PDE-26-0004

Every appearance3 of 4 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 75% of 1,028 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 4 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Nov 20, 2025
   Planning CommissionP11Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:11:37
   ▶ 2:11:371h 49m

   Moody

   2:11:37Uh good afternoon Planning Commission members, Gianna German. Item P eleven, you will be sitting as a local planning agency. And I would also like to note that there are expertise that were received for this item. Item P11 is PDE 26004, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, amending the Pasco County Land Development Code. Amending section 802, tree preservation and replacement, section 802.1, intent and purpose, section 802.2 applicability, renaming section 802.3, tree removal to exemptions, creating

   2:12:07section 802.4, tree canopy standards, section 802.5, tree removal, section 802.6, problem trees, section 802.7, tree replacement and mitigation. Section 802.8 tree protection requirements, Section 802.9, trees of special significance. Appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, and providing for severability, an inclusion to the land development code and an effective date, and Amandela Hill will provide a presentation.

   Amanda Hill

   2:12:43Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Amanda Hill, Planning Development, Economic Growth.

   2:12:58Like Gianna mentioned, item P11 is the section eight hundred two tree preservation and replacement land development code amendment.

   2:13:06The purpose of this amendment is to conduct a comprehensive update to section 802, tree preservation and replacement of the land development code. to enhance tree protection within the county as directed by the board. The adoption of these proposed amendments will set the effective rate date for the new contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund as approved by the board by resolution number 25-291. Staff previously proposed LDC amendments to the LPA to repeal

   2:13:37section 802.3C. One B three eight D And section 802.3e on August 21st and September 18th, and was requested by the LPA on September 18th. to provide a comprehensive proposed revision for section 802 to be considered in conjunction with the repealed fees. Key updates to the code include restructuring of section eight oh two, Inclusions of standards for tree canopy preservation. Enhanced

   2:14:08requirements for true removal. clarification of the tree mitigation fund references. New and revised definitions related to tree protection, and minor revisions throughout the code for internal consistency.

   2:14:21Starting with the restructuring of section 802. Section 802 currently is structured in three subsections. Subsections 802.1 and 802.2 are relatively short, and all the other standards related to tree preservation in this section of the code are currently under 802.3. This amendment proposes the restructuring of the code to allow for nine subsections. I just wanted to note here that most of these subsections are already existing, just all nestled under 802.3. And the only section that we're

   2:14:52proposing that would be a completely new subsection is section 802.4.

   2:15:01Moving on to standards for tree canopy preservation. So for the purposes of calculating the existing tree canopy, The diameter at breast height of a tree will be used as a proxy for the coverage of the tree's canopy. The required minimum tree canopy retained shall include each tree And associated native vegetation within the area of the dripline, undisturbed except for invasive species removal. developments will be generally required to maintain 20% of the

   2:15:31total number of inches of existing tree canopy, 10 inches in diameter and larger. There are some special situations where the required preservation will be reduced. So namely for Mutterm and TND sites, a minimum of 5% will be required. The idea behind this is that these sites will organically have enhanced tree preservation due to design principles that have compact development areas and respect for natural features as an amenity to the development. Additionally, for

   2:16:01development sites where wetlands and their associated buffers occupy at least 10% of the total site area. A minimum of 10% of the existing trees located within the upland developable area will be required to be preserved.

   2:16:19Thirdly, commercial sites that are less than five acres in size, minor rural subdivisions, industrial sites, redevelopment sites, along with bona fide agricultural lands are exempt from the requirements of Section 802.4A. There was some consideration for small commercial sites that might not have the room to adjust the site layout to accommodate the preservation of trees. And for minor rural subdivisions, essentially those are Typically, families that are trying to subdivide

   2:16:50lots and not large scale development. So we didn't want to make that process any more cumbersome for those families. And for industrial sites, redevelopment sites, the board has been very supportive of promoting employment-generating uses. And as such, staff do not want this ordinance to create additional hindrances to site developments in those situations.

   2:17:13Listed here is the tree preservation priorities that will be required to be considered. These aren't necessarily in order. Essentially any of these circumstances would require the developer, the applicant to consider those when preserving trees. We've also included passive recreational opportunities within the canopy preservation areas, including decks, boardwalks, paths, and trails, and legal protection of

   2:17:43the canopy preservation areas required. Preserved trees are also required to be located in areas that are not subject to flooding due to the activities related to site development. And if that is unavoidable, then appropriate drainage would be required to be installed.

   2:18:03We did look into some density increases as a preservation incentive as requested by the LPA. However, what we noticed was that the projects typically come in under entitlements already when the site plans are being submitted for review. So as such, density was not a feasible option. We did consider some additional preservation incentives. So namely, this staff is proposing credits to incentivize the preservation of large trees over 54 inches. uh the location of passive and accreation

   2:18:33and recreational areas adjacent to each other. And if sites save additional canopy over the 20% requirement, then those would also be entitled to incentives. Essentially, these can be combined and these would serve as credits to the total amount that would be to due to the tree mitigation fund.

   GreyChair

   2:18:56Let me ask a quick question.

   2:19:01Diameter or circumference?

   Amanda Hill

   2:19:03Diameter. So everything would be based off of the diameter at breast height.

   Cindy Buckle

   2:19:08Mm mm mm.

   Amanda Hill

   2:19:11Moving on to enhanced requirements for tree removal. So the current code requires the submittal of a tree survey, a tree inventory, and a tree plan. A discretionary option of a representative sample is also included. Staff is proposing a requirement for the tree health to be included on the inventory for trees that are to be retained to meet the canopy preservation area requirements. as well as for all trees that are greater than 24 inches in diameter. The previous discretionary option by the county to allow

   2:19:41for a representative sample has also been removed from the code. For site development, in addition to these, clarification was also provided on the existing tree survey requirement as currently identified in Appendix A of the code as a tree location inventory. So essentially it was referenced as a tree location inventory in Appendix A, but it's actually describing the tree location survey. For lots not associated with site development and those that are not exempt as a single family home,

   2:20:12a replacement tree will be required to be planted for trees that are removed.

   2:20:22I'll now review uh some of the references that were clarified for the tree mitigation fund. So the previous outdated language related to the purpose and authorized locations for the tree mitigation fund were stricken. The previous contribution rates are revised in accordance with resolution number twenty-five-two nine one. The TBBA did request three items in their previous discussions with the board regarding this resolution: namely the vesting of projects, phasing of new fees, and the installation of a cap. And

   2:20:53$3,500 per upland developable acre was the results of said negotiations and is included accordingly in this draft. Staff also conducted additional research Regarding the appropriateness of setting the contribution rates by ordinance to consider the LPA's recommendation. Section one hundred seven fees of the Pasco County Land Development Code. Authorizes the board to adopt by resolution all necessary fees to administer, implement, and enforce this code. The

   2:21:24said fee resolution may include provisions for consulting assistance as required. As such, the adopted fees along with the $3,500 cap are currently included in the draft amendment. However, staff will request guidance from the board at the January 6, 2026 meeting to determine if the fees will be referenced in the ordinance. or exclusively referenced in the amended resolution which will be brought to the Board for approval. Additionally, we would also seek clarification from the board as to whether

   2:21:54or not future fees would be amended by resolution or ordinance.

   2:22:03Staff is proposing the regular evaluation of contribution rates to the Tree Mitigation Fund to provide consistency to interested parties regarding future changes. This evaluation will consider the inflation rate and other applicable factors in addition to the performance of the existing tree protection standards. And this subsection of the code also clarifies that the authorized locations, recipients, expenditures, distribution, and monitoring of funds shall be based on a resolution by the board.

   2:22:34The amendment proposes new definitions for the following terms in Appendix A definitions and updates the existing definitions for diameter at breast height and tree location inventory.

   2:22:50And I'm just gonna run through the some of the minor revisions that were done in other sections of the code for internal consistency. So section 802.1, intent and purpose, there's an expansion of the intent and purpose to include the value of trees and the benefits derived from their protection. Section 802.2, applicability. There's a minor clarification of existing applicability. Section 8 or 2.3 exemptions. There's a clarification of the types of county projects that are exempt from this section of the code. County roads and drainage, maintenance,

   2:23:21and land management projects are the projects that are specified in this section where there previously wasn't any specification. There is also a clarification of the prohibition of wetland tree removal without authorization for the fencing exemption that currently exists in the code.

   2:23:39Clarification is provided of the notice required to meet the exemptions provided for proposed bona fide agricultural land. Clarification is provided of the term residential lot for the purposes of this section of the code. and additional and the addition of language based on the state requirements of section 163.045 of the Florida statutes. For section 802.6 problem trees, specification is provided that replacement trees should have appropriate

   2:24:09tree growth control measures and fulfill the original intended design objectives. For section 802.7, tree replacement and mitigation, there's a specification of when palm trees may be substituted for shade trees.

   2:24:25Section 802.8 tree protection requirements. Uh we currently have a term that's um in there for protection, but it didn't reference a tree protection zone specifically, so we just clarified what Is the area in question that was being referenced in that section of the code as tree protection zone. And we utilize that term throughout the section. We also added in the prohibition of final grading within the tree protection zone and added a requirement to replace trees that have been destroyed or received

   2:24:55major damage prior to final engineering inspection. And then finally for 802.9, trees of special significance, there's a revision of the easement requirements from 15 feet in all directions of the trunk to the tree's drip line. This comes to you with a recommendation to find the proposed land development code amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And I'm available for any questions that you may have.

   Connected City

   2:25:20If you could just remind me again what the tree mitigation fund is used for. I mean what's the what's the purpose of the fund once monies are paid into it?

   Amanda Hill

   2:25:28Uh I I will have to look at the resolution to give you that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:25:32It showed the language change too.

   2:25:39Mm-mm. That one, yes.

   Amanda Hill

   2:25:49I'm going back to the two thousand one resolution to find the language when it was created.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:26:00Doesn't the resolution outline what it's to be spent for?

   Amanda Hill

   2:26:04So the resolution was amended from the original resolution. So it basically mentions what has changed since the previous one, but it's not necessarily rewriting everything from scratch. So going back to 2001 language for the tree mitigation fund. A tree mitigation fund is hereby established, which shall consist of all monies received by Pasco County pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, and shall be deposited in the general fund. which shall be in a separate revenue account established and maintained apart from other general revenue funds and accounts of Pasco

   2:26:34County. The fund shall be used solely for the purchase, planting, and maintenance of native trees, meeting the intent and requirements of this ordinance, and associated administrative costs as designated by the Board of County Commissioners. And then it goes on where the trees can be planted, the recipients, et cetera.

   Connected City

   2:26:51Okay, so p planting of trees by the county on county property

   Amanda Hill

   2:26:56It doesn't have to necessarily be exclusively on county property that um the locations have expanded throughout the years, but it includes county property, yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:27:06David, just a quick question for you. The very first sentence. On the screen is stricken. Is there any legal significance to that?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:27:17Do the striking of a tree mitigation trust fund is hereby established?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:27:25I was curious as to why we would strike that and is there some s what's the significance of that?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:27:32It already says the second sentence will be deposited in an accountant extreme easier to define. So I don't

   2:27:39I think the difference is is that

   2:27:44I imagine either accountants don't like setting up separate funds. they set up separate accounts. So,

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:27:54Let me elaborate my question.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:27:56So

   2:27:59I don't I I don't think that there's any problem with it, if

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:28:02My question has more to do that the funds received as payment for tree mitigation are used for trees, they're not used for roads, they're not used for

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:28:16parks,

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:28:16they're not used for not used for firefighting.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:28:19the reason I think it was struck and I wasn't involved in this conversation, but

   2:28:25Our accountants don't like to create separate funds, they like to create separate accounts. But t to your general concern, yes, it's earmarked for trees. It's not it's not commingled with other things that can be spent on roads or parks or Well, except for trees in parks or trees in on in roads, or the but the yes, it's supposed to be spent on trees. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:28:53You've answered. Good.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:28:58And it that language still says establish and maintain apart from other general revenue funds and accounts of the county. It it was just they don't set it up as a separate fund, they set it up as a separate account. I gotcha. That's why it was struck. Okay. Eric, I'm

   Connected City

   2:29:13satisfied. Uh well I I had asked what it was you that was my f first question. I did have a follow up too, 'cause we um when we spoke um on our one on one meeting, I mentioned um speaking about um clarifying s species of trees and and this. So I understand that there's already exemptions for palm trees and pine trees and so forth, but I mean was there any more Did you look into doing that or

   Amanda Hill

   2:29:39Not in detail. Um we are still looking at the palm exemption to potentially um consider some additional scenarios where that might be appropriate, but um we're still doing additional um research discussion with stakeholders as to whether or not that would be feasible. But other than that, we haven't considered additional species.

   Connected City

   2:29:56So the issue I brought up um for everybody else's information is to um it's a discussion regarding uh canopy coverage. We're trying to main to protect canopy. However, canopy doesn't always equate to a proportionate amount of tree diameter because it depends on the species of the tree. on average. So, you know, one species of tree, um, there's probably an average uh tree diameter to canopy ratio, but for different species that ratio

   2:30:26is probably different. So that's why I was curious about um Getting more detail on the species of the trees. Obviously we're trying to protect hardwood trees, but

   Amanda Hill

   2:30:35we did have discussions with um staff that's related to um trees and uh permitting process and so. And my understanding is that it essentially works as a proxy that if you have a tree with a larger D B H that it typically corresponds to a larger canopy. Of course, in the case of palms and so that wouldn't be the case. But for hardwoods,

   Connected City

   2:30:54but you know. So um another example might be a cypress tree. You know, so that can be a very large D B H diameter but not a really huge canopy.

   Amanda Hill

   2:31:01Right. And we did have some um

   Connected City

   2:31:04well generally, yeah.

   Amanda Hill

   2:31:06Yeah. We didn't know I'm

   Connected City

   2:31:07just looking at ra you know, average ratios of of tree canopy coverage too. The diameter.

   Amanda Hill

   2:31:13Yeah, we were tr attempting to find the simplest way to have the tree preservation um percentage calculated. At first we were looking at it based off of the aerials, but then there were some concerns in terms of the time of year and whether or not you have the trees in full bloom and the leaves on the trees versus wintertime, and then is it shade versus is it the actual canopy? So we figured that the inches would be a cleaner way of considering it. Right. Because they're doing the survey with the inches anyway.

   2:31:40Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:31:42Can I ask anything else? Yeah, can I ask Patrick a question? Sure. Since he's the guy that's going to Administer the ordinance. Yeah. Can we flip to the side slide about the priority?

