Engel

   GreyChair

   2:02:59is in an effort to move move it forward. I think uh Mr Mr. Engel had a great suggestion. I think it's a good idea that I'm going to do that.

   David Engel

   2:03:05Yeah, and I and Mr. Chairman, I love coming back with carrots here. I mean I think that's that's the positive way of dealing with it. And I wanted to tell you, Mr. Moody, that you're right about money sitting there. We have over three million bucks sitting in that fund. And now, you know, one of the problems is is the prescription of use of funds in the current ordinance is too narrow. So we're we're opening it up and I I can tell you that we have we've we could spend that money three times.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:03:32I would tell you I would be very supportive of tweaks in the ordinance to do that, like to open up the spigot to let the trees get planted out of that fund or figure out how you know how the county can use them for beautification projects or to incentivize redevelopment projects. Especially up in the northwest market area and down in uh what what do we call holiday now? What market area

   2:03:57Well we what what we want, you know, these places The A lot of times just the cost when somebody wants to come in and they got a change of use and they need to get a new site plan, the cost of complying with the landscape plan, it becomes unaffordable for them. So I'd like to see changes to the current ordinance that allow for the use of these kinds of funds. But I think when we're talking about mass areas of trees and big developments Just uh a another

   2:04:27twenty five or fifty dollars, even if it's a hundred dollars an inch, it's it's not

   2:04:33Can

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:04:33I ask a question, David? Yes, sir. And I don't have an objection to a continuance, but if the reason why you wanted to pursue the band aid was simply to get the fees. Updated. Why couldn't you just amend the fee resolution? I mean i it just I mean, I think it's a good thing and then sort of table everything else until you come up with a more comprehensive Solution because you have a resolution today O eight dash two six four, whatever it is, that Establishes the feet

   2:05:04per inch. you could in theory just update that resolution to strike for the whatever deal you struck with T B B A in terms of the rates At least get at least to get that in place so that you've got updated fees. while you pursue a more comprehensive ordinance to deal with all the other.

   David Engel

   2:05:24Well,

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:24that's

   David Engel

   2:05:24a great idea,

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:24and the

   David Engel

   2:05:24Planning Commission could recommend that today. We could

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:28Well I'm

   David Engel

   2:05:28not even sure you need

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:05:29Planning Commission action to update that resolution to be

   David Engel

   2:05:31No, but I mean we we could come back and do that, at least to get the fees on the table because we're We're undercharging our development community compared to our peers by a dramatic amount.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:05:44I want to make it clear, I would agree that our rates maybe lower than some of the surrounding communities and maybe they we could afford an increase. All I'm saying though is that don't be fooled to think that because we charge another twenty five dollars an inch then anybody's gonna make a decision to not cut a tree down because the fee got higher. In fact, what I see is that doesn't really That doesn't so much penalize the big developers. They got the budgets. that they can go

   2:06:14in and afford this. The person that it penalizes is my next door neighbor that has to pay the bigger fee to cut down the tree.

   David Engel

   2:06:25Well I I we really appreciate the input that the Planning Commission has given us and I thank you very much.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:06:34And I'm a little surprised that T B B A would be object to this, is that We probably should codify the PM twenty six requirements. For lectures? I mean I It doesn't make sense to me why only the MPUDs have to comply with what's in P M twenty six, but Anybody that comes in with the Euclidean zoning apparently doesn't have to. So I would think that even T B B A would support a more uniform Tree requirement that isn't limited to just the M P Dr.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:07:08Victorious Pito's playing development economic growth. Uh yes, it's in the plan to uh codify the tree requirements for PM twenty six. But this ordinance here was about tree preservation versus what's in PM twenty six was about landscaping and the approach to landscaping. Well but there's some tree.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:07:35So you're saying

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:07:35that

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:07:35would be an

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:07:36amendment to nine

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:07:37oh five.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:07:37It's another

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:07:38ordinance, yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:07:39But but but to your point, we can still do it, yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:07:44Okay.

   GreyChair

   2:07:45Oh

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:07:45what do we do for that? Well that that root book. If we're gonna continue it and deal with the larger issues, I'm just saying that you might as well codify those two. But I don't know how long we continue in You want David, um on this? I mean I I think we need at least no I

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:08:04well aren't there certain things, David, that that are here that This helps I mean like like direction or ability to spend dollars that are in the tree fund, isn't that outlined in here and clarified in here?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:08:16But they could also put that in the resolution. Yeah, I

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:08:19I see

   2:08:19that.

   2:08:20Not that doesn't have to get continued. That can be done in the interim.

   David Engel

   2:08:23For the record, David Engel again. Uh yes, um, why don't we focus on the resolution cleanup? We can come back uh within you know probably the seventeenth of April has that gives me a month to work with because we have to get back to the T B BA because you know we we we try to maximize our stakeholder engagement and our transparency but uh we could we could we could come back with a resolution fix And then we will work judiciously over the next ninety days coming up with a

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:08:57I'd like to see some Workshops. on the issue. There were some horizontal round table meetings. And I I Unfortunately, because I sit on this board. We We've been counseled not to participate 'cause the issues may become before the Planning Commission. But I heard a lot of the discussion. And I think part of the problem with the format is Is you're not going to be able to do go to the horizontal round table and you present them.

   2:09:28Here's the proposed new tree ordinance. and they're commenting on the ordinance themselves. And I heard all the rumblings and grumblings about the point scheme and the amount of work it was gonna take to do the tree surveys. But nobody the reason I'm proposing workshops is I think you need to get the the developers and the engineers and the landscape architects and get everybody in a room And say

   2:09:54What can we do? to attempt to save the trees. Where are there things in the code that we think could be changed or that cause us to ki t t to have to remove trees that might be changeable and I think some of the flood regulations are gonna stop us from doing this. But or Are there things we can offer you that would incentivize you to do more clustering? Or w we need to get some ideas out on the t I'm one idea.

   2:10:24There's probably ten other good ideas out there too, if we go to the people and ask them.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:10:33So To back up, um

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:10:35ask them what uh could you just to get some ideas. I've thrown out one idea as to an approach to attempt to save injuries, and it doesn't mean I'm right or that I have the best idea, but I think if you have a workshop We're people can brainstorm this stuff and tell you these are my challenges as a developer. This is my challenge in attempting to save the trees. to give you some good ideas about what you can do. to

   2:11:05incentivize large scale saving of trees, not just an individual tree here and

   David Engel

   2:11:12that's a good idea because most members of the T B B A were sensitive to our mission and I think that using their experience would be helpful coming up with ideas. And we realize that carrots are good for you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:11:26What I'm hearing is so uh yes, you're talking about a planning commission workshop, right? Um Talking about Well I think it would have to be if you all wanna participate and not violate the Sunshine Law. I think it has to be a workshop of the Planning Commission if you wanna participate in this brainstorm. Well,

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:11:43okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:11:44Yeah, that'd be fine.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:11:44I think you have to have a stakeholder I mean clearly a stakeholder workshop too or something. Right. Whatever you want to do. I mean you can invite all those stakeholders

   David Engel

   2:11:50to the workshop.

   2:11:54the Bilanning Commission.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:11:56I just think that these things need to be and I see this a lot with proposed ordinances, with with proposed land development code changes. What happens is the staff goes and we've got this ordinance develop O D T or whatever you call it, ordinance development team and you're doing all the work. back there and then here's what we're gonna do. Then everybody's going, Oh wait a minute and Why don't we get everybody in a room together and say, here's the mission we're trying to accomplish, the goal we're

   2:12:26trying to achieve. get people to throw out ideas. Sometimes when you throw the spaghetti at the wall it actually sticks and Do that first, then start writing the legalese. Okay. Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:12:42So I guess I'll defer to Mr. Ingall on when he could set a work that kind of workshop. But I might want to be clear. We're talking about a workshop to deal with the More global solution to Tree preservation. The issue about the increase in the fees and clarifying what you can use the treatment mitigation fund, that's sounds like that's an amendment to the resolution. Are you asking that because normally amendments to resolutions don't have to come to the Planning Commission. Are you asking for it to come to the Penny for Pasco? That was my mistake.

   David Engel

   2:13:09We have a clear path on the fees and the use of funds.