   2:32:02And I don't know if you have but the The ordinance says that priority shall be given to Saving certain trees. What does that mean and how do you intend to administer that If I come in with a plan and I've saved twenty percent of the Tree inches. And I express this in my I express this concern in my discussions with staff and with T B

   2:32:32B A I want to have an ordinance That's easy for people to comply with and that there's not going to be a lot of argument about. And I don't want to get into Petty arguments with staff of you should have saved this tree versus that tree or that tree, because I'm personally looking at this as Any tree saved under this ordinance is more trees than we would have saved under the prior ordinance. So I'm

   2:33:04s a little skeptical, maybe you can convince me about what you mean by priority shall be given to Somewhat subjective is what you're saying. Yes.

   Amanda Hill

   2:33:14Is it okay if I provide some more context before he answers?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:33:18Yeah, and can we look at the actual language?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:33:20Yeah, it's page six of the red line. Somebody has the actual ordinance.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:33:24It's six, Janie. Thank you.

   Amanda Hill

   2:33:30Okay. So while Patty works on that, um, this list was a lot longer in the original draft that we had. I think we had about nine different categories, and it said it shall be prioritized in order of preference, something along those lines. And I definitely recognize what Mr. Moody said that it would be challenging to identify, well, this one versus this one. And having conflicting opinions cause an issue in terms of the review process. So we did simplify the list. We only have four right now. And these represented the

   2:34:00ones that we were told are the ones of greatest priority to the various stakeholders that we've spoken with. So whether it's a heritage tree, we definitely want to prioritize saving those. Those that exist in natural groupings, so that is the tree stands that we were talking about in previous sessions. The ones adjacent to the required site perimeter landscape buffering and screening along arterial and collector roads. So essentially that if you're going down little, for example, that you try to preserve those trees that are immediately adjacent to the road. In preference over

   2:34:30trees that might be located further back in the development. And then the ones that complement the streetscape appearance of subdivision collector roads. So as you go into the developments, that you preserve trees that are located along that main road. So that's why we pare down that list. And the language that previously set in order of priority is no longer there as well. So we did attempt to make that a bit more objective.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:34:53I don't know if that helps. Well I guess Amanda, can if I can expand on that a little bit. I mean, 'cause John raises a really valid point. I mean as engineers, we put forth quite a bit of effort on projects before you guys even see them. And my biggest fear in reviewing this is that We bring a plan to you and then you guys look at it or somebody looks at it and says, Wow, why don't you save this cluster of three trees over here? Why are you saving these three over there? I mean I go back to I I think there's language in there. that requires

   2:35:23the creation of of an easement, a conservation easement to be dedicated to the HOA. Well, how how do you do that for a ch a street tree that you're saving along the street? I mean there there's a lot of uh I mean there's there's a lot of ambiguity here and I'm I think everybody's got the same goal. We're trying to get to the same place, but it's just how's that gonna be interpreted? And even if that's not by you, by the next people. And I just I couldn't follow why that priority list was there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:35:50So um and Amanda can correct me if I'm wrong, um, but I believe it was it's um Method of encouragement. Um some of our stakeholders I think uh preferred that we try and save trees in certain areas and we should try and prioritize these, but it's not a shall statement. And that it's

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:36:11not.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:36:16It does it say shall I thought shall was removed.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:36:20Right. In the first draft it said should, because I actually asked somebody about that.

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:24Yeah. The first draft said should and I think it said in order of priority and this version just says shall and it doesn't mention the language about priority. So I guess it's a matter of which one is most objective. It

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:36:35says priority shall be given to.

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:37Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:36:40So

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:40any of the ones that

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:36:41are on that list.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:36:49What I would suggest is is it's great to encourage

   2:36:55The saving of those trees.

   2:36:59Trying not to get too far into the weeds. I'm working on a project right now where we're having an argument over the code. where and this has to do with the parking section of the code. where it says parking should be on the sides or at the rear of the building. It doesn't say parking shall be at the sides or the rear of the building. Well, There's a big legal difference between should and shall. Or maybe I'll ask Mr. County Attorney.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:37:30Shall mean shall is mandatory. You knew it was coming. Yes. Should is not really mandatory.

   Amanda Hill

   2:37:37And we did have some previous language in the code, not in reference to this specifically, that said should and the feedback that we got from priority shall. What

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:37:46do what does that mean? Does that mean you must save the heritage tree?

   Amanda Hill

   2:37:52Sounds like it. So if you have a heritage tree and you have a non-heritage tree and you can save one or the other, you should save the heritage tree over the other tree.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:38:04Well

   2:38:06So

   2:38:09by way of example a Lowe's store or Walmart store or a Home Depot store would be greater than five acres. And if that heritage tree's in the middle of the Lowe's store, I'm to do what?

   Amanda Hill

   2:38:25then maybe you can save a tree that's along the buffering instead.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:38:29Yeah, but the but see that's the problem. I don't wanna get into an argument with someone who's not the design professional over which tree Should have been saved. And the whole point of this exercise, this ordinance is You know, under the current ordinance, I can kill every tree on the site

   2:38:51And I have a a cap of the fee based on the acreage. And in this ordinance You are going to save twenty percent of the trees, unless you're in one of these exempt. categories.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:39:03Aren't

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:39:04we in a better place than where we were before?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:39:06Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:39:07We're in a way better place. Why do we want to get in and pardon my language a p sync contest? over which tree it should have been. Any tree saved is better than no tree saved in my opinion, but

   Amanda Hill

   2:39:20Um Terry's online and he'd like to um speak to this as well, if that's okay with you. Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:39:27Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, uh Mr. Moody, Planning Commission, Victorious Petitos, Planning Development, Economic Growth. I apologize. I'm not present today. If you hear I'm sick. Um And the question of should versus shall. We've understood that should is not a mandatory statement like shall is. However, should it does express the intent of the code. And so the way we've looked at it in the past is d please demonstrate to us how you May

   2:39:58not be able to uh meet the intent of the code. And at that point. uh we can we can check that off. and move on with the review.

   2:40:10So that's kind of how should has been interpreted.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:40:14So is would the staff object if the the Planning Commission recommended that language should be Changed back to the word should instead of shall.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:40:27Uh I am there would be cons the interpretation would be consistently applied, so um So it's it's it's it's one way to do it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:40:51I'm not sure he answered my question.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:40:52Yeah, I I don't mean I d I I was waiting on the answer. I mean do you

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:40:55Oh uh you're waiting for me to answer?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:40:57Yes. Well

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:41:03Yeah. I would be okay with it. as should. It allows for a checklist of items to be go gone through and to identify which priority actually works.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:41:15Well, Terry, I I don't I'm not sure you

   2:41:19the point's not understood because now we're still in a negotiation point. when it comes to site plan review. I mean We there's again there's a lot of work that's gone into a project by the time we I mean It almost sounds like we need to have a a pre meeting before we even do any design work.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:41:45Sure. And I think we're almost there. I think we can be here.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   2:41:49Yeah.

   2:41:52If we wanted to say Shaw.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:41:54But it's it's when it says priority shall that it's that's very nebulous. And and I might have an opinion as to what the priority is and someone on the staff's gonna have an opinion and your staff arborist will have a different opinion and Jackie over there's gonna have a different opinion and And We're all gonna get into circular arguments over which tree Could have, would have, should've, might have been saved. At the end of the day. The goal here is to save trees and I think

   2:42:24you got an ordinance that now saves trees. I just don't wanna g get into creating a dragged out permitting process arguing over which tree.

   Connected City

   2:42:35Yeah, I understand you want to

   2:42:40Of what you're trying to do, but I mean it may be better stated if it's just stated as the intent of the We

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:42:46encourage you to

   Connected City

   2:42:47prioritize saving these trees. Right. As opposed to Listing it specifically because it is a very subjective Requirement.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:43:00It is encouraged. That priority should be given to preserving healthy native trees. Some you know

   Amanda Hill

   2:43:07we

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:43:08got county attorney over here for me.

   Connected City

   2:43:09Yeah, I mean you could even include it in the very beginning of the section under intent and purpose.

   GreyChair

   2:43:14Sounds like that's you're setting yourself up for a court battle there. Yeah,

   Connected City

   2:43:18you you could you could even include it this portion under the intent and purpose at the beginning. Yeah,

   Christopher Poole

   2:43:22it's already in the intent and purpose up front.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:43:25Right.

   2:43:28I don't even know how you would interpret this. I mean I i the way this is written, priority shall be given, okay, well I'll go to A, heritage trees. I mean every heritage tree I gotta save till I get to twenty percent?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:43:38Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:43:41Yeah. I I I just don't know the interpretation of this and we're th this it's it's really gray. At best. Well

   GreyChair

   2:43:47if you're gonna build your building where the heritage tree is, you're gonna have to make some kind of accommod accommodation for it. But that doesn't doesn't mean you're gonna have to make a combination for every heritage tree.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:43:57better way to handle this is my opinion is If there are trees that we don't want to count towards the canopy requirement because they're just Add trees. Just exclude them. I mean, I think that's a good thing

   2:44:17There's certain trees that are just They're you know, what do we call them? Invasive trees or the That shouldn't be counted towards the canopy. But if you want black and white, then just say that. You know, These are the invasive trees that we're just not gonna count towards the canopy requirement. They don't count towards the twenty percent and just leave it at that. That's black and white. They can't count. I don't think

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:44:47they count already.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:44:48Right. Okay, well then

   Amanda Hill

   2:44:49And we also have that language later on, I believe, in the section of the code.

   2:44:56Number six, uh eight oh two point four A six.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:45:04I guess what I guess I'll go back to maybe ask Terry the question. What is the goal overall goal with the priority requirement then? If you've already excluded the bad trees, the trees that that You don't want to count. Because they don't do anything for us.

   2:45:26What is the what's your goal of prioritizing the good trees?

   Amanda Hill

   2:45:33Are you asking me or Tari?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:45:35Whoever can answer the question.

   Amanda Hill

   2:45:36I think I could start to answer. Uh Terry, you could fill in anything that I might have missed. But um they're

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:45:41all good. What why is one

   Amanda Hill

   2:45:44gooder than another? Why is one gooder than another gooder? They're all good. Yeah. So there's been a lot of discussion from stakeholders um and the public just in general in terms of preserving these large trees that have been around for a while. in terms of preserving groups of trees and not just replanting trees to replace the ones that have been cut. So we're trying to emphasize that if those exist on the site as feasible, you should be trying to serve to preserve those instead of preserving just said the

   2:46:14magic word.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:46:15See. As

   Amanda Hill

   2:46:15feasible?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:46:16It's feasible. It's gotta be feasible. I brought the example up of I'm gonna build a Walmart that's takes more than ten acres. That's not exempt under this ordinance. You gotta save twenty percent of the trees, and now there's a heritage tree right in the middle of the Walmart store. Well I can't build a hole in the Walmart store to save the heritage tree. Unfortunately it's gonna go. But he still ha they still have to meet and save the other Twenty percent.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:46:40Sure.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:46:40Trees, we've still met

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:46:42our

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:46:43objective.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:46:46You've already created your incentive process to try I mean, maybe you tackle this a different way, which is if you're trying to Incentivized the The gooder trees, the better trees, whatever we're calling them. Why don't you just create more of an incentive, like a monetary incentive for preserving those higher ranked trees. And say hey, the more you preserve what you kind of started to do with the

   2:47:16heritage trees Why don't you just handle it that way? Let's say For every Great, you know, w for every outstanding tree you create. Bonjour. We'll give you this additional incentive so that it's It's more of a carrot than a stick. Because heritage trees were defined as

   Connected City

   2:47:35what? 54 inches or

   Amanda Hill

   2:47:36so actually no. Heritage trees were defined as uh twenty-four inches and larger for southern magnolias and then thirty-four inches and larger for live oaks. Um for the incentives, we have fifty-four inches and larger. You would be entitled to um an incentive. So that's basically at four and a half feet, the tree is as wide as is a As it's tall. So diameter of breast height is measured at four and a half

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:47:59feet. Everybody seems to like the incentive concept. Why not just take those ones that are high priority and just make them Incentivized trees. That's right.

   2:48:14That way if somebody really they really want that in s monetary incentive They can point out that they saved the Those really gr fantastic trees.

   Connected City

   2:48:23It's a much more black and white.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:48:27Yeah, uh just just I think to the additional context and Amanda, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Uh Patrick Dutter Planning Development Economic Growth. I think the original intent behind this entire section is based off of our um not so distant memories, our poster child that we like to reference, Newport Corners. It would have been real nice if they saved a twenty or thirty foot strip along the frontage. So hey, let's try and incorporate that in this. Um So that is I think where this language came from is we should try and prevent things like

   2:48:57that from happening if we can. Well,

   Connected City

   2:49:00no,

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:49:00we I

   Connected City

   2:49:00think we all think this is great.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:49:02Sure.

   Connected City

   2:49:02The question is is how do you

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:49:05Absolutely. I'm just saying, you know, the question was raised, hey, where did this what's what's the intent behind it? It's I think those things that were fresh in our memory, how do we prevent these things from happen? That's where it came from. So right. How we again go about solving it, right? Should it be a shall, a should, uh you know

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:49:24But I guess what I'm saying is rather than I guess I believe in putting your money where your mouth is. Okay. If you really think it should be a should

   2:49:38Put a dollar value to it. Say for every time you do one of these things, We'll give you credit for it. If you're serious about it. Give him a dollar credit for it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:49:53Thank you, David. I made the same exact suggestion in my meetings and that's a great segue to the next comment about the incentive When I met with you guys I talked about having a Four X, five X, possibly ten X incentive for saving trees. And in some ways you guys almost took my bait. Because I said to my partner, I said, you watch. They'll come back in this ordinance, in a revised

   2:50:24ordinance, with an incentive for the trees. It'll only be for the most biggest trees because they don't want to give up the money to the tree fund.

   2:50:33If a heritage tree is twenty four inches for a magnolia or thirty something inches, then we should be giving the incentive to save that tree. You guys gotta start it out at almost double the size of the tree. Fi how many fifty four inch trees do we come along to begin with anyways, right? I mean We need to make sure that the tree mitigation fund is not a revenue raising exercise and that it's actually Or you know, mitigating and replanting trees.

   2:51:04And We should also give carrots to those who save the trees. If you're willing to go in and Design a road around a thirty-six inch tree, why shouldn't you get some credit against your tree mitigation for that?

   2:51:26Overall suggestion is change the diameter from fifty four to be something more consistent with the definition of your heritage tree and the ordinance don't Don't be stingy with the credit, would be my suggestion. And At a at a hundred dollars an inch. You g gotta remember the math. We talked about the math, about how we get here, about how the tree always loses, because the math doesn't work in the tree's favor. Well you given

   2:51:56a You're charging seventy five dollars an inch under the new resolution to take down a tree. And you're g only giving them a hundred dollars inch and for the one rare The rarest of all rare trees, right? Fifty four. So I'm ma I'm I'm netting twenty five dollars an inch. I think we should be a little bit more generous with the credit to David's point. Put your money where your mouth is.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:52:21So I do have one question about the credit. 'Cause I don't know what the intent is. Um

   2:52:29The credit against the inch requirement makes sense to me. I'm not sure if it makes as much sense to me if you're paying Per acre.

   2:52:42per acre was that it was supposed to be a cap. Like to make sure that If you were paying per inch it didn't get Like crazy.

   GreyChair

   2:52:52Mm-hmm.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:52:53So my concern is if you're giving these credits if you're paying per acre that

   2:53:00Somebody might effectively

   2:53:03It almost might end up paying almost nothing because the cap

   2:53:09I don't think that was the intent. I mean I thought that the cap was sort of like a you know, just let's just make sure things our inch requirement payments don't get totally out of whack. I didn't think that we was we were gonna start giving credits against this cap. But the way this is worded is it makes it sound like you get a credit against whatever The payment is

   2:53:33And Was that your intent or was you only were you only gonna give credit against if you're paying by inch?

   Amanda Hill

   2:53:40So it would be either or and I think it may work out at least in staff's opinion based on when we were looking at this that it may work a little bit differently to how you mentioned it. That it wouldn't necessarily go all the way down to zero. But let's say for example someone comes in, they are cutting, I don't know, 50,000 inches. And at that point they decide that they're gonna save their 20%. That doesn't mean that they're not paying anything. They're still paying for whatever they're cutting. So out of that total amount that's due, after they save

   2:54:10their 20%, if they're saving those larger trees, if they're saving in excess of the 20%, if they're saving the ones that are collo uh that are located adjacent to the open play areas, then they would be able to get a discount on that total amount. And then if you look at D below, it also says that it goes up to twenty five percent. So So there shouldn't be a scenario where someone's not paying anything. It's not

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:54:37uh zero is an extreme example. I I'm what I'm saying is that I thought the intent of the per acre way of paying was that it was supposed to be a cap. That it it wasn't supposed to be the base payment that it that you then Deduct credits from the right-of-way. that it was supposed to be just a ceiling, like to make sure that there was no way under any scenario you would pay more than that amount. At least that's how it was described to me, was

   2:55:07that T B VA was pushing for A cap on payment. Like there's just no way under any scenario If we'd ever have to be pay more than thirty five hundred dollars an acre. I didn't think it was gonna become the baseline and then we're gonna start deducting credits from the the baseline. That is the baseline. I thought credits were only going to be deducted from the per inch payment.

   2:55:32But I I don't know what you mean. My fear is that if you're deducting it from the thirty five hundred dollars per acre

   2:55:42And I realize it's not a revenue scenario, but but uh but

   2:55:47you may effectively be getting very low payments at that point.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:55:54And I would tell you personally. Yeah. I'm not trying to get in the way of negotiations. I think the thirty five hundred dollar an acre cap is way too low. When you start to look at we're we're charging seventy five dollars an inch for the tree. So a ten inch tree is seven hundred and fifty dollars. Well, doesn't take many ten inch trees before I'm at thirty five hundred bucks, right?

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:56:19That's my point. I I don't think he should be giving credits against a thirty five hundred dollar an acre thirty five hundred dollar thirty five hundred dollar an acre payment.

   Amanda Hill

   2:56:29Even for the enhanced protection.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:56:33I

   2:56:33think

   2:56:33thirty five hundred dollars should be a cap only. It should just be That's like your worst case scenario. Like you if you add up all your required payments, all your credits, whatever you do, you do all your calculations based on inches and credits. And if that dollar amount ends up equaling more than thirty five hundred dollars an acre You go with that as your cap. It just it all it is serves as is a cap, not as a alternate way of paying I understand that you worded it

   2:57:03the way that way, is it oh we can elect to pay that way? But I'm with John. I just think that's gonna result in like an extremely low payment.

   2:57:17Presented to Planning commission and the board was that was a cap. Not a oh we can just elect to pay it this way too.

   2:57:29Especially now that you have this credit concept. I I think the credit should be based on the inch way of paying, not based on the cap.

   Amanda Hill

   2:57:38Um, I might be mistaken. Um, Patrick, do you mind clarifying for me? Um in terms of generally when sites come in and when projects come in, um, do they usually elect to pay per inch or do they usually go with a cap? Because we also have a cap right now for the existing fees.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:57:56Uh to answer that question specifically, generally your smaller sites are paying by inch and your larger sites are gonna be paying by the developable acre. And also coverage is you know, it's coverage dependent, but generally the smaller sites are paying by inch. Larger ones are paying with the cap.

   Amanda Hill

   2:58:16I think some people to aunt to go back to what you were saying, I think there are some developments that they're just electing to go with the cap instead.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:58:26In the table down here for the percentage canopy retained in credit, shouldn't that say percentage of additional canopy retained?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   2:58:35Sure. Yes,

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:58:36I think we can

   Amanda Hill

   2:58:36add it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:58:37Yes, I think it should.

   2:58:41Additionally the twenty percent.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   2:58:46Meaning

   Amanda Hill

   2:58:46if you're

   2:58:47not going to be able to do it.

   2:58:50Do we also need to mention it in the title of the table?

   2:58:55So B One says developments at preserve more than twenty percent.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   2:59:03Change more twenty percent.

   Anne Water

   2:59:06Mm-hmm.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:59:18Yeah, thinking.

   2:59:23It's probably fine the way you have it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   2:59:40I Did not have those were my questions. I didn't have any other with this.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:59:47But but but but but let me just finish my point. So I agree with John that you need to look at Maybe upping the credits and maybe adding some additional credits for the stuff that you these priority things that you have. But I would not be giving credits against an upland acre cap.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:00:08And I

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:00:09opinion I would agree with you. To me a cap was basically to effectively avoid a taking, basically. That's what the developers were arguing. They came in here and said, if you don't cap this, we're gonna have these billion dollar payments, is effectively what they were arguing. I was I'm I'm exaggerating, but wasn't that basically what they were arguing?

   3:00:35That was the purpose of the cap. It wasn't to become the new baseline for credits.

   3:00:46In my opinion.

   Amanda Hill

   3:00:48Okay, so if we're doing it per inch, we would say that instead of seventy-five dollars per inch, the percentages that we have here would be applicable to that amount instead of the total amount. I want to make sure I can't.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:01:01You also could just you need to revise your language about the thirty five hundred dollars per acre and say it's a instead of saying it's an elective way to pay, say it's a cap, it's the maximum that You calculate your inches and it c no matter how you calculate your fee, it can't exceed that dollar amount.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:01:18In no circumstance shall the payment of any mitigation fee exceed the amount of thirty five hundred dollars. Right,

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:01:24just just make it a cap as opposed to an an alternate way

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:01:27to pay.

   3:01:30Of a motion for an amendment to this and the reason that I suggest that. Yes, I understand that Mr. Engel is under great pressure to get this in front of the board. And I am committed to help him do that if we can today. I I don't know where the rest of you guys are on all this. I mean if we're far enough along If we can make recommendations for changes to move it on to the board, then that would seem to me to be

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:01:59I think those are easy changes to make.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:02:00Okay.

   GreyChair

   3:02:02All right, state your motion, please.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:02:05Agreed. Um s oh so the the language regarding the cap shall not be an election.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:02:12Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:02:12Well it should. change to say something of the effect of and if the county attorney wants to help me In no circumstance shall the amount of tree mitigation paid exceed the amount of thirty five hundred dollars per acre.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:02:29That's accurate, that's how I would say it. Good job. So you could be an attorney.

   3:02:46Okay. Do you want to make another motion about how to fix the

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:02:50Yeah, what about the should show the

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:02:52the how we're gonna fix the Yes. Priority priority. I would move that

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:02:56priority should be given, not priority shall be given. Is that all part of the same motion?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:03:04Well but is that really what you want to do? Because Because this

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:03:09still doesn't solve the problem of the Well then if you really want me to make a motion, I'd recommend we just strike that section.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:03:16I let me just ask because I I want to know what staff's thought is. Can you Can you do what I suggested, which is the stuff that's pr prioritized, the stuff that you want to really Make sure c can you move that into a an the incentive section?

   Amanda Hill

   3:03:35I think we can. Yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:03:39Yes you can't do. Then that would be the motion. All right. And I would

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:03:45that's we're gonna make the changes something we're just not gonna see. I mean I I get it. I'm I'm all for trying to get this keep this moving at David's recommendation or from the board the direction. But I mean I I don't think it needs to go unsaid that We sitting up here have seen this document for 48 hours. It's not like we've been looking at this thing for four months, five months, six months. We've seen it for 48 hours. We got our agenda on Tuesday afternoon. So I I mean I I'm all for trying to keep it going. But

   3:04:17I I I have some comments here too, but I mean th these are important things and these are things that

   3:04:23i it's everybody has the same goal. Everybody wants to get there. I'm for saving my my comments aren't to that I don't want to save trees. Um but I wanna make sure we get it right rather than hurry up and get something that we gotta come back three months from now and talk about for four more hours and be here until six o'clock talking about the same thing again.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:04:42I I would agree with you. And if if you don't feel like we're for If you don't feel like we're far enough along. Yeah. I'll happily withdraw those motions. Well, let me throw Come come back another day in a better form.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:04:58I think I think we can get there. I just

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:05:01Let me ask let me ask you let me ask a stringle question. I know this would be highly unusual, but This has to go to two public hearing in front of the board.

   3:05:13Is it possible that between first public hearing and second public hearing Planning Commission could see the one more draft? Yeah. So that they've had one more chance to make comments so that that if they've got additional revisions you can make them before the final public hearing in front of the board. So that at least we don't stop at the train moving but they've got another chance to make final

   3:05:44comments.

   David Engel

   3:05:45You're you're correct. That's very unusual. I've never dealt with that before. Um if you could find me the the roadmap to get us there legally, I will certainly ex we certainly embrace that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:05:58Well,

   3:06:01Well the Planning Commission's role is to find the ordinance consistent with the Comm Plan. Um you know, you in theory could do that today. That's your only legal role. Um but if you don't feel like you your other comments have been addressed you know, I don't see any problem with you with you having another chance to You know Make comments to it before it goes to the board, you know, for final

   3:06:31action.

   GreyChair

   3:06:35Jamie,

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:06:36what are your comments

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:06:37that

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:06:37haven't been addressed?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:06:38Well I guess I just and d some of these aren't comments, some of these are just clarifications. But I but

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:06:42I think Mr. Gerardi's point though is goes beyond what he's about to say. You know, if they're gonna move the priority stuff into incentives, I think his point is he won't know what that says.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:06:52Right. What does it even say? Well,

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:06:53can we agree upon it today what it might or should say?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:07:02we can kind of treat this as a defective workshop.

   3:07:07You know, I what is your current schedule for this, David? Like what's the current what's the current

   David Engel

   3:07:12Uh first reading in January, second reading in February with the BCC.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:07:19And w are there any planning commission meetings?

   3:07:26That's it. Yeah,

   David Engel

   3:07:26we could

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:07:27bring it back then. What's well could could we bring it back what's do we have a planning commission meeting in December, right? Yes, sir.

   David Engel

   3:07:34We do it on the eleventh.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:07:37So in theory if we brought it back in December

   David Engel

   3:07:41We could do the January first reading with the BCC if we

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:07:46guess my question is if we if you pl Gate Planning Commission one more shot at it in December

   3:07:52You could still put it on the board meeting for January, right? That's

   David Engel

   3:07:56right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:07:58And presumably if Planning Commission still had issues, you could make those changes before the final public hearing in February.

   David Engel

   3:08:07Well I I was hoping that in the December Planning Commission meeting we could deliberate with the draft that we will present to you as a result of the conversation today. today and and then and then make a recommendation to the board and then we can

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:08:21proceed to the right-of-way.

   3:08:26No

   David Engel

   3:08:27no, but the flip side is I

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:08:28mean, I think it's a good idea

   David Engel

   3:08:29if the bo if the board if the board starts looking at this item at first reading and having interaction with the staff and making directions, then uh it it's a little unusual for me to bring back that that back to the Planning Commission. It would be a problem, I think.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:08:45Okay, so

   David Engel

   3:08:46I think we should focus on trying to clear it through the PC in December, if we can.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:08:53But you can you get it on the January agenda.

   Amanda Hill

   3:08:58I think that might be a concern. Um for January sixth, that's gonna be the first hearing. I believe the deadline, for example, to hit the county attorney's office's queue for reviews is December 9th, which would actually be before the December 11th date for Planning Commission.

   3:09:17So it gets a little weird.

   David Engel

   3:09:19Well i if if the CAO could be a little flexible with that deadline, I think we could work through it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:09:26It's the it's the county administrator deadline to get it on

   David Engel

   3:09:31I I feel very confident because of the prioritization that the board has placed on this that the county administrator would be very cooperative.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:09:44I don't have any problem a talking through these things now. I don't want to give that impression. I mean I I I thought the intent was to move this to towards the board today.

   David Engel

   3:09:54Well that was the hope. That was the goal. And and Mr. Gerardi you had indicated that you had some questions. I did. Mm so if there's just clarification, we could do that today.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:10:04Yeah. And I mean I I mean again I go back to these priority things. I mean I I agree if you want to incentivize the priorities. My h my whole again, I don't wanna repeat, but my concern is I don't want this to get a ha be a hang up when we get into site plan. And and the way it's written now, it it's potentially a hang up when we get to site plan.

   3:10:24So I mean if if if we add h priorities, I mean the first priority is the heritage trees. If you if Change the language and the incentive incentivization and the credits from the fifty four inch to a heritage tree, I think that takes care of and you take that off the list and you go to the next one. And where it exists in you know natural groupings. I mean do we want to give an incentive for that if it's important?

   3:10:46Or is that just the goal? If so, why are we even stating it?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:10:53So so we're back to this really is the same issue we just talked about. Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:10:57sure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:10:58So maybe we just need to hash out that issue. Yeah. So um

   3:11:07So who who's the decision maker on this issue on these priority issues? Like how much do we want each of these things and then like

   3:11:19How much of an incentive should we give for each of these Things.

   David Engel

   3:11:24I think we should take it back and come back on the December eleventh meeting. Um Who's the quarterback on this? It's really the uh Planning Commission because you're making a recommendation to the board. And I I don't think anything that we spoke about here is is unreasonable. I think they're good ideas.

   Amanda Hill

   3:11:46Even the initial idea about the incentives to begin with came from the planning commission. Right,

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:11:50but somebody put in monitoring like dollar amounts for or for these credits. Like who came up with those?

   Amanda Hill

   3:11:57That would be stuff.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:12:00So like what dollar amount would you give for preserving a heritage tree?

   Amanda Hill

   3:12:07We can have the same amount. Uh do you think it It's enough or Do you think it

   Connected City

   3:12:13Well if you're gonna prioritize above preserving another tree, you want it to have a higher amount, I would assume. Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:12:19I mean you charge seventy five dollars an inch under the resolution. I suggested when you and I met. that that should be four or five X.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:12:26Don't they charge one hundred fifty dollars an inch for heritage? I'm sorry,

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:12:29so it's a hundred and fifty dollars for heritage tree. You don't even get the credit

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:12:32they're gonna

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:12:33How about double? I'll start with double. Give 'em three hundred dollars credit for saving the heritage tree?