   2:13:12Yeah. And I

   2:13:12would tell you I am not

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:13:13opposed to you raising those fees.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:13:15So I guess my question is do you all have any objection to them amending the current resolution?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:13:21No.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:13:22To increase the fees and clarify the use of the funds and just that goes straight to the board, you don't need to see that anymore.

   David Engel

   2:13:27Correct.

   2:13:30Great, then we'll just we'll I'll work with m uh Chair Gray and we'll schedule a workshop. And and the Chairman I have had discussions about having Planning Commission workshops. So this is great. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:13:40Okay, great.

   David Engel

   2:13:41Appreciate that. Thank

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:13:42you. Okay. So Patrick, I'll just ask you logistically. Um

   2:13:48Can you and Elizabeth work on amending that resolution? To update the fees and the use of the funds. Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:13:59Sure. The the only question I have is that I think our existing code has language about how much you're paying. Um so how would

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:14:07set it by resolution. It actually defers to the resolution.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:14:11Uh okay, I can double check that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:14:13Yeah, because I saw that you struck the language that says by resolution.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:14:17Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:14:18So Which I think you did because you were putting it in the code.

   2:14:22Sure. Okay.

   2:14:24So I think if you're amending the resolution You're just operating within the code 'cause it says by resolution, you just gotta amend that resolution. But Mr Engels right. That that resolution was last updated in two thousand eight. Sure. Yeah. So so we're Been a lot of inflation since we've updated a lot of our impact fee since then, so I mean this is somewhat analogous to an impact fee, so it makes sense that it needs to be updated.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:14:54Uh yes, I can work with Elizabeth.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:15:00Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:15:00Anything else from me?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:15:01So we don't have to take any action on this?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:15:04Well I think you're what it sounds yeah, it sounds like he's got another path on the the fee part of it. Um Which d you'll need to act on. As far as the ordinance, I guess the question is You can continue it, but you also could just

   2:15:22Like a staff could also just withdraw it too and and bring back a different one. I I don't know what you want. I don't know what staff's preference is. Go ahead.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:15:31I I I didn't have a preference, so

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:15:34What I was gonna say is

   2:15:37If the staff wants to come in and make Clarifications. in the existing ordinance where we think language is ambiguous or there's, you know Room for multiple interpretations. I wouldn't be opposed to doing something like that. Sure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:15:58So I guess I'm asking you and Mr Ingle, is do you see any benefit to Continuing this or do you want to just withdraw it and bring back something else? Um

   David Engel

   2:16:10Mr. Chairman Mr. Goldstein and the Planning Commission, we want to withdraw the item. And Based on the direction and and guidance. We're gonna proceed with a resolution to the board updating the fees and the use of funds. And we're gonna work on establishing as soon as we can A Planning Commission workshop with our development stakeholder industry peers. Sounds great. Maybe the public too. Maybe you know they should have some input as well. If anyone's

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:16:39withdrawing the ordinance, I understand they're gonna do a separate resolution, but if they're withdrawing the ordinance, I don't think you need to take any action.

   David Engel

   2:16:44Okay.

   GreyChair

   2:16:46Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you, David.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:16:50Thank you, Peter. Yep, thank you. Yeah. Good job. Sure. Sure, sure, sure, sure, sure. Felt like you needed some kind

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:16:59of pattern on the back. Well, he got he got stuck with it.

4. 4Aug 21, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC5Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 45:33
   ▶ 45:3325m

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   45:33Okay, thank you. All right, moving right along. PC five.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   45:38Item PC five is PDE 25007, an ordinance amending the Pasco County Land Development Code Section 802, presented by staff.

   Amanda Hill

   45:57Good afternoon, Plan Commissioner Mandela Hill, Planning, Development and Economic Growth. File number PDE 25 0007 is a proposed amendment to section 802, tree preservation and replacement.

   46:14Recent activities regarding this section of the code include an LPA workshop on June 5, 2025. The adoption of resolution twenty-five-two nine one by the BOCC. This resolution clarified the use of funds, administration, and increased the contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund. There was also a LPA workshop on June on August seventh, twenty twenty five.

   46:46As a reminder, the rates of contribution that were updated by the BHCC on 715 include the update of the rates from $50 per inch to $75 per inch for all project types. For trees that are classified as a heritage tree, a payment of $150 per inch. A heritage tree is hereby defined as a live oak that is equal to or greater than 34 inches DBH, or a southern magnolia that is greater than

   47:16and equal to 24 inches DBH. Those trees would also have to have a condition rating of good or better, as determined by the ISA condition rating system.

   47:30Uh diameter at breast height.

   47:33And section one of that resolution states that the effective date of these contribution rates will be upon the repeal of section 802.3C1B3, subsections A to D of the LDC.

   47:50The purpose of this amendment would be to remove the contribution rates that are currently referenced in that section of the code, as well as to remove the purposes and authorized locations that are referenced in section 802.3e. These sections currently conflict with the adopted resolution, and this amendment would resolve said conflict.

   48:11Staff recommends that the LPA finds the proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan. And I'm available for any questions that you may have.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   48:20Mandel, the the first the first question I have is, I guess how did we get here in in Why did we not just change the fees in the ordinance rather than adopt a resolution?

   Amanda Hill

   48:31My understanding of the matter is that the fees and whether or not it changes at the discretion of the board through the resolution and not through the LDC. This language regarding the fees was not initially intended to be within the LDC.

   Pasco County

   48:45But it is.

   Amanda Hill

   48:46Correct. Well here's I mean

   Pasco County

   48:49it is but it's with a reference that says it'll be adopted by resolution.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   48:53My my problem is and I We've we've gotten into this uh several times before. Um When we pull stuff out of the code and make it to where it can be modified, approved, et cetera, through resolution. The public never knows about it. I still question how many people really knew that. that this fee was being revised by the resolution when it got revised by the board. and the fact that there was absolutely zero grandfather clause for anybody that was even in current review. I

   49:23mean the way the resolution was adopted and this was clarified at August seventh when we met and for the workshop. I mean, you could be literally waiting on staff to draft an approval memo And all of a sudden you get hit with these new fees. I mean that that's a huge problem for a lot of big projects that Pasco County has spent a lot of time and effort trying to bring to Pasco County. I mean we we had people come to the workshop and they they gave examples of three, four, five, seven million dollar tree impact fees that they were gonna have to pay. Versus

   49:54a couple hundred thousand dollars that they were facing before these fees got modified and the and the maximums got eliminated. So I This one really This one just doesn't sit right.

   50:08Just revising the fees in the ordinance.

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:15I would agree with you.

   Moody

   50:20Yeah, it's the issue I have is the lack of the grandfather

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:23Language. Well the T D B A and came in a and asked for a phase in schedule and I believe in the prior version of the tree ordinance that had been presented by staff and ultimately withdrawn. There had been some agreement. regarding how those new fees would be implemented and this seems to fly in the face of that.

   Pasco County

   50:50So I think there's two different issues here. One is with like where you put the regulation. The other issue is how much involvement there was by the development committee in the regulation. Because even if it was a resolution You in theory could have a resolution go through all the same processes that an ordinance change. I mean you could Go to have it go to the horizontal round table, you could have it go to Planning committee, I mean you could run a resolution through the same process as as an ordinance.

   51:22So I think staff probably needs to address

   51:27Why the resolution didn't go through those processes.

   51:33Well

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   51:33I I mean I I think th there was stakeholder meetings, I heard, and then I know it went to the board, but I I mean I I watched that board meeting for the resolution and it was I I've seen been to plenty of these meetings and I've seen things that people show up for. And when you're starting to hit somebody with multi million dollar tree tree payments or obligations, I find it hard to believe that nobody would have been in attendance if they'd have known that was gonna be approved as part of that resolution. On the consent agenda, correct. So

   Amanda Hill

   52:08I do recall that at the March 20th um hearing when the item regarding tree preservation was previously brought forward. There was a discussion with the Planning Commission regarding whether or not the fees could be adopted along with the other changes to Section 802, or if that was something that could be done separately. And my understanding was that the direction that was that we can go ahead and have the board update that separately as necessary, if that was the desire of the board. Patrick, I don't know if you wanted to speak anything additional to

   52:38that. I know you were still working on the project. Mm-hmm.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   52:44Um I don't know this.

   52:52Uh Patrick Dedder, Planning, Development, Economic Growth. Um refr what is what is the question specifically again?

   Amanda Hill

   52:58So at the March twentieth um meeting when you brought the item forward and Planning Commission recommended that if the board desired that the fees could be adopted separately from the other changes

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   53:09Uh sure, yes, if I recall correctly, we withdrew the code amendments, but I think the Planning Commission did at the time say we'll move forward with changing the fees, which is a general statement.

   Pasco County

   53:22Right, but to play devil's advocate, I'm not sure Planning Commission said but don't get it. Don't get development community involvement in it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   53:30Right. Okay.

   David Engel

   53:34Mr. Chairman David Engel, Planning and Development and Economic Growth. As I recall from uh recalling the BCC meeting, we were directed by Council at that time that we would have to come the Board approved a resolution changing the fees. We were directed that to perfect this, we have to amend the LDC and remove the old fees from the LDC because it says adopt by resolution. So we were just performing our task as directed by the board.

   Pasco County

   54:04Right, David. I think the question that Mr. Jardy is asking is What level of input did you get from the development community before having the board adopt the resolution?

   David Engel

   54:16We've had extensive input with the T B B A. And um as I reported back to the board there were amendments We had incorporated their suggestions in the draft. They were removed and I failed to notify the T B B A from my last correspondence with them in April and I it was on the record already uh two meetings ago and I discussed it or you know, that that I'll take the I'll take the heat for it. So Worked through with the T B B A,

   54:46um set up a meeting with the T B B A to meet with the BCC Chair. and talk about uh how their views can be accommodated and what the Policy goals and objectives are the Board of County Commissioners. I I can't speak for the Board, but the Chair has assumed that role and that meeting is already calendared.

   GirardiVice Chair

   55:06And can't this wait until that meeting happens would that doesn't that would seem very unfair to the stakeholders.

   David Engel

   55:14Well that that is a fair proposition and you know I I certainly endorse that.

   Pasco County

   55:20Well, we've already issued an opinion that the changes to the fees don't take effect until this ordinance is adopted. So If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with this ordinance moving forward until you've seen the Or heard that the resolution has been updated consistent with this upcoming meeting. I you can continue the item until the that's within your prerogative. When's

   55:52this meeting

   Moody

   55:52again?

   David Engel

   55:53I believe it's next week.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   55:59Yeah, I guess I know we have other people here to speak on this, so I guess any other questions for staff? And we'll go ahead and take public comment.

   56:10Okay.

   Barbara Wilhite

   56:13Barbara Will Heights, [address removed], representing nobody. But somebody this is my thirtieth year doing this and I have a little different idea I think the fee should be in the ordinance and I think you should remove the the ability to do it by resolution because In theory things could have happened differently, but if there wasn't the ability to do this by resolution, they wouldn't have happened the way they did. This was on the consent agenda, nobody knew about it. This board Disc

   56:44Planning Commission said, We think the uh a fee increase should go forward, but they didn't even come back to them. If it was if the ability to not have to have this done by resolution, if you take out the ability to have this done by resolution, this issue would have come to this planning commission and be vetted by you professionals who work with this all the time. And there would have been a recommendation going to the board that would have been had some Other input. You could have collected stakeholder input, you could have collected your own input, and there could be. You know, I sat through I can't tell you how many meetings I volunteered

   57:14my time and and watched a back and forth between staff and the T B B A representatives who were volunteering their time too, to try to come up with a resolution on how to raise those fees and how to grandfather them in. This resolution was different from those conversations. So what as a process person and a fairness person in how we do things, when we take things out of the code, for example, there used to be in section three hundred there used to be a table that said the deadlines to get things done. And

   57:44I remember when that came out of the code, I objected because no, oh don't worry, don't worry, it's going in the development manual. But since then Those dates have never been complied with and clients like to see those. They're like they like to look at the code and be able to see it. The unintended consequence is when you take things out of the code and you allow it to be done by resolution on a consent agenda that bypasses you all, it's not a public hearing. This way where in theory things can be done different, but they don't have to be. And so what I'm saying to you is If you pass this ordinance that's been

   58:14r suggested by staff, you're condoning this process and allowing it to perpetuate itself in the future. So what you should be recommending is either table it or say we recommend that the fees actually be in the ordinance and that you have to we take out the ability to do it by resolution so that this Fact pattern. It should have never happened, doesn't happen again. So again, speaking of nobody other than, you know, making good policy, and I don't think the board made good policy that day. I don't think they knew what the unintended consequences or what the actually

   58:44the consequences was of that action. And you heard TBBA come here and explain to you all what the consequences now, and now they're having to have meetings and all these different things, when if it was just followed a process and wasn't allowed to be done by resolution. Yeah. We wouldn't have to be trying to figure out what happened, why did it happen, what do we do about it now, because we would have a good process set up in the ordinance. That's my two cents. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara.

   David Engel

   59:09Mr. Chairman I just want to uh just inject a little bit of disclosure and discovery for the Planning Commission. Uh the staff didn't arbitrarily remove the TBBA suggestions and recommendations that were in the original draft. We were we we had vetted that with our Board of County Commissioners, and it was requested that we remove these items. And I understand that there maybe have not been appropriate. dialogue about it and allowing the T B B A to uh lobby for their position and I I regret that. Um

   59:40And I and I apologize to everyone.

   Pasco County

   59:44The only point I'm gonna make I I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Barbara, but um what I do agree w disagree with her a little bit on is The code right now says they will be adopted by resolution. I mean so that that's The issue is that The code is somewhat inconsistent because it says it'll be adopted by resolution, but then includes the fees. So Well the code is sort of internally inconsistent today.

   1:00:12of not allowing them to be adopters and just put all the fees in. But

   1:00:21Is is is sort of a mix of the two. That's the problem.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:00:25Mm. Couldn't you get rid of the saying they'd be adopted by resolution portion? You could. I'm just saying

   Pasco County

   1:00:30I don't know that uh that's a policy change that they could be adopted in the code. I'm not saying I'm not opining one way or the other. I'm only saying that the existing code does say they will be adopted by resolution, and that's how they were originally adopted these fees. They were adopted by resolution. At some point after that. Somebody decided to put them in the code too. I don't know w how How it happened, but they got put in the code too. But even when they were put in the code, it says They'll be adopted by resolution. So

   1:01:02The fees were originally adopted by resolution. I that's a that's a fact. I don't think Barbara can disagree with me. That's how they were originally were adopted. She worked on that resolution when it was adopted. So Um she can't deny it now because she was heavily involved in that.

   Amanda Hill

   1:01:15It was in two thousand five.

   Pasco County

   1:01:16Yes. So So at one point she blessed this being adopted by resolution. She won't admit it now, but she did. Um Okay.

   1:01:27Okay. So That has been the historical way they've been adopted is by resolution. I'm not saying that can't change, but Gotcha.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:01:39Okay. Is there anybody else here to speak?

   1:01:44Great, back to us. Anything else from up here?

   1:01:50Or motion.

   Moody

   1:01:51I'd move that we continue this um to the Planning Commission here in Newport Ritchie a month from now, uh in order to at least let that meeting take place with uh T B B H. Or T B B A, rather.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:02:06Okay, so that'll be the na September eighteenth? Eighteenth, yeah.

   Pasco County

   1:02:10So I just want to clarify the purpose of the motion or the intent. So are you are you wanting to make sure a meeting took place or are you wanting to see a revised resolution? I'm not sure what your

   Moody

   1:02:21the intent's to make sure that um the stakeholders have their voice is heard and then you know, and then we can yeah, we can review the the outcome of that meeting. uh when we're making an opinion on On this. Yeah, month.

   David Engel

   1:02:35I I I do recall um the Planning Commission had asked us to look at other pure counties. And I I believe um are we done with that?

   Amanda Hill

   1:02:44We're still in the process of looking at it actually.

   David Engel

   1:02:46Yeah, so you don't even have all the information that you requested at the last meeting.

   1:02:52what which

   Pasco County

   1:02:53county?

   David Engel

   1:02:53Alchua. Alachua. Alachua.