   Connected City

   3:12:43Yeah, it's it's gotta be significant enough to really Move the needle. I agree. To incentivize them to keep these trees. You know, what's and again and I you did address it somewhat with the inflation aspect of it and we're gonna revisit this every three years, but I mean you you get in some of these bigger projects and it's just a lot easier for them to

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:13:05All

   Connected City

   3:13:05right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:13:06So you want to make that a motion? We're gonna change three heritage fees to incentive, three hundred dollars No moved. Incentive.

   GreyChair

   3:13:13Second.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:13:14Okay.

   GreyChair

   3:13:15All in favor? Aye.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:13:18Okay, what about natural groupings? I don't know what that means, but I'm not sure.

   Amanda Hill

   3:13:23Tree stance. So a group of trees essentially naturally growing together.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:13:26Is that an objective standard that it's a certain

   Amanda Hill

   3:13:29number

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:13:29is there?

   Amanda Hill

   3:13:30Jackie,

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:13:30do you want to speak to that?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:13:32I know what heritage tree is an objective standard. I don't know what natural groupings means. Is that a defined term?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:13:41I think you're making our point for us.

   Jackie Jordan

   3:13:48Jackie Jordan, Parks Rec and Natural Resources Department. Um I don't think there's really a standard for tree grouping. It was just um an objective, a goal to group larger trees together or groups larger amounts of trees together rather than just protecting one singular tree.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:14:01Could I move to move? that goal or a To the intent and purpose

   Connected City

   3:14:08section.

   3:14:10I'll second that.

   GreyChair

   3:14:12Motion and a second. Other discussion.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:14:18I

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:14:20So basically it becomes non regulatory, it's just a

   Connected City

   3:14:23goal. Because it's it's how do you define that? If we can't define it the right-of-way, we can't define what

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:14:28it is, and I agree, and then the problem and I can and and Jamie and I is the little wheels turning, okay. Does that mean the trees are separated by one foot, two foot, three foot, six foot, ten foot? Who decides what's a grouping?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:14:40Three, six, ten.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:14:42Oh, there's a tree over there and a tree there and a three there. Is that a grouping?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:14:46Okay. So

   Connected City

   3:14:47depends on how far you zoom out.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:14:48You you got a motion to

   David Engel

   3:14:50Well related to drip lines.

   GreyChair

   3:14:53Drip lines. We have a second.

   Connected City

   3:14:55Well I mean that could be a way that you could define a grouping, right, as intersecting drip lines or something like that. So No, I'm I agree with the intent of it. We should try to preserve those groupings, but if you can't define it then We run on the issues, so

   Amanda Hill

   3:15:11On this list I'd say that that one is one of the ones of lower priority. So if it's okay with the Planning Commission, we could strike it completely. If it makes it easier.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:15:20Well I think the incentive's already there for the developer. If we think back to we're trying to save twenty percent, the closer the more grouping we can pick out, the smaller the footprint of the area I'm gonna have to s set aside's gonna be, right?

   Connected City

   3:15:32Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:15:32Okay. So I I mean they're already incentivized, I think, there.

   GreyChair

   3:15:37We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:15:42I think she's suggesting it's easier just to strike it than to move it somewhere.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:15:46Okay. I will can I amend the can I withdraw the motion? Go right ahead. And then I will make a motion to strike that section as per staff suggestion. I will still second. Thank you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:16:00The whole rest of the section under the priority? Or just that's

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:16:04I think it's B. We haven't got the C and D yet. Yeah, just B.

   3:16:13We can quickly we can talk about C and D first if you unless you want to just finish the motion on B. I don't care. What do we want to do?

   GreyChair

   3:16:24All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. Next.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:16:29I see.

   3:16:31are adjacent to required site perimeter, landscape buffering, and screening along Arturo and Collector Roads.

   3:16:40This is a little more objective. What what is is staff's this is the Newport Coroner scenario? Is this is this what Patrick talked about? Patrick?

   3:16:53See the Newport coroner scenario?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:16:55Yeah, I'm trying to push this button. Uh yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:16:59The only reason I was saying C and D were still a little bit more subjective were because they say adjacent to. How close is adjacent to? Yeah. Yeah, but that you can see it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:17:11Well, I mean you could change adjacent to to say within thirty feet. I mean you that you can make it objective.

   Connected City

   3:17:19At least C you can. I don't know about that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:17:29In In other words, if they're in the buffer then you will save the tree. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:17:34The trunk. I I do think it's important. I don't the reason I don't like I think I don't think it's appropriate to strike C because I think what staff is trying to say is if you can preserve it along the roadway. You should do so. Absolutely. We should give you some credit for I mean this is what got Sure Mad. That's right. We don't want to strike C.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:17:58I'll start the bidding again at Chairman Mari All right. Is there a second? So that's what, a hundred and fifty dollars an inch? Because these aren't heritage trees, right?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:18:11Mm-hmm.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:18:12And then uh it

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:18:13uh Okay well first of all we need to define what adjacent within. Change it to say within within the buffer or

   3:18:22Are within the required site perimeter

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:18:24landscape? To Jamie's point, adjacent what? Is that ten feet, twenty feet, fifty feet, a hundred feet, but within is very difficult.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:18:31Yeah, within is well defined. Yeah, I can live with that. Within the buffer.

   Connected City

   3:18:35is, yeah, because you can't define the right-of-way.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:18:37Okay, so I think so I think you have two motions. One is to redefine C to say are within the required site perimeter landscape buffering screening. So you need then you gotta assign assign a dollar value to it.

   Connected City

   3:18:49And that's the trunk being within, correct? Not the canopy.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:18:55Okay, so

   Connected City

   3:18:58Is somebody move within or partially within? Because it could be a trunk that's halfway in the buffer too.

   3:19:05So what credit

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:19:06went inside?

   GreyChair

   3:19:09Yes. Yeah. So moved. We All right. Second. We have another second. All

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   3:19:16in favor? I suppose like time. It's like the Vodorama in the sound is

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:19:22Okay. D.

   3:19:25Compliment the streetscape appearance of subdivision collector roads.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:19:30Tough. Can staff explain the objective they are trying to achieve with the?

   Christopher Poole

   3:19:37Yeah, how is it different than C? That's my question.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:19:42Um, technically, um a subdivision collector road is different than an arterial and collect well. I guess it broadly says collector roads. roads.

   3:19:55That's what I'm saying. I just

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:20:02Unless Patrick you can tell us he uh D is different.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:20:07Um in that C says collector road and a subdivision collector road is a type of collector road. I would assume I would assume it's covered there.

   Connected City

   3:20:14So it's still covered. Okay.

   3:20:19I still second.

   GreyChair

   3:20:20You okay with that, Patrick?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:20:23Sure.

   GreyChair

   3:20:24Okay, so we have a motion and a second? Further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:20:34Okay, and we so we already covered the issue about the cap language.

   3:20:39What else did we need to cover?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:20:41The incentives for saving trees. We talked about the easement. Oh uh you

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:20:47wanted to deal with B one A, right? The fifty-four inch

   3:20:54correct. Yes.

   3:20:55What do you want to do?

   Christopher Poole

   3:21:01So we get rid of that

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:21:02three hundred dollars an inner.

   Amanda Hill

   3:21:04I think that has already been addressed by the change that we made for A three uh A, our heritage trees, because we assigned two times the cost of the heritage tree and we said that we were going to put it in the incentives.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:21:19So uh do we not need B one A anymore?

   Amanda Hill

   3:21:23We will replace it with Heritage Tree Language and $300 per inch as the ensemble.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:21:28Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:21:29Perfect.

   3:21:32And then you will amend B one B the title in the table to say percentage additional canopy retained? Sure.

   3:21:52And just a clarification. When you're saying credit five percent, credit ten percent, you're saying The credit is five percent of the total amount of tree mitigation.

   3:22:08For the project.

   Amanda Hill

   3:22:10That's what we were initially saying, but my understanding for Mr. Goldstein was that we didn't want to Yeah, I think

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:22:17that'll be clearer when you fix it. the cap language that we talked about earlier that to make it clear the amount due is the amount due per inch. And the the F the mountain per acre is just a cap. If you do if you make the if you m do what Mr. Moody's motion was earlier, the one where he acted as a lawyer, um I think that'll be fixed.

   Amanda Hill

   3:22:46So then I don't have to change the language in this section of the

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:22:48right-of-way. I think this language will be fine once you make that other language fixed. Okay.

   Amanda Hill

   3:22:52And just to confirm the language we're talking about, in no circumstance should the shall, I guess, the amount paid exceed thirty five hundred dollars per uplum developable per acre.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:23:01Right. As long as that language is clear clarified that that's just a cap. And that the amount due because the B this section here talks about the total amounting total monetary contribution due to the fund. If the amount due is the amount per inch.

   3:23:21Um

   3:23:33The amount due prior to any cap being applied or something like that. Um

   3:23:44Now that I think about it, we might we might need to add to Mr. Moody's language that says that all credits under this subsection B. are applied against the per inch payment? And not against the cap. Just to make it perfectly clearer. So moved. 'Cause otherwise I think we're just I don't want to have to fight about this later. Yeah.

   Amanda Hill

   3:24:09I understand the intent of what you're saying, but I don't think I captured exactly what the change would be.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:24:15So The la after the language that we pr that Mr. Moody previously suggested that we added to

   3:24:26I don't know where we added it, but it was

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:24:29thirty five hundred dollar per acre cap. Yeah.

   Amanda Hill

   3:24:31H nineteen. Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:24:33Yeah, yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:24:37Um yes. Um did we say that any credits

   3:24:45issued pursuant to subsection whatever this

   Amanda Hill

   3:24:51Eight oh two point four b

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:24:56shall be issued against the per

   3:25:00They're required per inch payment and not against the cap. I can work with you on exactly how to word it, but that's the concept.

   Amanda Hill

   3:25:08Okay.

   Connected City

   3:25:15All right, so do we I think he you made a motion on that? Is that yeah he made a motion to that effect? Yes to that effect, okay. I second. again. Again.

   GreyChair

   3:25:24All in favor? Aye. Aye.

   3:25:28Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:25:30Mm-hmm.

   3:25:34Are we there?

   3:25:38Last and this is actually very minor. On page eleven

   3:25:47When we're talking about individual tree removal replacement for lots not associated with a development proposal, and I'm talking about Point your attention to D, condition of the tree. It says the condition is field verified by an ISA certified arborist. I would ask staff to be consistent with the state statute that says an arborist or a licensed landscape architect. We

   3:26:17don't need to make this the Arborist Enrichment Act.

   School District Representative

   3:26:21Mm-hmm.

   Connected City

   3:26:26That's right. I think that's mentioned in a couple different spots.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:26:31Yeah, it's mentioned in another section where you can use a landscape architect to just be consistent through the whole thing. Yes, that's a motion.

   GreyChair

   3:26:39Second. Further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye sign. Permanent?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:26:50Mr. Drari, did that have we covered all your issues? Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:26:55All right, I'm gonna go to eight oh two three B, County Maintenance. Just a clarification, my legalese isn't near Mr. Moody's. Can you give us a page one? Uh page two. Um

   3:27:10Is does that exempt all county projects?

   Amanda Hill

   3:27:15Uh no. Uh the list is included here for county yards on drainage, maintenance, and land management uh practices. I mean it goes into beautification, preservation, design, et cetera.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:27:29But it says but in included but not limited to, so it's Any county project that's initiated, fully or partially funded and maintained by Pasco County. including but not limited to county road and drainage projects, maintenance projects, land management projects.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:27:47So If you're asking my opinion

   3:27:57The answer is yes. I'm just gonna give you a straight answer. The answer is yes. I mean I I don't because it says include I mean because it says any project initiated fully or partially funded and maintained by Pasco County That means if we fund it. Or maintain it. Or partially fund it. Or partially funded or maintain it. It's a we're not subject to it. Now it does say that.

   3:28:28We will follow beautification, preservation design, and best management practices.

   3:28:36Yeah. From a practical standpoint, if we don't do these things, certain commissioners will not be happy with us. Well I

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:28:45and I I think really just and the reason I asked the question is I I don't think the county intends not to play by the same rules, but it kinda gives the impression that they're not going to play by the same rules. So

   Amanda Hill

   3:28:56Yeah, I think the intent for this too was to provide some degree of clarification as to what county maintenance may mean because before there wasn't anything. So this actually attempts to give that clarity.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:29:10Yeah, um Patrick Dutter. Um the intro to this county maintenance it's for county maintenance purposes. This is what we mean by county maintenance. Um all of the site plan applications that we've received for county projects are following the landscape code. We generally don't give them an exception unless there's rare instances, but just like everyone else.

   Connected City

   3:29:33So should we clarify or Should we just state this exemption shall apply to county maintenance projects initiated? If it's specific to county maintenance?

   3:29:48I mean I know it's under the heading already that says county maintenance. So

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:29:51Yeah the weird part about it Patrick is it it says including of an element to county road and drainage projects and then it says maintenance projects. Like so it it The way it's worded is it makes it sound like it's

   Connected City

   3:30:03Mm-hmm.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:30:04capital projects and maintenance projects.

   3:30:11So I I don't if the intent was that it was just gonna be maintenance projects, that's not how it's worded.

   GreyChair

   3:30:21Mm-mm. Just for your edification, we have five people that have signed up to speak. So

   David Engel

   3:30:27Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:30:39Well maybe we should should we can we well I don't know. It's up to the chair. I don't know how many more questions.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:30:44Well, I I only have a couple more questions, but do we answer that one? Are we gonna

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:30:47Yeah again I I don't think the whatever however we need to change the language, I don't think the intent was to give the county a pass to do road projects and you know, I I think it was just for Maintenance. Um I think they're trying to give examples and maybe some of those examples are weren't maybe we can clean up some of those examples.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:31:05So if we could just get a motion to limit the language to maintenance projects, we can work on how the wording

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:31:11So moved.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:31:12Second. All in favor?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:31:14Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, page s eighteen.

   3:31:22Whatever subsection that is where the planning credits stricken.

   Amanda Hill

   3:31:30Oh, it was just relocated. Um it is under give me one second.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:31:36Just couldn't find it, sorry.

   Amanda Hill

   3:31:38Uh if you just go back to page 17, it's under number 10.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:31:43Perfect.

   3:31:45See that was an easy one. Yeah.

   3:31:51And and just for my this this really stupid question, the twenty percent is mandatory.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:31:56That's a mandatory save, twenty percent preserve. Outside of the exemptions that and the special cases that we mentioned. Any new project that doesn't meet those exemptions is twenty percent. Twenty percent. Is

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:32:08there's no

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   3:32:09hardship criteria or anything? It's just uh Sites could uh request an alternative

   Amanda Hill

   3:32:15standard if

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:32:18The alternative standard process still exists. Okay.

   Amanda Hill

   3:32:21Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:32:24Okay.

   Connected City

   3:32:25It actually reminds me of another question. So where is the language that talks about when this will be applicable? Because I know we talked about it. Grandfathering projects that are currently in Yes, what's the proposed effective date?

   Amanda Hill

   3:32:44So the effective date for the ordinance or the effective date for the fees?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:32:49The effective date for the ordinance.

   Amanda Hill

   3:32:52Okay. So for both it would be at the adoption hearing for this item, which is currently scheduled for February seventeenth of next year.

   Connected City

   3:33:03And then so that would apply to that is a Any new project?

   3:33:12applied for from that point forward or I mean so in other words uh uh projects that are currently have an application in process, this this would not apply to?

   Amanda Hill

   3:33:23If there's a site plan that's currently in, then they would be under the current

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:33:26need to add an applicability section to this if it's not there already?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:33:31There's one in eight oh two point two.

   3:33:36But it just talks about

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:33:39Right, but it doesn't deal with the changes to the code. Right. Um

   3:33:47Patrick normally normally apply these based on whether they have a complete application for a P S P or P D P?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:33:54Uh development application because it could be masquerading, could be operating permit, so the development application.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:04the change?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:34:05Correct.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:07So if we can get a motion to add language to that effect? So moved.

   GreyChair

   3:34:12Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:25Do you have more, Mr.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:34:25Jordan? My apologies for my rant. That wasn't that difficult.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:28That actually wasn't bad. Anything else? Is That's all you got?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:34:31David. That's

   3:34:32it.

   3:34:33David, I don't I don't think it necessarily matters for your last motion, but um operating permits are technically four oh four and de site development is four oh three and I said only four oh three. I think your motion was intended to mean both categories, so I don't think you need to modify.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:34:48Correct. You all are the ones drafting this? So yes, put both in.

   GreyChair

   3:34:55Okay. I think that's uh All we have for for that.

   Christopher Poole

   3:35:00So let's No, my only my only comment was the disparity between the fifty four inch and the heritage tree, so that was we've answered that in the spades.

   Connected City

   3:35:12Rich, do you have anything?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:35:14School board got a bucket of money set aside? Well I'm just

   School District Representative

   3:35:17you know

   3:35:19In theory I mean you guys all this information is good because in the end the county it works better together and things get done quickly and it just it makes the job of the county easier if all these get f you know f figured out now. And then run into all these problems later.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:35:34Okay, so what I'm hearing then is we don't need to come back to the Planning Commission.

   GreyChair

   3:35:38Correct. I think that's correct, yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:35:41He just made David Ingalls life easier and that's the goal. Nobody's gonna yell at him or me.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:35:47That's right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:35:48We wouldn't have done it if

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:35:49it wasn't for David. Well, we still have members of the public that may come up and tell us that we're all crazy and we need to just start all over, but

   Amanda Hill

   3:35:56Can I summarize where um we're at? Sure. As of right now? Okay. So uh 802.2, we're gonna add language in there that the code is applicable to sites after the site plan submission, completed application under section 403404. Uh for county maintenance, we're going to limit the language that it's just for maintenance projects. For

   3:36:20802.4A3, we are going to essentially move most of these into the incentive section. So for uh 3A, we're going to be doing $300 per inch. for eight oh two point four A three B. We're going to strike that completely. For eight oh two point four three C, we're going to add language it says within the landscaping buffering instead of adjacent.

   3:36:50We're gonna also have that at $150 per inch. And uh D, we are going to strike. uh for eight or two point four B The ones that I just mentioned, we're going to move them into that section. We are going to add language to the table title for B1B that says percentage of additional can be retained.

   3:37:15And

   3:37:17Hmm.

   3:37:21When it was it for that section. Um eight oh two point five B Two D we're going to say Um ICA certified arborist, oral landscaping, licensed art landscaping architect and Check the entire document to ensure that it's consistent throughout.

   3:37:45Moving on to eight oh two point seven

   3:37:50D, we are going to update this language to say that in no circumstance shall the amount paid exceed $3,500 per upland developable acre. And I believe we're going to add an additional D there because I don't know And Mr. Golstein, I could defer to you with this if you want this to be a separate bullet or if you want us to continue C to say any credits that are issued subject to eight or two point four B shall be issued against the per inch payment and not the cap.

   3:38:21And that's what I have so far. Did I miss anything? Yep. I think you got it. Okay. Okay.

   GreyChair

   3:38:27Thank you very much.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:38:28Great job. The only thing we didn't really address um we got well We gotta hear from the public. But so you didn't really hear it in staff's recommendation, but You have a difference of opinion with staff about where the fees are going to lie. Staff is recommending they be in the resolution. You all I think are recommending they be in the ordinance. Are you sticking with your recommendation?

   3:39:00Or are you gonna

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:39:01go? My personal preference. Is that they remain in the ordinance so that if there's a proposed change that there is a public hearing.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:39:11Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:39:12If you want to change the language of this that they'll adopt it by resolution at which there's a public hearing and the public can participate in it and they can do it by resolution, but there needs to be a public hearing where people get their due process.

   GreyChair

   3:39:26So that's a motion?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:39:28Yes.

   GreyChair

   3:39:29Motion and a second further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

   Amanda Hill

   3:39:34Can I get some clarification on what this motion does? Is there additional language I need to put in here?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:39:39No, they just they're they just disagree with you. That's all. Okay. Just wanted to get their position on the record. Okay. Doesn't mean you can't recommend something different to the board. I'm just wanting to know what their position was.

   Amanda Hill

   3:39:50Yeah. Okay. And we have it in the in the ordinance. We the language is currently reflecting the fees and we intend to communicate your preference for it to be in the ordinance to the board as well.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:40:01I just wanted their position to be on the record and why it was their position.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:40:08There needs to be due process in determining the fees. It can't just be on the consent agenda and no public hearing. The public is gonna have to have the right to put Have input. On the

   3:40:24Yeah. And I'm not worried about what our board is going to do. It is some future board that comes along and decides in the middle of a meet where it's slipped in and nobody knows and all of a sudden they're ten thousand dollars an inch or they're zero dollars an inch. Right.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:40:44Well while while we're talking about those I mean does that prior motion that we talked about about the applicability and when this becomes effective, does that apply to the fees as well?

   Amanda Hill

   3:40:54Yes it does.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:40:55Okay. I just wanna make sure 'cause I thought the position before was was that there was no vesting.

   Amanda Hill

   3:41:00So there's language that's currently in resolution twenty-five-two nine one that says that the fees would become in effect once the language that's currently in the code that speaks to the old fees are appealed.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:41:11Okay. Which that's what this does.

   Amanda Hill

   3:41:14Correct.

   GreyChair

   3:41:15Good. All right. We're good. Thank you.

   3:41:21Yeah, a difficult job there. You did a great job. Yeah. Yes. So we have what five people? Okay, who's done the list?

   Moody

   3:41:29The first individual we have signed up to speak is a Miss Nancy Hazelwood, and after her we will have a Miss Melanie Lamberson.

   GreyChair

   3:41:38Okay, if you will come up toward the front please. That'll make it a little quicker for everybody.

   3:41:46Please move up toward the front if you're gonna speak.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:41:54Hmm.

   Connected City

   3:41:59I'm sorry, Nancy, you've already used up all your speaking time.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:42:04Nancy Hayeswood, [address removed]. Well, first off, y'all stole my thunder with um the couple of things I like about it. One of 'em happened to be um having the ISA take a look at trees before they're removed. I know that organization very well. Uh one of the things I've noticed is that a lot of people that come up to evaluate trees own their own tree cutting company, so

   3:42:34they wanna make sure that it's in. ISA isn't like that. They're very ethical and told over and over again in the classes they have to keep up in in in ethics. So I and I kinda like that one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:42:53Well we didn't get rid of the ISA arborist. We just added that it could also be a l licensed landscape architect.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:42:59Yeah. Maybe.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:43:02They have to be

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:43:03ethical too?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:43:05Yes.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:43:06Okay. Um I thought the intent and purpose part of this 802 point one was very well put. Um that they covered a lot of things that say what we need to say about trees. Of course I'm Uh in favor of all this.

   3:43:29I would like to see something mentioned on tree mitigation fund for it to be used to rewild some of the open space that might be left around there. And I don't I don't know where anybody's given any thought to to that.

   3:43:47Um other items I'm having difficulties with. Minor rural subdivisions. That's exempt. I can choose I I was trying to read about it looks like there are about five acres each for minor rural subdivisions and there can be up to sixteen of 'em. If they're exempt from that, that could be eighty acres that they're tearing trees down on. Am I incorrect about this? Anyways. So I I think there oughta

   3:44:17be something with minor rural subdivisions. I don't think it should be exempt.

   3:44:24Uh there's a lot a pretty long list of exemptions and I was thinking, well, maybe we could get rid of half of 'em and they wouldn't be exempt. But I don't know. That'd have to be re looked at.

   3:44:39Uh

   3:44:42Do not lose sight of what a tree ordinance can and should accomplish. Saving our natural resources is paramount in this, and that's what makes Pasco a better and attractive place to be. That's the major criteria of the whole thing. And the citizens in Pasco have made it pretty clear that they want the trees in open space.

   3:45:07And y Pasco has enough entitlements to last for the next ten years. This should give up the count they should give the about county the ability uh, to save more tree canopy all over Pasco. We aren't we don't need to rush to have growth all over the place anymore. We don't need to give the the development community everything they're asking for and they seem to have had a quite a bit of input in this.

   3:45:38And they don't really care what condition they leave Pasco County in, but they don't really live here a lot of 'em, most of 'em. They come through and destroy everything and move on. Um

   GreyChair

   3:45:53I think the time has expired. One

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:45:55more thing.

   GreyChair

   3:45:55Okay. When

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:45:56the tree canopies are gone, they're gone, it's asphalt and rooftops then.

   GreyChair

   3:46:01Thank you.

   Moody

   3:46:05The next individual I have signed up is a Melanie excuse me, Melanie Lamberson and then after that we have Miss Julia Bartneck.

   3:46:15Yes.

   GreyChair

   3:46:21Uh go ahead, Ms.

   Julia Bartunik

   3:46:22Okay. Um Julia Bartunick, [address removed]. And um I'm submitting uh public comment for the record um from Sierra Club Pasco Conservation Committee and it's uh my comments regarding the proposed uh tree. Mitigation cap of $3,500 per acre, that amount is far below the actual cost of replacing the environmental value of

   3:46:52an acre of trees in Pasco County. Planting a single tree with proper soil preparation labor, staking, and the required two to three years of care costs between Uh $300 and $700. A typical acre of tree canopy represents 40 to 100 trees. That means the actual replacement cost for a cleared acre is between $12,000 and $70,000. And that does not even account for decades of lost canopy,

   3:47:23stormwater absorption, wildlife habitat, and heat reduction benefits. Other Florida communities charge higher, more realistic rates, often $20,000 to $50,000 per acre when calculated by caliper inch. At $3,500 an acre, Pasco would only be able to plant five to ten trees. That replaces barely 5 to 20 percent of what was lost and unintentionally in. incentivizes clearing rather than

   3:47:53preserving canopy. Long-term community value, the environmental value of that acre, is typically tens of thousands of dollars per acre, sometimes hundreds of thousands, depending on canopy density and ecosystem functions. So $3,500 an acre cap doesn't come close to compensating for what is lost. Typical mitigation or tree fund rates are way higher. Across the U.S., cities commonly charge $10,000 to $50,000 per acre

   3:48:23for canopy mitigation, or $150, $500 per caliper inch of tree removed, or $2,000 to $8,000 per large specimen tree. Compared to those standards, $3,500 per Per acre is only a token amount, not enough to replace lost canopy. Replanting costs far exceed $3,500. Planting one tree usually costs.

   3:48:54Um much more. So I respectfully request that the County Adjust the mitigation cap to a range that reflects true environmental values such as twenty five to fifty thousand dollars per acre or adopt a different system ensuring meaningful compensation protects Pasco County long-term tree canopy. Um that's from an organization and I'd just like to request uh that I submit this for the record and that the thank you Chair and I

   3:49:24would like to have thirty more seconds please.

   GreyChair

   3:49:27Removed. Exactly.

   Julia Bartunik

   3:49:34My other thirty thirty seconds.

   GreyChair

   3:49:37Yes.

   Julia Bartunik

   3:49:38Yes, thank you. Um my other thirty seconds is that we would like to increase the wetlands uh ten percent to twenty to fifty percent uh canopy because they're the most environmentally sensitive areas. And also that I think that this um I understand it was the holidays and ever I'm just speaking as myself right now, but I understand that it was the holidays and everything. But I really think that this should there's a lot of uh delineations and specifications that are still ambiguous

   3:50:09in the way this is written. And I think more time uh should have been taken on it. There's the word should. Um and I think that you in the end of this shall wind up taking more time because it was expedited today. Thank you.

   GreyChair

   3:50:26Okay, you realize that the wetlands can't be developed anyway. Right. You do uh re recognize that, right? Okay. Who's next?

   Moody

   3:50:37Up next we have a Miss Cindy Buckle and after that we have a Kathryn Capello.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   3:50:43I think we just did a motion. No, I think we just emotional. Now there was like six seconds. So in essence.

   Connected City

   3:50:50All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, the clerk has it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:50:59Just give 'em the gowble. Yeah, right.

   GreyChair

   3:51:01Ready.

   Cindy Buckle

   3:51:04Синди Бакл. [address removed]. Okay, the first thing I want to talk about is The three different changes that the newspapers touted, Pasco County actually touted themselves, um, starting with I believe it was January sixteenth, twenty twenty five. Pasco leaders volunteered tout to benefit trees, raising

   3:51:35prices for developers. Then a again July twenty-first, twenty twenty-five. However Nothing's been done. Um where I live right now There were twenty-seven totally healthy heritage oaks that were. And at least I think the smallest one was probably maybe ten inches, but the rest of them were like were like Twenty heritage

   3:52:05oaks, healthy oak trees that did not need to come down. The developer or whoever originally put orange fence around some of them to save, but they bulldozed them all down. Um the other issue that we have is of course They've raised the they've put so much dirt in there they've already flooded Gateway from the rains we had earlier this year. They flooded Gateway, they flooded frontier. Um

   3:52:36their little retention ponds and the one acre Lake they were supposed to build is nowhere near one acre. So what my question is, how are they able to change the the plans to something that they'd already presented and got their permits for? And by the way, they got their permits before 114 gopher tortoises were removed because I worked with the contractor and F W

   3:53:07C it took me three years to get a contractor out there and I actually helped them remove the gopher tortoises. They were not all removed. The ones that were left were killed. I actually have pictures of the dead tortoises. So FWC I contacted numerous times. I went to Wilton Simpson, which was a waste of time. And finally I had a contractor out there and I offered to help because

   3:53:37I actually took pictures of every borough and included the coordinates with every single borough. It's not my first rodeo. I've been doing this a very long time. Um But basically you know, they've talked about this from January to July and now here we are in November and we're just now trying to reach an amount of money to charge these developers for bulldozing down trees. Trees

   3:54:08were supposed to be saved on this property, they had the orange fencing around it and the next thing I know, they're bulldozing it down. I asked who who told them to do that and the surveyor was there and he said I did and I said, Are you an arborist? And he said no. And I was like, okay. As far as a contractor or anybody in charge, there's no one on in charge on that property. I stop every single day and

   3:54:38ask who's in charge and Nobody is. They're just running machinery and Doing whatever they want. But they've changed the plans three times. I have the original.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:54:53that you drive on roads and gopher tortoises got moved and trees got removed to build the roads you drive on. They also got removed to build your house and go for tortoises got removed to build the neighborhood you live in no different than the neighborhood any of these people live in or that I live in.