   Pasco County

   1:02:55Are you are you talking about on the fee issue or on the larger amendment to the larger amendment? Oh the larger amendment,

   David Engel

   1:03:02excuse me. I thought it was the

   Pasco County

   1:03:03fees also. I don't think you're they're waiting on any additional information if it was related to fees. Um Well, let me ask the question a different way. When it comes back in a month, are you expecting Staff to Bring you a revised resolution? Because I know you all raise the issue of grandfathering, regardless of what the board decides to do on the The amounts you all raised the issue of grandfathering. Are you wanting Staff to bring this back with Language related to grandfathering? Or

   1:03:34are you letting that sort of play out in terms of whatever happens with the T B B A at that meeting.

   Moody

   1:03:42For me, for the purposes of making the motion, I think I'd be fine with that. I just want to have them give an opportun uh th I want them to have an opportunity to be able to s to speak on it.

   1:03:54Yeah. So if if they are if they're fine with the the f fees as written without any kind of grandfather language, then I I guess I'm fine with it too. It's but ultimately we should they should be heard.

   Pasco County

   1:04:06Okay. All I'm saying is if you are if anybody on this planning commission is expecting staff to bring back a different version of the ordinance You probably need to help provide that direction now. Because right now the motion is basically saying bringing it back as is as long as this meeting occurs. I just want to make sure that's the direction.

   Chris Williams

   1:04:23Well it seems to me that we were all interested in a grandfather clause, as was the T D T B A. Okay.

   Amanda Hill

   1:04:32I can show what the language would currently look like right now. So essentially it strikes through all the references to the fees in section eight oh two point three C one B three A to D. And then it removes the references to the purpose and authorized locations in section eight oh two point three E. That's the extent of the proposed amendments with this item.

   Pasco County

   1:04:55Right. But currently it does not address the effective date. of the new fees. Correct. Now that can either be dealt with in the resolution or it can be dealt with in the amendment to the code. I I'm really just asking and we can figure out where that goes. I'm I'm really just asking, are you expecting staff to draft grandfathering language before this comes back to you in a month?

   Moody

   1:05:23Yeah, I mean I think we all would like to would like to see that of some sort or at least uh at least get feedback from the stakeholders regarding that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:05:33either suggested or agreed to at this meeting with D B B A, right? Right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:05:39I mean I again I personally I mean I I I d I can't support getting rid of this out of the ordinance and modifying the ordinance. So I mean I I agree with And I'm fine with moving it down to the next two meetings from now after the T B B A meeting, but I I just think we set a bad precedent by approving these fees as part of that resolution and the way it got approved. I don't like the language in it and and I don't like how the process happened personally.

   David Engel

   1:06:16Mr. Chairman we'll have the meeting with Chair Starkey and the T B B A. Uh bring it back at nine eighteen. We'll either have a Have uh satisfied the T B B A. If not, uh we'll report back to you um and you can act as you see fit whether you're not gonna recommend it or n or you would. How's that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:06:39I'm I'm fine with that.

   David Engel

   1:06:41Could

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:06:41that exercise also explore how we get The issue resolved that we're now doing it by r resolution rather than in the the ordinance? If there's a way to do that in this process? I don't know that they're

   Moody

   1:06:54not going to be able to do that.

   David Engel

   1:06:57Well, i it's it's a l it's actually a legal issue in this case because the ordinance is very specific as to how these fees should be increased or modified.

   Pasco County

   1:07:05Well, it currently says they're going to be done by resolution. I do uh It doesn't I mean Could that be changed to say it'll the the could that language be struck and then you put all the fees in the ordinance? Yes it could. I don't know that it's a legal, it's more of a policy issue than a legal issue.

   David Engel

   1:07:21Well, I uh

   Pasco County

   1:07:22legal issue is that the was that we gave the opinion that In the absence of this amendment, you could not have the ordinance am the ordinance fees take effect. Mm-hmm. But could the ordinance be changed so that you don't adopt it by resolution? Yes you could. That's a policy issue.

   David Engel

   1:07:42All right. Well I I'll raise that with the with the Chair. I mean the T B B A is more interested in getting these fee issues resolved. Right. But uh we will I will speak to her about it when we meet.

   Pasco County

   1:07:54I mean, I'm not sure. In theory, the resolution could have had grandfathering and the resolution could have had phases in. I mean the resolution could have done all the things that T B A wanted. So I think it's it's probably two problems here. Right. One is that we had adopted a resolution that was inconsistent with some of the requests the TBBA made. The second is that it was done sort of outside the normal ordinance process.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:08:20Right.

   David Engel

   1:08:23Well, priority one is to address the T B B A's concerns, and that that's what we'll be doing. I will mention to the Chair that there was a process discussion and uh maybe the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Board to to to change the process and then we could bring that forth. Well,

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:08:41Well I mean I I don't think anybody up here's a little bit more than a little bit. o opposed to the to changes to the fees. I think everybody up here acknowledged that the fees were I mean we all wish we could pay two thousand and five fees on everything we do. Um but we we can't. It's reality. It's just uh I mean I I heard T B B A they came in here, they they had problems with the no grandfathering or the phasing in. They had problems with the elimination of the of the maximums. Um so I mean I think those are real issues that

   David Engel

   1:09:10And not taking sides. The the flip side was added was well they've been getting away with low fees for ten years or something. Sure.

   Moody

   1:09:20But it it's it's not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game either. I mean the grandfathering should definitely at least be considered.

   Pasco County

   1:09:27By the way, I don't I don't want to put too much weight on this resolution versus ordinance issue because In theory, if this language said established by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, it would go through the same process.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:09:40Right. Well.

   Pasco County

   1:09:42So it still still could be by resolution. You could just have it go to the Planning Commission first.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:09:46That's right.

   Pasco County

   1:09:47The issue was that that resolution didn't go to the Planning Commission. And didn't do all the things that an ordinance would do.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:09:53Okay. Right, there's a motion to continue. Is there a second?

   Pasco County

   1:09:57I'll second it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:09:58Alright motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

   Amanda Hill

   1:10:05Yeah.

5. 5Sep 16, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersP75Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 41:00
   ▶ 41:001m

   Oakley

   41:00Item P seventy-five was published in the Tampe Times on August sixth, twenty twenty-five.

   Oakley

   41:05What is this here?

   Amanda Hill

   41:07Good afternoon Commissioner is Amanda Hill, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Item P75 is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, amending Pasco County Land Development Code, amending section 802, tree preservation and replacement. Section 802.1, intent and purpose, Section 802.2, applicability, Section 802.3, tree removal. Creating section eight or two point four new development, section eight or two point five existing problem trees. Section

   41:38802.6, Tree Protection, Section 802.7, Trees of Special Significance, Section 802.8, Heritage Trees, Section 802.9, Tree Mitigation Fund. Appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion into the Land Development Code, and an effective date. This item comes to you with a request to continue this item to the October 21st, 2025

   42:08Board of County Commissioners meeting in Newport Ritchie at 1.30 p.m. Move to

   42:14continue time certain.

   Oakley

   42:15Second. All in favor?

   42:16Aye. Aye.

6. 6Sep 18, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC5Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:15:49
   ▶ 2:15:4944m

   Barbara

   2:15:49Okay, so our last item for today's public hearing is item PC five. That's PDE twenty-five zero zero zero seven.

   2:16:00County Board of County Commissioners, amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, amending section eight oh two, tree preservation and replacement, Section 802.1, intent and purpose, Section 802.2, applicability, Section 802.3, tree removal, grading section 802.1 for new development, section eight oh two point five, existing problem trees, section eight oh two point six Tree Protection,

   2:16:31Section 802.7, Trees of Special Significance, Section 802.8, Heritage Trees, Section 802.9, Tree Mitigation Fund, Appendix A Definitions, and other sections as necessary for internal consistency. Providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion into the land development code, and an effective date.

   2:16:58Thank you.

   Amanda Hill

   2:17:00That was a multiple. Amanda Hill, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Good afternoon. So I would like to just state for the record that there are some public comments and expertise communications received by staff regarding this item and those have been sent to the clerk's office. I'd also like to clarify the efforts. I know David started that discussion a little earlier on when he was responding to the citizen. But essentially there are three separate things that are happening right now regarding trees. There's

   2:17:30a tree mitigation fund resolution that was approved by the board on July 15th. There is the minor land development code amendment that's currently happening. This is the one that's uh in front of you right now for consideration, and that's to address inconsistencies and put the change of contribution rate into effect. And then there's a substantive revision that's currently happening right now. Uh staff is working on the draft, coordinating with internal and external stakeholders, and the intent is to bring that to you in November. So

   2:18:01that's just setting the feel for what we're discussing today.

   2:18:06So just to recap, over the last few months there have been a couple different activities regarding trees. There was an LPA workshop at the June 5th meeting. Uh like I mentioned before, on July 15th, the board approved resolution number 25-291, which clarifies the use of funds, administration, and increases the contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund. On August 7th, there was another LPA workshop regarding trees. On August 21st, the

   2:18:36LDC amendment was brought to the Local Planning Agency for consideration, where it was continued to today's date. And specifically, the LPA wanted to provide sufficient time for the TBBA to meet with the board regarding the approved resolution 25-291. and to discuss its potential implications. And as such, the discussion occurred and the board and TBPA ultimately discussed changing the cap for the contribution rate. So

   2:19:07the draft that was approved by the board at the 750 meeting did not include a CAP, and this was discussed at the 821 meeting that we had with the LPA. We are now drafting an amended resolution that will include a cap of $3,500 per upland developable acre. The intent is to bring this amended resolution to the board for consideration at the 1021 meeting.

   2:19:34Just as a recap as well, these were the rates that were approved by the board in that resolution in July. And of note is that the effective date of section one contribution rates will be upon the repeal of section 802.3C1B3A to D of the LDC. So, as such, the purpose of this amendment is to remove the contribution rates that are currently referenced in that section of the code. and to remove the purpose

   2:20:04and authorized locations that are referenced in that section of the code as well. And this would resolve the internal inconsistency that's currently in the code regarding this matter.

   2:20:16And staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommends to the l LPA. to find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm here for any questions that you may have.

   David Engel

   2:20:28Thank you, Haven. Uh Mr. Chair, just for the record, I want to thank the TBBA for participating in our exchange and dialogue. Um we had three things on the table when we uh started our final negotiations and meeting with the board members. One was the cap because they wanted to control their financial exposure. Number two was Uh grandfathering in certain applications and number three, uh phasing in the fees over a period of three years. And in our negotiations they backed off on two

   2:20:58and three and they found that the thirty five hundred dollar cap was very important to them. And uh I didn't I didn't meet with all the board members, but there is a consensus of the ones I met with, which is a Which is three, that uh they're they were in agreement.

   GreyChair

   2:21:13Yeah.

   David Engel

   2:21:14Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:21:15Thank you very much.

   Moody

   2:21:19Any questions? So there won't be any grandfathering? They backed off on the grandfathering and so

   David Engel

   2:21:24No they did they did because and and one of the reasons was valid and uh we really appreciate their consideration. We've had lower two our fees have been too low for over a decade. So you know, we w You know, if they went into another county with uh updated fees, they'd be paying immediately. So these tree mitigation fees are paid at the uh be prior to the site plan or land development permitting.

   GreyChair

   2:21:46Good.

   2:21:49Anything else? What we hear from the public?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:21:51No, I

   2:21:52mean

   2:21:52I I guess just kind of expanding on that a little bit, David, though I mean it it It does not seem fair that somebody took on a big project And uh is a year into the process, but just because that's those fees haven't they haven't been told what those fees are and they're not due to be paid yet, that all of a sudden they get hit with a different fee. That just seems odd to me. I've never seen the county do anything like that before.

   David Engel

   2:22:15Well that's true in large MPUDs. it takes a matter of years to get all the site development permitting out the door. we didn't even consider that and we didn't have that discussion with the T B B A about it. Um Certainly if they had mass grading, which is constitutes a permit, you know, that would help them out. But in areas they that are virgin, even though they have the zoning entitlement, they you know, under the way that the ordinance is drafted, they would have to pay the fees.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:22:42I mean um theoretically, I mean you you could have you could have a project that's literally uh it's addressing round two comments today. This gets approved by the board in in couple weeks, and all of a sudden they get hit with new fees and they've been in review for six or eight months just on a simple site plan.

   David Engel

   2:22:56Well we have the T B B A saying, Hey, when are we gonna get this cap imposed?

   2:23:03Well they're only builders actually. They're they're home builders. I

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:23:06mean, they don't do any commercial development. They build residential subdivisions.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:23:13I I do appreciate the I mean the the cap is is a was a big thing. I I agree with that. I mean I I can see why that was most important to them, but I still just don't I mean I just have heartburn with that precedent being set that all of a sudden we're gonna yank the rug out for people.

   David Engel

   2:23:27Well, you know, we have we have to start I understand. I mean our view is we have to start

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:23:32somewhere. If you change if you change any other uh the county's position has always been anytime since I've been involved, if your application was in that's kind of what the the s Your application was in, then you go if it's not in yet, then you go to the new ordinance.

   David Engel

   2:23:46Well you could make a conditional recommendation based on that, if you'd like, if the commission would like.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:23:52Yeah, I'd uh very good. I appreciate it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:23:55One of the discussions we had though was Having the fees in the ordinance not just being adopted by resolution. Part of the problem that I have with that, and it's not a problem with the five current commissioners I have. They're reasonable people and they're they're business people and they're They're well thought and reasoned. But I may get a commission in the future. That just decides, you know what? I don't think these fees are low

   2:24:25enough. It says $75 an inch, let's make them $750 an inch. And they can go in. And have a resolution prepared. Have it on the consent agenda like this resolution was. with no public hearing, And you can have the rules changed in the middle of the game. Without any due process.

   2:24:52And I think that's why it's important that the fee schedule needs to be in the ordinance. And maybe from time to time we'll have to update the ordinance with the fee schedule, but then at least we have public hearing and we get to have the people like the T B B A and the ICSC or whoever come in here and talk to us about the fees and whether they're reasonable or whether CAP should be there. And I'm not opposed to raising the fee. Smooth. I'm opposed to the method by which we're by which we're raising the fees. I think there

   2:25:23needs to be due process. And I don't particularly find that consistent that not having due process consistent with our own comprehensive plan. Our comprehensive plan has property rights element as well. that says we will consider the Burt Harris Act. And

   2:25:45in the Burt Harris Act. is a property owner's bill of rights. And number five in that Bill of Rights is the right to due process.

   2:25:57I don't think it's unreasonable for us to hold public hearings. The board has the ultimate decision and they can raise them to whatever they want. What I'm asking is that they do that. and allow property owners To have due process. When you do it by resolution that can be done on the consent agenda without a public hearing, that's not due process.

   David Engel

   2:26:21So Mr. Moody, what you're saying is because the current L P L Land Development Code requires the fees to be set by resolution, we should amend that provision and then have the fees in the ordinance and sort of goes through a public hearing. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:26:35And again, I it's not that I'm worried about the five sitting commissioners we have there. Like that they're logical people. I'm not worried about them doing something. But you know, the political pendulum swings over time. And I don't know who we're gonna have. Five years or ten years from now and they could decide, yeah, well let's make it a thousand dollars an inch. Or maybe we get a The opposite. Let's just make it zero dollars an inch. Yeah. Uh there needs to be there needs to be a process by which

   2:27:05the public can come and speak and the the stakeholders can come and speak. More than just a resolution.

   Amanda Hill

   2:27:13And I did want to add some additional context, not necessarily for against what you were just mentioning, but um I note that uh Mr. Olstein mentioned at the last uh hearing that back in 2005 the fee was changed by resolution. I did some additional research and I went back to the 2001 ordinance that was done that actually put the tree mitigation tree protection ordinance into the LDC. And um even in that version back in 01, uh it said here the rate shall be held a hundred thousand a hundred dollars per inch, two hundred

   2:27:43for each two inch caliper tree, which rate may be amended from time to time by resolution of the board. So it's been a longstanding requirement within this that it's adopted by resolution, whether it goes up or down.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:27:56I understand.