   Cindy Buckle

   3:55:11Okay. We're

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:55:11up here trying to make the situation better. Okay? Right now we have a tree ordinance today that somebody can come in here and just wipe out every tree on the site and pay whatever it is per acre and go away. Now, after after this happens and the board adopts this, 20% of those trees will be saved. Do not come tell me we have not made it better. And I'm sorry it didn't happen on your

   Cindy Buckle

   3:55:35schedule. It's

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:55:36gonna be a lot better than it is.

   Cindy Buckle

   3:55:38I'm not saying you didn't make it better. Yes.

   GreyChair

   3:55:41Your time has expired.

   Cindy Buckle

   3:55:42Okay. It's guys just don't want to hear what happens.

   GreyChair

   3:55:49Yeah, we don't want to hear more than three minutes.

   Moody

   3:55:53The next individual we have signed up to speak is Ms. Kathryn Capello.

   GreyChair

   3:56:00Kathryn, is she in the room?

   Julia Bartunik

   3:56:02Oh Kathryn left.

   GreyChair

   3:56:04Yeah, from last okay. Anybody else?

   Moody

   3:56:07No sir, that's all we have signed up to speak for this item.

   GreyChair

   3:56:10All right. Wait, there's lady in the back.

   3:56:18Please come forward. I don't wanna have to come get ya.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:56:29Melanie Lamberson, [address removed]. Although it's out in the county. I think you guys know. Um, I just the exemptions are uh kind of disturbing to me. Um I I wanted to know why the the agricultural land was exempt.

   GreyChair

   3:56:54It's

   3:56:55Legislative. Well if you look at most of the agricultural land, there's no trees on it except cypress trees. Because they all had cows on it at one time.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:57:04Um so a developer would not be uh If there

   GreyChair

   3:57:08are trees that are in in the open pastures, they have to still have to comply. If it's agriculture, it wouldn't be developed. Yeah.

   3:57:14Yeah, I we're talking open fields. They don't have to plant trees though. I mean,

   3:57:20if they if they developed it they would, yes. Okay.

   Connected City

   3:57:24So in order in order to develop it, you have to change the zoning from agricultural to something else. Yeah. To develop it more than just for agricultural uses.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:57:33Yeah.

   Connected City

   3:57:33So at that point You're

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:57:34required to plant

   Connected City

   3:57:38They would fall under the same ordinance. Correct. They would because they'd have to rezone it and then that would put them under this this ordinance.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:57:48I don't understand.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:57:49In other words, if they want to clear land to grow fifty acres of corn and there's a tree in the way, they're exempt. The tree is they they're exempt from this tree ordinance. They can take the tree down Chip. plant their acres of corn. if they're planning on building a subdivision on this land. When they submit plans to build a subdivision, they are not exempt from this ordinance.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:58:12Okay.

   3:58:14But this is this only

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:58:16the reason that the exemption exists in our ordinance is because there's state laws that give them the same exact protection that the state's already preempted those activities. Right. It's not that the county's giving some special favor to agriculture. The state the state does it.

   Connected City

   3:58:32The the states prioritize agriculture and our food supply over.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:58:36The other issue is that oftentimes for agriculture the tree is their crop. I mean. For some cases the pine tree is is their actual crop. Right. So they're growing trees to harvest them. So we can't make them protect their crop because that is what they're selling

   3:58:59They they wouldn't be able to sell their product if they if we made them protect that tree.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:59:05Yeah, I gotcha. Okay. Yeah,

   GreyChair

   3:59:09because they aren't natural, they're planted there.

   Melanie Lamberson

   3:59:11I just I just hope to see a lot more trees in future developments.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:59:18We all do. That's why we're passing this. Yes. We're trying to recommend that it gets passed because at least with this there is going to be some trees saved. Whereas now there there's no mandate to save any. Now there is. Or will be.

   GreyChair

   3:59:31Okay. Thank you.

   3:59:37That

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:59:37it?

   GreyChair

   3:59:39Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:59:42Move to recommend approval of the ordinance with all of the Previous voted upon motions.

   GreyChair

   3:59:51Okay, we have a motion. Second. We have a second. Further discussion on the motion. If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Okay. Great job. Good job, Patrick.

2. 2Jan 6, 2026
   Board of County CommissionersP63Public hearingNo action

   Approved minutes

   No action was taken as this was the first public hearing. The adoption hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:21:31
   ▶ 2:21:311h 7m

   Starkey

   2:21:31Item P63. We have approved publication in the Tampa Bay Times November 26, 2025.

   Amy Heiler

   2:21:44Good afternoon, Amy Toll, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Item P63, BA PDE 26-0004, is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, amending section 802, tree preservation and replacement, section 802.1, intent and correct. Purpose, Section 802.2 Applicability, Renaming Section 802.3 Tree

   2:22:14Removal to Exemptions, Creating Section 802.4 Tree Canopy Standards, Section 802.5 Tree Removal, Section 802.6 Problem Trees, Section 802.7 Tree Replacement Mitigation, Section 802.8 Tree Mitigation Requirements. Trees of special significance, appendix, a definitions, and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, prevailer and severability,

   2:22:44inclusion into the land development code, and an effective date. We do have staff here for presentation. Today is the first hearing, first meeting on the land. development code amendment so there's no app no action required.

   MarianoChair

   2:23:00Okay, presentation.

   Amanda Hill

   2:23:05Good afternoon, Commissioner is Amanda Hill, Planning Development, Economic Growth.

   2:23:16The purpose of this ordinance is to conduct a comprehensive update to Section eight hundred two, tree preservation and replacement of the Land Development Code to enhance tree protection within the county as directed by the board. Key updates to this code includes the addition of standards and incentives for treat canopy preservation. Enhanced requirements for tree removal. Clarification of the tree mitigation fund references. New and revised definitions related to tree protection. and

   2:23:47minor revisions throughout the code for internal consistency and restructuring of section 802.

   2:23:55At the august twenty-first LPA hearing, the LPA voted to continue the public hearing for the proposed amendments to remove outdated references to the tree mitigation fund. to September eighteenth, 2025. The LPA desired to allow stakeholders time to engage with the BTC regarding the implications of resolution number twenty-five-two nine one. On september eighteenth, twenty twenty five, the LPA voted to continue the public hearing to the november twentieth hearing. And requested staff to provide the comprehensive proposed

   2:24:26revisions being made to Section 802 of the LDC for consideration. And that would be rather than only considering the changes that were related to the tree mitigation fund. And as such, we went back to the LPA on November twentieth, at which point the LPA found the proposed amendments consistent with a comprehensive plan. Revisions were proposed by the LPA and incorporated into the draft by staff. Items of note include streamlining of the priorities for canopy preservation and included

   2:24:56additional preservation incentive credits beyond the proposed 20% preservation requirement. Uh these credits would be applied towards a total monetary contribution due. based on the calculation of the fees per inch. Additionally, there was additional clarification. that the fees are applicable after the submission of a completed site plan in accordance with sections 403 and 404 of the LDC.

   2:25:27Staff completed multiple engagement opportunities with stakeholders over the last six months. including participation in public LPA workshops in June and August of last year. discussions with internal and external stakeholders. And the comments from those discussions were incorporated as applicable into the draft. And after the LPA hearing in November, South also presented the revised draft to TDRPC's tree management group.

   2:25:57So I'll now summarize the highlights of the proposed ordinance, specifically focusing on the proposed canopy standards, enhanced tree removal standards, and the references to the tree mitigation fund in the code. So for the purposes of calculating the existing tree canopy, The diameter at breast height or DBH of a tree will be used as a proxy for the coverage of the tree's can be. Developments will be generally required to maintain 20% of the total number of inches of existing

   2:26:28tree canopy. that are 10 inches in diameter and larger. The canopy will include each tree and the associated native vegetation within the trip line of the tree. unless there is some sort of invasive species that's present. in which case those would be required to be removed. There are some special cases. that would allow for the preservation requirement to be reduced or to be exempt. So specifically for mudderm

   2:26:58and TND projects, by nature of the design of those projects, those would likely result in the preservation of additional trees. in excess of the five percent as part of the development. For sites with a notable percentage of protected wetlands and associated buffers. Reducing the requirement allows for the site to retain usage of the other areas of the property. For commercial sites that are less than five acres This could potentially cause siting challenges, so as such they

   2:27:28are exempt from the requirements of the section of the code. For minor rural subdivisions to maintain simplicity for families in rural areas interested in subdividing property, those are also proposed to be exempt. And lastly, for industrial and redevelopment projects, we would like to ensure that the employment generation potential is maximized and those are also exempt. Now not included in this table are bona fide agricultural lands. Those are already exempted from tree permit requirements

   2:27:59in section 802, but we also included language within this subsection that also excludes them from the requirements of the tree county preservation standards. Passive recreation facilities, including decks, boardwalks, paths and trails, are allowed within the tree canopy preservation areas and legal protection of the preservation area is required. Preserved trees are required to be located in areas that are not subject to flooding due to activities of related site

   2:28:29development. Otherwise, appropriate drainage would be required to be installed.

   2:28:37A key item that was discussed by the LPA was a provision of incentives for enhanced tree protection. Staff is proposing credits to incentivize the preservation of heritage trees. Trees that are located within the landscape buffer. Trees that are preserved adjacent to active recreational areas. And trees that are preserved in excess of the twenty percent requirement. If combined, these credits can result in a total discount of seventy five percent to the total monetary

   2:29:07contribution due to the tree mitigation fund. Additionally, in section 802.5, the previous tree removal standards have been revised by removing the discretionary option for a representative sample into the tree survey and adding a requirement for the tree health to be included on the tree inventory for all trees that are greater than 24 inches.

   2:29:34Moving on to the references for the tree mitigation fund. So the previous contribution rates are revised in accordance with resolution number 25-291, approved by the board in July of last year. Additionally, as a result of discussions with the development community, this section of the code also proposes the inclusion of a maximum contribution rate of $3,500 per upland developable acre.

   2:30:02Staff is also proposing regular evaluation of the contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund. to provide consistency to interested parties regarding the schedule of future changes. This evaluation will consider the inflation rate and other applicable factors, in addition to the performance of the existing tree protection standards. This subsection of the code also clarifies that the authorized locations, recipients, Expenditures, distribution, and monitoring of funds

   2:30:32shall be based on a resolution by the Board.

   2:30:38I do have some items for additional discussion with the board and uh some areas that I would like to request clarification from the board on. So at the LPA public hearings, the LPA expressed concerns regarding the appropriateness of setting the contribution rates to the fund. through a resolution rather than through the adoption of an ordinance. Staff that conducts additional research regarding this to consider the LPA's recommendation. And observe that section 107 of the LDC fees.

   2:31:09uh authorizes the board to adopt by resolution all necessary fees to administer, implement, and enforce the code. And then it continues the said fee may include provisions for consulting assistance as well. The LKA also noted that the previous fees were set by the board by resolution in 2005, however, it was better to execute future changes of the fees to the fund by ordinance. The approved fees under resolution number twenty-five-two

   2:31:40nine one. Along with the $3,500 cap, are currently included in the draft amendment. However, direction is requested from the board to resolve the following.

   2:31:51Should the contribution rates be referenced in the ordinance and the resolution, or should it be exclusively referenced in the amended resolution, which will be brought to the board for approval? on February 17th this year. And should future contribution rates be amended by resolution or by ordinance?

   2:32:14Staff will reflect the board's direction in the draft amendments, which will be brought to the board at that February 17th hearing. And staff recommends that the board adopt accepts public comment on this item. As previously mentioned, this is the first hearing. I do have an additional item for the board's consideration and discussion that is not directly related to the language that's being proposed for the code, but it's related to the tree mitigation fund. Can I continue or do you prefer to pause and then go to that item?

   MarianoChair

   2:32:44Uh let's discuss this first. Okay. And then we'll get to that part.

   Amanda Hill

   2:32:47Okay.

   MarianoChair

   2:32:49Um Mr. County Attorney, the benefit to doing by resolutions easier than ordinance as far as making changes to the amounts?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:32:56I would never recommend that you put your fee schedule in an ordinance. Um just generally the I have scene boards do resolutions that require a public hearing. um if you're wishing to get public input, but The fee schedule is really your your purview and um it just gets messy when you when you have to go back and amend the L D

   2:33:26C and have to go through all of the public hearing that are required in in the L D C to to amend it. So I wouldn't I wouldn't recommend it. You can legally do it if you wish.

   MarianoChair

   2:33:38No I do not. I wanna I wanna make I wanna keep it simple that we make a change it's easy to change rather than go spend mu public money going through processes. Okay. Um I've got a question for you. So let's say you got a large commercial area and They have what's a whole bunch of trees toward the center part of the property.

   David Engel

   2:33:57And

   MarianoChair

   2:33:58we want to keep twenty percent and let's say it's about twenty percent. All of a sudden they've gotta hold that twenty percent. Is there a way to set something in the code where it makes it easy for them to go take those trees out? Uh to me if we're gonna have a developer making those changes and setting those things up, um and I do want to try to avoid things like Newport corners where just everything gets taken out along the roadway, but if someone wants to come in, are they gonna replace the trees anyway to the square footers it takes and the square and the inches are the same?

   2:34:28Um is that gonna be sufficient to be able to take those trees out if they choose to? As long as entrenched comes back.

   Amanda Hill

   2:34:35So I think that there are two things at play here. Um you're talking about the tree protection, but then also talking about the landscaping requirements. So they would have to put back in trees based off of the existing provisions of of the landscaping code. But in terms of the tree preservation, one doesn't necessarily replace the other because that would be taking down old growth trees.

   MarianoChair

   2:34:55Okay, so how do we protect them from being able to stifle a piece of property that's really good except because trees in the center. Like we just saw a development where this one area that's down below is all wooded, right above as a field. That guy's got a lot easier than the guy below. Um I wanna make sure that these guys can actually do something with the property in there without spending a fortune on what could be all legacy trees in a sense.