   2:28:00Right. High. feel like people have the right to due process. Especially

   Moody

   2:28:05when money's

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:28:05concerned. And one of the things I've been very since I've been back on this board, one of the things I've been very consistent about since the day I've been here is the people's right to speak, that they get due process. I don't necessarily have to agree with everything that's said and people don't have to agree with everything that I say, but everybody gets their right to speak. And they don't want to have a situation where As Jamie's pointed out, the rules can be changed in the middle of the game with no notice.

   GreyChair

   2:28:38I agree. Okay, so I think we've identified that that's an important factor in uh And what we want to see in that ordinance, so

   2:28:48I think David you've encapsulated what we've talked about and

   David Engel

   2:28:51Yes, sir. Um I recommend because of timeliness and well everybody wants to get this thing taken care of. Yeah. If you could recommend it to the board with conditions and revision requests, uh we would carry it forth earnestly for you. Okay. Well

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:29:05when can I ask a question?

   David Engel

   2:29:07Yes sir.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:29:08When is the rest of the tree ordinance gonna be ready for us. It I I don't feel like it's proper to adopt a tree ordinance piecemeal.

   David Engel

   2:29:19This isn't this

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:29:20to get this thing in in the hole.

   David Engel

   2:29:22This just deals with the tree mitigation fees. It doesn't

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:29:24deal with the ordinance. I understand. We won't have it to you until November.

   2:29:35Some fire that's gonna be put out tomorrow afternoon by raising the fees. And the comment's been made in multiple hearings that the reason that the trees are cut down is because the fees are too low. Well, I tell you guys to go Google this 'cause they just did. that the rate of inflation since two thousand eleven since this ordinance was passed, is almost Fifty percent in total. A dollar a dollar in twenty eleven is a dollar fi almost a dollar fifty

   2:30:05today. So we're gonna raise the fees fifty percent. Which that's keeping up with the times. But the the assertion is that the fee way back then wasn't high enough and that's why the trees were killed. Well, no, the trees the fee's about the same. The fees when you look at it in dollars adjusted for inflation was about the same. And I've said this before, and this is why I'd like you to bring this back in the hole. Fees for trees doesn't save trees. These people sitting behind you wouldn't

   2:30:35be here today There's been lots of fees collected and they've got a giant tree mitigation fund and I uh and I appreciate that they're gonna open the spigot up and let some of these trees p be planted. It's a good thing. But fees for trees hasn't been an approach that works. And unless you wanna make it even higher, 'cause we're basically just readjusting the fee for inflation. I don't feel like it's gonna do anything. But one of the things that happened in the workshop was you showed us that Alachua

   2:31:06County requires maintaining twenty per cent of the canopy, you shall retain twenty per cent of the trees. That saves trees. that you shall save those trees, that that w that will guarantee that the trees are saved.

   2:31:21fees, I can just pass those on. I'll just pass those on to the purchaser of the property. No different than when you want to raise impact fees. Who pays those? The builder doesn't need them. The home purchaser eats them. And they're gonna eat the fees for the trees. So I don't think this approach works. And we need to reconsider that approach. It hasn't worked. and we've got nothing to show anywhere else that it works.

   2:31:50Again, I'm not opposed to raising the fee. That's keeping it up for inflation. I hope we do that with some due process. But it's an approach that I don't believe is going to bring yield any different result.

   GreyChair

   2:32:03Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:32:04And I I'm not personally willing to recommend that we move this on until we've got a comprehensive solution to the trees. Collecting an extra twenty five dollars an inch today isn't gonna stop any trees from being killed. And especially if they're already approved. How many plans are out there that are approved?

   2:32:25Better ready to go. They can go knock 'em down today. It's not gonna do anything.

   2:32:33But that's just me.

   GreyChair

   2:32:35Well that's the main thing that concerns me. It needs to be done and it needs to be done as quickly as possible because we don't there won't be any trees to save. So, um That's that's my impetus, whether it's fees or whether it's you know, percentage of the canopy. I I can see the percentage of the canopy. being important because You you're gonna say freeze then for sure, because they can't just say, Well You know, thirty five hundred dollars for

   2:33:05this oak tree? Sure, I'll pay that. that. I'll just pass that pass all that

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:10note I quickly

   GreyChair

   2:33:10beat

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:11that out

   GreyChair

   2:33:11on my

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:11calculator. Thirty five hundred dollars is forty six inches of trees. Right.

   GreyChair

   2:33:17So

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:18That's one of those heritage trees.

   GreyChair

   2:33:20So I do like the canopy stuff because uh I when they knock down those heritage trees, that just kills me. I just Yeah, I just and I know it's more important to save canopy bunches in s instead of individual trees, but still when you see a two hundred year old tree and somebody knocks it down, it that's just not that doesn't work for me.

   Moody

   2:33:42So yeah. And time is of the essence, you know, because especially if we're going to exempt those that are grandfathered in, people have applications in, which is a fair thing to do, but that doesn't stop them from

   2:33:55Yeah.

   2:33:57Tearing down trees.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:33:57Right. Right.

   2:34:00What I'm I personally would like to see a continuance, but then staff bring back an ordinance and bring it back in short order and bring it back in a form that guarantees trees are going to be saved. The public wants trees saved. I think the commissioners want trees saved. I want trees saved. But A fee is not a guarantee that the tree's gonna get saved. a mandate that you're gonna save a tree. Is a guarantee that the tree's gonna get saved.

   David Engel

   2:34:28I guarantee you, sir, the uh the builders are gonna love this, that we're delaying this. And uh we're I'm sure we're gonna get a flood of site plans now, but um You know, it's your it's your decision and we'll carry forward. If you want to continue it, then we'll continue it and we'll we'll come back in November with a comprehensive plan I was recommending just moving forward because the board already adopted new ordinance. Um just to get this cap in place. Um because it you know, it's fair to our state outside external business stakeholders. They

   2:34:58they w they need it.

   Moody

   2:35:08How much time do um would staff need to um address some of the stuff that we brought up today? Well we had

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:35:13the workshop in July.

   David Engel

   2:35:17Well there I mean there there's substance things here. Uh Mr. Moody wanted to Change the ordinance to require fees to be not approved and changed by resolution by ordinance. That's an L D C matter. Um Uh Mr. Girardi was uh was concerned about the effective date of these fees. That that's something we could bring back fairly quickly. Um And uh Mr. Moody, you wanted to foc you wanted to do it comprehensive because you appreciate

   2:35:47the inflation factor with the fees, but you want to have um teeth in it that were really protecting and preserving trees like the Alchua twenty percent canopy objective.

   Amanda Hill

   2:35:57I would say in terms of that last point, um, staff wanted to ensure that we had the opportunity to have effective collaboration with TBBA and other stakeholders before bringing it to you to ensure that they're involved in the process and they they could give appropriate feedback. And November would be the earliest day that we'd be able to do that and allow for that type of collaboration.

   Moody

   2:36:21I mean me personally I'm not too concerned with the flood of applications given the current market environment in the next month or month and a half. So that's just my opinion.

   Christopher Poole

   2:36:31I also think November's gonna come and we're gonna snap our fingers and it's gonna be here. So I don't think there's any reason to

   Moody

   2:36:37To

   David Engel

   2:36:38do it right.

   Christopher Poole

   2:36:38Right. Yeah. Take the time, do

   2:36:40it right.

   David Engel

   2:36:40Well, as I tell my family on Thanksgiving, I'll see you next time. We'll be we'll be back in November, it looks like. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:36:49Then do we have a planning commission date in November so we can

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:53I believe it's uh November twentieth if I'm resource we're right. Patty, can you confirm?

   Moody

   2:36:58Ten twenty. So before we vote to continue though, I think we have to provide the public a chance to

   GreyChair

   2:37:06Yeah, I think they would be upset if they sat there all the time. Yes. They

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:37:10came for a reason.

   GreyChair

   2:37:11Yeah. I mean We just cut them down to one minute.

   Amanda Hill

   2:37:16Howdy How do you confirm that it's eleven uh eleven twenty? For the

   GreyChair

   2:37:20next meeting.

   2:37:22All right, so uh I think we have members of the public that would like to speak.

   Barbara

   2:37:27Uh Mr. Chairman first on the list is Ms. Partnett. There

   GreyChair

   2:37:31you go.

   Julia Bartunik

   2:37:32Yeah. Hi. Um Julia Bartuna, [address removed]. And uh again here in beautiful Pasco County. And um I wanted to say uh just speak a little bit about uh trees and um I notice when a neighbor cuts down a tree that immediately there are cracks in the road and potholes form. Um we live in a you know

   2:38:02integrated ecosystem Which also supports us and supports developments. So when we clear cut forests and then burn the trees, um, it impacts us, it impacts our infrastructure and impacts flooding also. So the importance of trees in preventing stormwater runoff is integral because of their root systems. Obviously, I'm against cutting down all

   2:38:32trees except for invasives. I'd like to see those get cut down. However, the standard should not be to cut down any live oaks. Uh that are more than 24 inches in diameter. That is a conservation standard. So yes, uh uh increasing fees may or may not be a deterrent. I I am in support of increasing fees, obviously, because

   2:39:03the fees will go to tree mitigation funds and Lastly, I would like to say that we're so grateful that everyone is working really, really hard on this and diligently, and that everyone here uh represents the concern to maintain Pasco's uh tree canopies and to preserve our legacy oaks and our heritage oaks uh so that we can. can keep, you know, Pasco County

   2:39:33beautiful and I appreciate all the work that and effort that you have all put into this and and the progress that's being made and the upcoming tree plantings. That is a very, very, very, very wonderful. So much respect in that. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:39:49Thank you very much. She's a lot less nervous this time. I know she's better. Thanks.

   Barbara

   2:39:58Who's next? Next on the list would be Ms. Kathryn Capello.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:40:04Hi everybody.

   School District Representative

   2:40:05Hello?

   GreyChair

   2:40:07Catherine, we need your name and address.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:40:09Hello. Hello?

   GreyChair

   2:40:10Just need your name and address.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:40:14[address removed].

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   2:40:18Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:40:18It's great to be here. And thanks. I feel like I'm speaking to the choir, so that's a nice thing. Um trees filter the pollutants from the air. They provide oxygen so we can breathe. Yeah. Um P preserving mature trees can also increase the value of the properties by ten to twenty percent. And along with what Sonia was saying in reference to clean cutting when they just knock down all the trees, that creates the

   2:40:48greenhouse effect, and all the carbon dioxide that was trapped in the ground comes into the sky and makes the temperatures hotter. So there's some really critical reasons for selective cutting where

   2:41:07You rarely um Methodical and thoughtful about the process because it matters. That's all. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:41:15Thank you very much.

   2:41:18You only get one shot at it, sorry. Unless somebody hasn't questioned. Anybody have a question for our first speaker?

   2:41:30Okay, I have a question then. Come on up. If you just

   Julia Bartunik

   2:41:34wanna I just wanted to say that Jesse Forken sends her apologies because she got a flat tire and couldn't be here. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   2:41:42Okay, well we're gonna scold her for that. Thank you. Who's next?

   Barbara

   2:41:50Next on the list would be Ms. Nicole Wynn.

   GreyChair

   2:41:54Nicole in? There we there we go.

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   2:42:02Nicole Lynn, forty nine twenty one Memorial, uh, Tampa, Florida, suite three hundred. I have been sworn. Um I just wanted to bring up I have uh been part of the meetings that we've been having with staff, so thank you very much that we have been having additional conversations since the last meetings that you all have had. I'm not going to regurgitate because you had plenty of conversation, all of which we had discussed, except for I did want to mention two things. Phasing was a big concern.

   2:42:32We identified that.

   2:42:36love for it to be part of the r um conditions that you guys propose to the board um to refer to them because grandfathering was a big thing especially of MPUDs um as you pointed out. Um and then the uh the last thing is really just looking for clarification as to the effectiveness in your opinion as to and maybe Ms. Blair can give some clarity on that, the effectiveness of anything moving forward due to the resolution and ordinance

   2:43:07thing as far as the fees that the board had already heard, so that we know whether or not for planning purposes, when that cap. that we're trying to get included would actually take effect or in in uh the midst of ongoing conversations going till November what those fees that the board already heard would go into effect. That's it. Okay, thank you.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:43:32Okay, well I can give you my thought on that. The resolution's pretty clear that that section's not effective until this repeal happens. So it really is what it is. It's we're in limbo until anything gets adopted. For that portion of the resolution.

   GreyChair

   2:43:50Okay, and uh somebody else on the list?

   Barbara

   2:43:53Last but not least, Ms. Melanie Landerson.

   GreyChair

   2:43:58Melanie Lamberson?

   Barbara

   2:44:02Nancy, uh would like to supplement that spot.

   2:44:06So

   Christopher Poole

   2:44:07Jeremy wants to speak if we don't add them anymore.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   2:44:17Nancy Hazewood [address removed]. It's nice to see y'all again. You've been doing a great job and staff. You've been very thoughtful with all this. Um

   2:44:31Sasha mentioned uh Angeline. And I've been um very impressed with it. And I was talking about it to people in my groups and somebody saying, Oh no, it's it's got a lot of homes in there and no trees And then I talked to the county biologist and they said that some of the land was bought by either Swift Mud or uh ELASP, I'm not sure which, but you've got swaths of trees

   2:45:02behind these houses through parts of it. And it just makes all the difference in the world. And I don't know what to do to encourage that, but I think that ought to be a state-of-the-art. John, I liked what you said about 20%. That sounded real good too. Um Our trees save our natural resources. We need 'em like somebody else was saying earlier, and they complement the county.

   2:45:33I've also noticed a lot of the agland has very few trees on it all of a sudden. I think it's kind of odd that people are going into their ag land with their cattle and cutting their trees. I'm going by some of these places and finding cattle. They've found one tree and they're all huddling under that. I'm not sure what's going on with that, and I was wondering if that could be looked into and maybe encouraged them not to cut their trees. I'm thinking, well maybe they're getting it shovel ready and that

   2:46:03scares the heck out of me. But um I think y'all are being very considerate and I hope we have something wonderful coming out soon that will start saving our natural canopies. Thank y'all.

   GreyChair

   2:46:16Okay. Thank you.

   project engineer

   2:46:25Commissioner's Jeremy Couch [address removed]. I have been sworn. I've heard a lot of information up here today. I generally um feel that this ordinance was passed very, very quickly without much stakeholder input at all. Um I am an affected party. Mr. Gerardi, I have an application in process. for an office building and I was told by staff that I owe a lot more money

   2:46:55than what I had budgeted for. and staff didn't really know how to determine whether or not that this was applicable to my project or not my personal project. This is concerning. Um I do think there needs to be a cap. I think that's very important. I think that needs to be passed as soon as possible. um the people who are gonna be affected are the home buyers, particularly the first time home buyers. You know, we keep

   2:47:25it. Taking. Now we o don't like five foot side yards. So we lose twenty percent of the homes. And now we want to save more trees. We lose more. It's gonna cost five hundred thousand dollars for a thousand square foot home in this county soon. So we really need to think about the economic impact of what we're doing. Um I think that the ordinance definitely needs to go through public hearings. I'm a member of the TBBA. I

   2:47:56probably permit and build two thousand homes and units in Pasco County a year. At zero. input into this ordinance. Even the way it's written, I have projects now that the way it's written today, before the cap uh people under contract to purchase property And they're looking at a million dollars added to their development that they had zero idea. Um I think we should only be replacing

   2:48:26paying to replace trees over a certain size. Uh Scrub tree. Pine tree that grows this big in one year. Why would we pay for Five hundred dollars to remove that. It doesn't make sense. The end user will eat this. the employees that we want to bring here and the employers When they can't get reasonable housing, attainable housing in this county. for their employees will not move here. So

   2:48:57I agree with the aesthetics. I understand. But I think we need to incentivize developers with increased density. if they're gonna preserve twenty percent of their land or their canopy. Reduce setbacks, A give and take. That makes reasonable sense. And then further with that money. I mean planting trees in the right away is great, but that what that does to the county is Who's gonna prune the trees? Now the county's gotta pay to take care of these trees. Why don't we

   2:49:27take this money and also purchase Elamp properties? Um to where we can have meaningful preservation and use. in the middle of Arius. I mean there's a lot of good things we can do. It just happened this happened really, really quickly. And I was surprised and I was affected. And I hope that's a good idea. This kinda gets out in the open. It was well intended. I get it, why it went through quickly, but it would be better to follow good due process.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:49:57Jeremy, a quick question. in the early discussions. about this one of the things you know Mr. Gray and I had talked about Here. was providing a density bonus for saving trees. You just brought the same kind of thing up.