   Amanda Hill

   2:35:20And that was something that we considered when we had some of the exemptions written up. So for properties that are five acres or less for those commercial properties, we understand that siting could potentially be an issue in terms of being able to move it around those trees. So those properties would be exempt. But if it's a larger property, the understanding is that they should be able to relocate to include the trees within their overall design but still meet the desired intentions of the space that they're designing. So how does one go

   MarianoChair

   2:35:48through the process? Let's say I've got that center lot, that that big lot that's ten acres or whatever, and right in the center I got all the trees. I want to take those trees out so I can set the proper drainage and flow. to go around and put the trim pr things around the perimeter, which we're gonna need to do it for the landscape monits anyway. But is he gonna get credit for that, for those taking those trees down uh by putting more trees out and around?

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:11Not credit necessarily, but of course if that's something that the board would like to see included, we could include that as well. But currently as it's written, there isn't anything that would provide a credit for such an action.

   MarianoChair

   2:36:21Did it used to be written that way with someone if they were taking trees down, but they were as long as they were putting back whether it was offering or not that they get credits back? There is planting credit, that's currently within the code, correct. So all right, so they will get credit. So if they ha so they if they needed to, if they could just come to us say, look, this is affecting my site, I want to take these trees down the center. We can just allow

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:41them to go do it? Well this would now change this because we're asking them to retain 20%. So they can still take down the trees and replace them, but we're asking them to retain 20% on the site.

   MarianoChair

   2:36:50Right. So how do they go through the problem not having to follow it if it's a situation like that?

   Amanda Hill

   2:36:59One second.

   David Engel

   2:37:03David Engel, Planning and Economic Development Director. So I just wanted to clarify this was an LPA or Planning Commission request to institute the 20%. Their feeling is that with the new fee structure, even with the cap. Um it's just adjusting the pricing for inflation over since 2010. So so twenty percent uh kind of ensures the preservation. So there is a way of addressing it and that's through an alternative standard. Because preservation of trees is the standard

   2:37:33of the code in 20%. So we would probably have an in-kind tree replacement on the property to accommodate the existing tree canopy that would have to be removed if it was a centralized commercial project.

   MarianoChair

   2:37:46All right. So alternative standards, you've got to do a whole other process, etc. Is there way

   David Engel

   2:37:51to

   2:37:51be a good idea?

   2:37:51It's done administratively, but the code requires. to deliver an alternative standard, we have to meter exceed the code intent. So that's the exercise that we would undertake using tree replacement on the property.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:38:05Or they could ask for it at an M P D stage if they knew

   David Engel

   2:38:09Right and the Board can act and opine on that at the project stage. Yes sir. Simultaneously.

   MarianoChair

   2:38:14But I and I'm thinking like let's say along US nineteen, I've got someone who wants to come in here and do something, he's gonna have to take away a bunch of trees that could be the center scattering.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   2:38:22They're gone.

   MarianoChair

   2:38:24Maybe. The trees of nineteen? Not up in the north border. Come come see my homeless camps. There's plenty of trees. That's where they're a hype. So to have somebody be able to come in there and take down those trees, I want to have the flexibility without being the overburdenly penalty where they're not gonna do anything.

   David Engel

   2:38:42So Commissioner We since this is first reading, uh we're gonna do our homework. We will advise the board uh prior to the next hearing, the adoption hearing, when give you some alternatives.

   MarianoChair

   2:38:54All right, if you would take a look down that nineteen corridor. So what can be done with that. And then just give the mental thought about a bigger project that may have a whole clump of trees toward the center. And those you've seen during drainage things when things happen with the big oak trees they get wet. Start all over Bettmar, etcetera. They collapse down, they cause all sorts of troubles. I want to make sure we can have proper drainage, especially you know, in in high f high flood areas or high uh let's say low sea level areas.

   David Engel

   2:39:21Okay, sir. We'll thank you. You're welcome.

   Starkey

   2:39:25Are are we talking with Mariano?

   MarianoChair

   2:39:27Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Starkey.

   Starkey

   2:39:28Um I I do have a problem with the um the cap at thirty five hundred because all that is is back to square zero from because that we did not keep up with inflation. So I want to suggest that we up that minimum or what is it a minimum? No, up that cap and tie it to inflation so we don't have to come. Wait, it's horrible that it took twenty years for us or or more to fix this. Um I have some photos on I would love to show you. Um Gina, did you get those?

   2:40:00Oh. I just s I just sent you some photos. I was in Sarasota this weekend visiting my um son and I I think it was Freiko, I know you live down there. Um Driving down their roads and looking at the landscaping and not specifically I'm talking about oak trees. um which provides so much benefit to to the world. Um Look at look at the development on the right and and and all in all the

   2:40:30oak trees that line the road there. I mean And they've got their drive throughs all in there behind there. And then I think there's a few more. I think I sent four. I should've and this is us. This is us. We we take our uh they're not oak trees, I can tell you. They're l they're head they're trees cut into balls and they're and they're crepe myrtles. And uh hey, I love crepe myrtles, but not like this. And if I want I challenge you when you drive home today

   2:41:00Drive down the roads and and see what kind of canopy we have on our roads. Because we don't have a canopy. We've taken it all out. So um so that was Sarasota. Mm-hmm. And the other one is us. That's us. And t it just kills me to see this. So I we gotta do better with the trees. We gotta put 'em back in. And we are just If you look at the new Ashley Furniture, it's their largest store

   2:41:31in the country that they just put on 54. You know what they put in their parking lots? Great myrtles. Great morals. Seriously? So um you know what one of our staffers called me and apologized. So we know you're gonna be upset, Commissioner, when you see the landscaping plan, but we got approved and we let 'em. No trees. No trees. Um So I wanna see I want this to be as strong as it possibly can. So I wanna see the the

   2:42:01the cap higher. I want it in there, I want it tied for inflation. I like the twenty percent canopy. I think that's a great idea. And um I don't see why they're not requiring trees planted around the stormwater ponds while they're just barren deserts of trees. I showed that example at the last meeting of the um The stormwater ponds on on Little Road. A crot kind of near pit boss? Across from my church, just covered

   2:42:31with oak trees. And it's lovely. You know what? People go picnic on on the stormwater pond under the oak trees. So we need to get that back. So I'm for as strong commissioner as we can possibly get this. Sure. And we're twenty years behind on it.

   MarianoChair

   2:42:49Commissioner Weightman.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:42:51similar um thought processes Commissioner Starkey on this. Yes that's with as many With as much industry moving to Florida and Pasco and especially with the residential, I view this as just basically another impact fee. And it needs to be because there's a cost to move here. And every time folks move here, that's more legacy grandfather oaks and other trees that get torn down. And there's a cost to that. You move here, you want to live in paradise, well you need paradise. with the

   2:43:22trees. And you know, folks want to make a decision to move here. They need to pay for for the, I'm not going to say the destruction, but the change that that's taking place when they move here. So I'm for I'm I'm for eliminating the cap if there's an appetite for that. And And you know, it's just the cost of living in Pasco County and moving to Pasco County, especially if you're coming from out of state. So we have our impact fee and it's an impact when folks move here. And when they come

   2:43:52here, they're upset. Where am I we hear it all the time in our office? Where's our trees? Where's this that? Well, they got taken away because you wanted to live here. So how do we balance that? We have to make it up somewhere and give the folks what they want. It's just gonna make it a little bit more expensive, but you know I think with the affordability, even though the affordability is a big concept, I I think generally the And the conclusion across this county, people say, Yeah, let's let's revitalize our oak canopy.

   2:44:22And um probably wouldn't be upset with whatever that expense is. Thank you. And thank you for your work on this. This is this is important. I I personally feel, I've told this Karbala, this will be one of the most important votes that I will ever make as a commissioner in my entire time that I'm blessed to get to do this job. Because the generational impacts that this will set precedent for None of us will probably be around to see it. This is incredibly important, not just for passing, but

   2:44:52for our environment. So thank you.

   Amanda Hill

   2:44:54Thanks, Commissioner. I wanted to address the comments that you made regarding the fees, as well as Commissioner Starkey's comments. So, in terms of the updating of the fees, we did consider that within the draft that we currently have, and we're proposing that the fees would be looked at on a three-year basis. And that inflation would be included as part of the consideration as to whether or not it should be increased or not. So that could potentially help address some of the concerns that you had regarding that. And we could definitely look in terms of increasing potentially that cap or eliminating

   2:45:25it, depending on whatever the board would like us to proceed with. We can come back with those options and discuss it at the February 17th hearing. I would say we did look at some of the other. communities and they don't have caps, they basically have their multiplier or whatever their fee structure is. And basically you pay whatever it is.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:45:43Yeah.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:45:43I don't

   2:45:44know.

   2:45:44Or or we can do it like we did with uh the fire. fee where a case by case basis if there's a big fish employment wise it's looking to come here right like some incentive deal or something the card your needs from your general fund or the tree fund equipment

   Amanda Hill

   2:46:02and we do also have incentives that we proposed within here that could significantly discount the fees that would be due up to seventy five percent of the amount that would have been due to the fund if you have those enhanced protection. So I could just

   2:46:23So if you're preserving heritage trees, if you're preserving trees that are located within the landscape buffering and screening areas along arterials and collector roads, if you're preserving in excess of the 20%, you have that sort of table there that says if you do 5% over, you get a 5% credit going all the way up to 15%. And then if you preserve canopy that's adjacent to open play areas, you also get a five percent um credit there because you'd be co-locating uh essentially

   2:46:54the passive recreation and active recreational areas. And those credits can all be combined for a maximum credit of seventy-five percent to the total amount that would be due to the treatment.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:47:04Default, but this wouldn't be, for example, where the areas where the these heritage trees are, they've been turned into floodplains or stormwater ponds and if we have a hurricane they drown, you know, a hundred years storm we've it happened all over the county. We lost them to Mother Nature and then we lost them to to the development design where the trees were in the middle of stormwater plums or floodplains and we lost them that way. I don't like that model. I don't think those trees should count if they're left in a s

   2:47:34in the stormwater plumb or the flo floodplain of an area. I think it's great if they stay and if Mother Nature happens, she happens, but I don't think those should count towards because as we've seen towards towards your credit because as we've seen you know, Florida happened and many of them drowned and they're just falling over laying in a ditch now. So it's I understand the gamesmanship there and why it's done, but I think we need to take that off but

   Starkey

   2:48:01Commissioner Weightman, are you Commissioner Starkey? I I have a question on his question. If you say um I mean if there's an existing pond that has a tree in

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:48:10it. Look at Connected City on fifty two. All along there where the water came up on the south side of 52 coming east, so it'd be on your right if you're coming in this building. You'll see in there there's oak trees, pines, others. And this is where all the overflow water goes, and those trees drought. They were left there, they were great, as long as it wasn't oversaturated, it was fine. But nature happened and now those oak trees, they're all drowned.

   Starkey

   2:48:35But

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:48:35they're not

   Starkey

   2:48:35gonna th but I think a tree that comes down For whatever Mother Mother Nature causes.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:48:41We cause

   Starkey

   2:48:41that man

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:48:42changed the terrain. We cause that problem.

   Starkey

   2:48:45What what I don't w what I'm hoping you're not saying is when an engineer designs a subdivision and um this is where a pond is supposed to be, but that's where a tree is, then that tree doesn't count. Well then we've just taken apart what we just tried to do is preserve trees. It's cool. They need to design they need to be site But uh they need to have a site context when they design their neighborhood so they don't take out the heritage.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:49:15I'm I'm meaning the same thing that you're meaning, I'm just saying in a different way. Okay. Is that why you

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:49:21say not

   WeightmanVice Chair

   2:49:21a city

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:49:21tree? Yeah. What I think what Commissioner Weightman is saying is if they design it so that all their preserved trees are within the floodplain uh the the the the preservation area for the floodplain for the development That they wouldn't count. as preserved trees because at some point they will come they will they will get flooded and they will they will die.

   MarianoChair

   2:49:48Commissioner Yeager.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   2:49:50Do you have a slide where it shows where we are with the other, like compared to Hillsborough, Penellas? And can you

   Amanda Hill

   2:49:56um do you mind if I just um addressed the comment that Commissioner Starkey and Weightman were making before? Okay. So we did attempt to address that concern in the language as well. So um essentially we are requiring that the trees that are preserved are in locations that the changes in elevation will not result in them being flooded. And if that so happens that that's the only case that you can put it, that you would have to install the necessary drainage to prevent the trees from actually flooding and ensure that that stonewater is taken

   2:50:26away. Does that sufficiently address a concern or would you like us

   Starkey

   2:50:31well we were talking about moving larger pieces? Okay, what'd you say?

   Amanda Hill

   2:50:34If I could read it specifically, so um for all sites subject to the provisions of section eight oh two point four of this code, a note shall be included on the plan set verifying that the proposed areas for tree canopy preservation are not within portions of the site subject to flooding resulting from elevation changes caused by a field. And if it is located in those areas then you would have to install the necessary drainage to mitigate flooding.

   Starkey

   2:50:57Yeah. And um what I'm what I the picture that oh, never mind. I it's a picture on my iPad, did you get it up? Um there's two of them. Th these are the oak trees that were are are on the stormwater pond on the little road. And there they are there too. And it's lovely. They surrounded The stormwater ponds without juice. It's large. It's nice. Yeah. Okay.

   MarianoChair

   2:51:23Junior, have you got my picture yet? Yeah. So can we go to the next

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   2:51:27slide?

   MarianoChair

   2:51:28I'm sorry, good.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   2:51:30The comparison slide? Yeah. Since we're talking about fees, I just want to see where we are.

   2:51:39Just 'cause I'm on the end you can't forget about me.

   MarianoChair

   2:51:41I called you but I don't know what happened. Something happened in between us. Something named Starkey at the end. I don't know. She's saying what?

   Amanda Hill

   2:52:05Seth.

   2:52:11So this is what our fees look like right now. So from 2005 to 2025, we were at $50 per inch. The maximum applicable fees varied based off of the land use, whether it was residential or not, or there was a structure on it. And the regulated trees have remained constant. Under resolution number 25-291, for which the fees are not yet in effect, but the board has adopted the resolution that approved this. Uh the fees are $75 per inch for the regulated

   2:52:41trees and $150 per inch for heritage trees. As a reminder, the heritage trees are live oaks that are 24 inches and greater. Sorry, live oaks that are 34 inches and greater. and southern magnolias that are 24 inches and greater. And then this is the proposed amended resolution that includes that $3,500 per upland developable acre. And Commissioner Yeager, to answer your question, this is a table here that has a comparison for some of the communities that we looked at, specifically Hillsborough

   2:53:11County, Pinellas County, Alachua County, and Bravara County.