   2:50:20Is there All we've done is talk about it. It really comes down, someone's got to come up with a number. Do you have any ideas on what kind of If one saved if let's say we had in the in an ordinance that we mandate you save twenty percent of the tree canopy, how much of a how much of a density

   project engineer

   2:50:41bump, sure. A twenty percent bonus density. Give them a twenty percent bonus density. Yeah. I mean i incentivize incentivize these these these type of things. Uh I and I don't know. I mean I'm just shooting from the hip. I understand. Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:50:55Me too, I haven't thought exactly clearly through, but I'd like to

   David Engel

   2:51:03Well here's the the conundrum, Mr. Moody. Most of our projects come in under entitlement already. So we're giving a density bonus on something that's not gonna be used in most cases. So we'd have to find some other value to provide as an incentive.

   2:51:20Well,

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:51:21I made the suggestion before

   2:51:25Dad. Maybe when Of course Jeremy Jeremy may not agree with me on this. But maybe when we Ms. Wilhite and Mr. Hobby and the rest come in with their clients. That The initial proposal is sixty foot lots. And then when you save the trees and you provide the neighborhood parks and you provide the multi use trails on whether it be the south or the east side of the street, then you get fifty five foot lots and when you provide the

   2:51:55community garden like at Angeline, then you get the fifty foot lot and you know, if you want the goodies, you wanna get down to the forty five foot wide lots, you gotta give us back some goodies. Right now we give it away. We and I know David sat up here and said, Well, we've got certain we got PM twenty six, which now we're We're legislating via policy memo. But we've said it out from the here. Look, we'll g you come to Pasco County, we'll give you forty five foot wide lots. We didn't have a negotiation session with some of

   2:52:26these guys. We'll give you the 45 foot wide lots when I get some things. You can s remember. The in our code The MPUD is to be reserved for projects which are unique. Okay? Where they have to create their own standard because they're trying to preserve wetlands or preserve trees or some special feature of the property. We got everybody using the MPUD to just to try to maximize the number of lots I can put on a piece of property.

   2:52:57I've seen giant square pieces of property come in here that are cow fields. With we're doing this as an MPUD so that I can make twenty-foot townhomes under PM twenty-six and maximize the the maximum possible number of them I can get.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:53:15Without

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:53:15regard to

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:53:16I actually I wanted to ask Mr. Couch a question when you

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:53:18Sure, go ahead. And I apologize, Jeremy. I

   project engineer

   2:53:22No apologies, sir.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:53:25Hi. Um this resolution that's currently in effect that the board adopted has a lot of focus on the first section. But the last section actually has some very interesting things in it that you may not be aware of. It's actually section three, authorized expenditures. There is the last paragraph there, number four, that talks about costs associated with the purchases of conservation easement or deed restrictions on private property. Okay. That that is purposely brand new language in there. So that's that you can actually use the existing tree mitigation fund right now

   2:53:54under this existing resolution to be able to do a project with the developer where tree stands are identified that are worthy of the canopy we're all talking about right now will be protected by this paragraph right now using tree mitigation funds. So it's not ELAMP dollars, it's it's the tree mitigation fund that we have so much that's piled up. and waiting to be used. So I would love it if someone could start doing this this idea here. And you know you're interested in using ELAMP funds, why don't you explore using tree mitigation funds under this existing paragraph right now to

   2:54:25save the tree stands, the canopy and have the incentive that you're talking about.

   project engineer

   2:54:31Like or along the Anklet River or other places where They're they're critically important.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:54:36Well that's what ELAMP can be used for too. But this is specific to a project and the concept behind this um actually came from one of our commissioners, um l legislative aides. And the idea is that you know you it can play out in the scenario like you're an MPUD applicant, you come in here, you work with natural resources to identify a tree canopy stand that you want to have in the middle of your community park that you want to design around. And we'll pay you to do that. That's right here in this resolution. So

   project engineer

   2:55:02That's that's fantastic.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:55:04No one's noticed it. It's but it's here. It's a it's a new step forward. That's very fantastic. Okay. Elizabeth.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:55:11It's because it's buried in a resolution that was in a on a consent agenda to which there was no public notice or no public hearing. But

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:55:19I'm glad I'm able to bring it up right now in this context because it serves your purposes that you've pointed out.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:55:23Thank you.

   2:55:30I agree.

   David Engel

   2:55:30And answer Mr. Couch's question about uh Angeline. That eco corridor was purchased as part of the Elon program because it is a it is a corridor that's designated.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   2:55:44So that's true that it's a quarter. We bought that.

   Moody

   2:55:46But with regards to the grandfathering I think we're all in agreement on on that that you brought up um as well. And and you also brought up another good point too, 'cause there's a lot of discussion going on in this current environment about affordable housing and You know, so we have to balance that. You know, we want to keep the trees but we also need to be able to keep the housing affordable for people to be able to have housing here in the county. So that's The flip side what we always need to c contend with.

   Christopher Poole

   2:56:15I think my biggest concern about what Jeremy said is stakeholder involvement and kinda lack of involvement in in the process. I know how active Jeremy is in this county and I think that that's all the more reason to continue this to November. For sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:56:30Well and I think that goes back to the whole resolution for the fee. I mean, I think I brought up at the last meeting. I find it hard to believe that a resolution was adopted. I w I watched just because I happened I don't even know why I looked at the agenda, but I noticed that resolution was on the board agenda and I couldn't believe that the board was changing the fee on the trees and there was not one person that I thought would be interested in that present at that meeting. Because

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:56:52nobody knew.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:56:53Right, exactly. That's my point. So

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:56:56the only reason it got because one commissioner pulled it off the consent agenda. Correct.

   David Engel

   2:57:01Yeah, we no nobody knew, but we we were in discussions and uh I think I reported to the Planning Commission with it with with our sta extern external stakeholders for two years on it. It was it wasn't just uh an overnight deal, but you're right. Uh The actual proceeding wasn't public. Sure. As far as a hearing.

   Amanda Hill

   2:57:21And I would say since then the draft for the amended resolution has been shared with external stakeholders and they haven't provided any um opposition to what we've shared with them thus far.

   2:57:34The T B B A.

   David Engel

   2:57:37Their view is is let's do the cap as soon as possible. That was their concern. But but I I hear I hear you and uh and if the board takes a vote to continue to the November meeting, we'll come back with a comprehensive package.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:57:49And Amanda, I I don't mean to to sound argumentative. Again, the T B and and this is not to to say anything disrespectful about the T B B A. They're not the only developers in the world, they're not the only people who come in and apply for permits at the county. Everybody is entitled to participate in the process. We have a state statute that says the property owners Rights. There's a bill of rights in that statute number five is you have the right to

   2:58:19due process. Not just not ex just exclusively for the T B B A. Anyway so

   GreyChair

   2:58:27will we

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:58:27have a motion? What was the date in November?

   Amanda Hill

   2:58:31Eleven twenty.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:58:32Mm-hmm. m move to continue this Move to continue the matter to the 1120 hearing is this in Dade City or Newport Ritchie. Newport Ritchie. In Newport Ritchie. With the recommendation that staff bring the an entire or comprehensive ordinance back to the Planning Commission for consideration.

   Christopher Poole

   2:58:54Yeah.

   Moody

   2:58:56Motion

   Christopher Poole

   2:58:56second.

   Moody

   2:58:58And with your with your motion, you know, the consideration of the things that we brought up about the grandfathering and Fees by uh resolution as opposed to ordinance. Yes, yes. All of those things.

   2:59:12You got all those down, right? I'll

   Amanda Hill

   2:59:14watch a recording. I got I got

   GreyChair

   2:59:16clerks

   Amanda Hill

   2:59:16down there.

   David Engel

   2:59:19Yeah.

   GreyChair

   2:59:20That's right. I know you do.

   2:59:23Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Not all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Okay. Question carries. I can still hear the can rattling. I'd like to thank all the members of the public for hanging in there and letting us hear what you think. And we'll try to do our best. Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. I

   2:59:53didn't hear any noise. Yeah.