   2:53:17Their fee structures all are a little bit different, but um in terms of the payment in lieu of uh replacing the trees, Hillsborough is at sixty-five dollars per inch. Um those fees were last updated in 2011. It was actually $100 before per inch, and they decreased it with the onset of the economic downturn around that time. Penellus is at three hundred and seventy nine dollars per tree. A latro is at $135 per inch. And Brevard

   2:53:47has a formula depending on whether or not the number of trees that are removed are known or not. So essentially you multiply the number of trees removed times 400 plus the total number of inches removed times 120. And then if the inches aren't known, then you would do the number of trees removed times $3,000. And then if that none of it's known, then it would be $60,000 per acre. And that was back in 2006 that they did theirs.

   MarianoChair

   2:54:15What's the approximate age of the oak trees that reach the heritage standard?

   Amanda Hill

   2:54:21That is a good question that I don't have details on. I do know in terms of the mature spread that those are basically about uh sixty to a hundred and twenty um feet in width. Um but in terms of the age, I I don't have those details. I can find out and get back to you. I don't believe our arborist is here today to speak to more specifically. Um, Jackie, do we know? I could get that information.

   MarianoChair

   2:54:50Commissioner Yeager, I'm good. Yeah, I I just wanted to see that. Um Jean, did you have my picture I was showing on?

   2:54:57Right. So this was taken down at uh on my way to Fort Myers Beach in Hurricane in twenty twenty two. And you see the tree there along the right of way? That you want to see out there? In a major storm event. that came through between wind and water. everything along the whole road. I got videos going all the way down. That's a commonplace thing. Sometimes you take the sidewalk, sometimes not, but if you put them along those roadways all the way down You're g you're gonna be facing that, especially from the on the west side or even Maybe along some

   2:55:27riverbed we don't. So you gotta be careful what you want. And and and when we were to see see the governor out of Bettmar, right? About they're taking a picture? Remember all those trees that were down?

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   2:55:38Mm-hmm.

   MarianoChair

   2:55:39If you put too many of them out there, it's gonna be trouble. Depending on where you put 'em, along roadways, etcetera. So we had roadways we had to go around 'cause the roadways were blocked by all the trees. So you gotta be careful what you looking for. And I will tell you along the coast, as far as nineteen goes, oak trees, they'll tell you that tannic acid from the c from the leaves contaminate the water, they're bad for the water. They shouldn't be pushing any of those things alongside. Another thing you mentioned uh about how you didn't like those crepe myrtles in front of uh Ashley Furniture. No. I will tell you rooms to go years ago when they were

   2:56:09looking at doing the landscaping or not? Uh staff gave him permission to put the crate myrtles out there. They look great and you could still see the building, still get a thing an incentive where it looked better than it was.

   Starkey

   2:56:20They look great in the summer, but how did they look in the winter?

   MarianoChair

   2:56:23Uh this these ones here look pretty good. Alright, so maybe it's a different type of tree, but it's a flowering tree that was there that looks good all the time that allowed them to see their business because they didn't want to have the big oak trees that sometimes block out everything. So I want to have flexibility on on those trees too.

   Starkey

   2:56:40Um I have a question.

   MarianoChair

   2:56:41Commissioner Starkey

   Starkey

   2:56:45what happened on um Val words property and I think it it's happened on some other properties. Um especially if we're up in the price on the trees that they're not clear cut before sold to a developer. Um I is David David's here somewhere? Angle? Over there. Right. No, I'm sorry, David Goldstein. We worked on some language to strengthen that, but I I just wanna be

   2:57:16sure that um We have s that we're you know. There there's some things we can't do. I want I wanna go over that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:57:26I don't think we've changed that one anywhere.

   Starkey

   2:57:28I thought you added you added something to it after Southport.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:57:33But I think it's working.

   Starkey

   2:57:34Yeah, so do you mind explaining what the rules are?

   2:57:39Oh, do you know them? Because I thought David didn't.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:57:42Well I I was just gonna say y we I I call those David's rules and I we didn't touch them. Uh you see what David Goldstein writes, we just leave alone, so

   Starkey

   2:57:51There there there is a provision that you can't clear cut and then come in for an MPUD at the within three years or something like that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   2:57:58We borrowed some language from Manatee County.

   2:58:03About a window in front of develop of rezoning.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:58:07You can't clear cut under an ag exemption and then immediately come in for development. You basically have to wait either five years or five years before you can come in for development if you're clear cutting under a ag exemption. You still if you're doing legitimate ag operation, you can still remove trees, but you what you can't what we The the loophole that we removed was that you that we had developers that were clear-cutting under an ag exemption and then immediately turning around and and filing an application for development. Right. So that loophole has

   2:58:37been removed and as far as I know it's working. I asked staff if it's working and the answer I got back is that it's still working.

   Starkey

   2:58:45I I wanna be sh be sure because, you know, he took out oak trees saying he needed more space for his cattle. What do we know? What yes he did. He took him out down by the trail. I could have had tr we could have had trees on the Is that on fo fifty two? Uh is on fifty-two next to the um The trader's park before you got all those oak trees down there. Well I can't

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:59:08you know what I can't get the trees down to be clear.

   2:59:14If somebody did something before we changed the rules, I can't stop that.

   Starkey

   2:59:19If somebody did something before we changed the rules, we can't retroactively stop that. My understanding is that since we changed the rules, that doesn't happen anymore.

   2:59:29Uh yeah, I I'm just wanting to bring it up so uh make sure our staff knows that and looks for that. Um I don't know

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:59:35if Patrick tells me it's still happening we'll have to look at it again. Well

   Starkey

   2:59:39do they even look? He has to tell me

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   2:59:40that it's still happening.

   Starkey

   2:59:41Do you look to see if the land changed to topographically?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   2:59:46Um we are again it we don't we're not aware of every single piece of property in the county and what trees they take out when, but of the applications we've seen, we've never come across this issue since then. Most most of these large developments uh they're pretty well aware of them up front, right? We the vast majority of large developments are MPUDs these days. Um so yeah, we we haven't seen this issue since that language has been added.

   Starkey

   3:00:10to fix that is as part of the application process they have to show an aerial shot of their property. Right? Um then that's not hard to do. You just go on Google Earth and

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:00:25No, I think

   Starkey

   3:00:26stamp

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:00:26up for there was one change that we did make was that

   Starkey

   3:00:29or we're taking we are taking those.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:00:32I think there was one change that we did make, which is there are some folks that are proceeding under an ag exemption. And they weren't telling us that they were proceeding to journal exemption and that we were citing them in a code enforcement action. We've changed the code to make clear they have to notify us if they're proceeding under an ag exemption because they weren't previously doing that. That's been added to this change to the code.

   Starkey

   3:00:56Do you feel the penalty is strong enough to um not do a spoops, sorry, just find me? I it needs to be stronger than if they have behaved under the one list.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:01:09That's a question I'm gonna defer to our code enforcement folks because I

   Starkey

   3:01:12Okay, so we you know if any

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:01:18That can be discussed next week too or whatever. So

   Starkey

   3:01:21they can res research that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   3:01:23Um but I th what they told me is the issue right now is that they weren't getting notice that they were proceeding under the exemption, so but now we will sh we should get notice.

   Starkey

   3:01:35I just wanna make sure.

   MarianoChair

   3:01:36All right. Any other questions for staff on the tree ordinance? Uh there's gonna be no action required today anyway, but public

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:01:42public

   MarianoChair

   3:01:42comment. Public comment, okay.

   Amanda Hill

   3:01:43So I did have a couple more slides to go through.

   3:01:52Alrighty. So like I mentioned, this is related to the tree mitigation fund. Um essentially after the adoption of resolution number twenty five dash two nine one, there have been some discussions regarding some proposed amendments to that resolution. And I want to run through those with you and to kindly solicit your feedback as to what you would like us to change and what you would like us to leave as is. So Okay.

   Starkey

   3:02:23Slides, right?

   3:02:26I don't I don't know that it should be Um No. I don't know. I I thirty five hundred is too low for me. Whether there's no cap, I don't know. Uh They'll just pay. Well it needs to be higher than, you know

   MarianoChair

   3:02:46Do you have a list of like the other counties? Like we've seen it before?

   Amanda Hill

   3:02:49They don't have caps.

   MarianoChair

   3:02:51No caps.

   Starkey

   3:02:52But they have a higher fee. They go out and you inspect the trees before they go out and you're allowed to even start.

   Amanda Hill

   3:02:57We could work on some numbers and bring that back to you at the next hearing for your consideration.

   Starkey

   3:03:01Uh I would

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:03:01be chairman. Good. I think based on a basis.

   3:03:07Well I'm gathering for the app ties of board is there's probably a whole section fifty come up with an alternative with the no cap or CPI or something or combination there.

   Barbara Wilhite

   3:03:20Understand.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:03:21Thank it.

   3:03:24I think collectively we probably moved away from this seemingly

   MarianoChair

   3:03:29Well write her a little help I guess. So if you look at a hundred and fifty an inch, if you have an oak tree that's sixty four inches, that's ninety six hundred bucks. Chill.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:03:41it costs the move for it.

   MarianoChair

   3:03:42Guess what? You wonder why you're getting clear cut? There you go. But keep in mind if you if you try to go by inch by inch, you're gonna measure all them trees and go through all that, that's gonna put a lot of time and money. And then you gotta try to verify it. How much time do you want to spend on this?

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:04:02The goal is to save them. Yeah. And to incentivize and inspire projects to save them. Folks, it's not stopping people from moving here. Folks are still gonna keep coming in in droves. Changing the terrain every day. They want their cake they they want their cake and eat it too. They want their trees but the trees have to be gone because they have their house. So you know

   3:04:30It's a quagmire, honestly.

   Amanda Hill

   3:04:38I have a couple more slides. So um for the removal of the definition of the heritage tree, the reason why we're proposing this was because the definition is going to be moved to appendix A of the LDC. Um we're the cap we are going to go ahead and do that additional research as you've instructed us. We are proposing the addition of landscaping plants on county property and this is to align with internal stakeholders and existing county operations.

   3:05:07We are also proposing the reimbursement for irrigation, landscaping design, mulching, and repairs. However, the expenditure shall not exceed 50% of the total funds that are used in the previous fiscal year for the planting and purchasing and planting of canopy trees. So essentially the more that you planted the previous year, the more that you're able to use towards those maintenance costs in the first in the following year.

   MarianoChair

   3:05:35We should go back to the previous slide, I'm sorry.

   3:05:46Okay.

   Amanda Hill

   3:05:49And then lastly the updates of the language related to the existing allowed expenditure for the county's tree management plan. to allow for countywide canopy studies instead of only ones on county owned or maintained property. Um for a couple of reasons, but mainly it helps us to identify areas for tree giveaways and it's consistent with doing a jurisdiction wise county um canopy study versus doing it just on parcels owned by the county.

   Starkey

   3:06:18Okay, I just figured out what this means. No one else puts a cap on anything. Well we should meet it now.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   3:06:26That's why I wanted to see that. You guys are getting a copy as well.

   MarianoChair

   3:06:32So you want to do canopy studies countywide? Correct.

   Amanda Hill

   3:06:38the cost is not more than doing it on individual properties and you get a better insight as to where the county may be lacking trees so that in the event that you want to do tree giveaways, which we do, you could target them in areas that are showing as needing additional canopy.

   MarianoChair

   3:06:55Right. I think we're spend money we need to spend. I I mean I wanna I wanna allow the county to go put 'em in all their properties, put the irrigation in so it's all good so they 'cause they gotta get irrigation if they're gonna stay and live. So expensive to try to go and water 'em and have watering conditions done. So uh as long as that's in there I don't need any canopy studies. If the staff's got a building something they're building, every one of these should be offset with the cost with the stream mitigation time. Put them in. Anything to be retrofitted or improved for different changes, allow it to be done, save the

   3:07:25taxpayer money, get the money back out there, and put more trees in the ground, which the thing this is all supposed to do. If we're supposed to go put trees in the ground, let's just go do it and free it up.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:07:36Yeah, study's pretty bureaucratic.

   Starkey

   3:07:41Um other counties require irrigation. We don't.

   3:07:51I'm thinking we should maybe be looking at that. I would like to know what have what other counties require when they do their landscaping. Um because a lot of our stuff looks like garbage because we don't require irrigation.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   3:08:11Yeah, uh Patrick Detardal Rue. Um we do have irrigation in our land development code. Um I don't happen to be the subject matter expert because that's normally handled handled with the building permit applications because that's when the plumbing plans come in. Um so we do have an irrigation code. Um I just I don't know it off the top of my head. No, maybe it's not as broad as we need it to be. Maybe we need to look into some changes

   Starkey

   3:08:32to it. look at that and just make sure we're Not throwing good good money off of bat if it's no irgend.

   MarianoChair

   3:08:40Well again, that's why you want to allow the the irrigation to be in part of part of when the county does a project to allow them to go put in. Otherwise they will die.

   3:08:53I guess we're leaving it in, Mike.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:08:55Put our put our inmates to use, give 'em some cans and they're going to be a little bit.

   3:09:01Give him some exercise.

   MarianoChair

   3:09:03Alright. Alright, anything more on this audience?

   Starkey

   3:09:06Now if we'll see it again.

   MarianoChair

   3:09:08Public comment? Anyone from the public want to c talk to this?

   Starkey

   3:09:13Okay. Uh Julia Partinic.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   3:09:20So

   Julia Bartunik

   3:09:23Julia Up Bartinick, [address removed]. And this is current comment that I'd like to submit for the record. Uh first and foremost leave in the nine preverred preferred native tree species listed in the current ordinance. They were reduced to four by the county and the planning council has stricken them all out. Under the resolution section 802 whereas section, please add whereas

   3:09:53to include best practices for tree preservation, be deployed, backslash assessed, and documented. Under section two, authorized locations and recipients add, quote, public and private properties along waterways, streams, drainage and channels. Think Helene and Milton. 802.4 Two, tree canopy standards, leave-in, not stricken out, quote, is often

   3:10:24a necessary and preferred alternative. Under tree inventory and existing canopy calculation, two, leave-in ISA certified arborist and remove licensed landscape architect. If keeping licensed landscape architects, architect, leave in the word registered. Three, under tree plan leave in all that was put in by the Pasco County Planning Department and stricken by the Planning Commission, especially

   3:10:55leave For live oak, which is drought tolerant by the way, Quercus virginiana, um which is our southern live oak, most of our native species are drought tolerant, drought tolerant. Under 802.7 Tree Replacement Standards and Mitigation A, general replacement standards for developments, we want the list of nine native species left in as replacement

   3:11:25species. And also we want

   3:11:30We won The cap. Now it it would be ideal to remove the cap, but if the cap is there we want Everyone would be more generous to Pasco County, to beautiful Pasco, and uh we would want to increase that to ten thousand dollars per acre. And um the hashtags are uh preserve Pasco and hashtag resilient Pasco. Thank you. I'd like to submit this, Mr. Chairman. I was gonna ask you,

   MarianoChair

   3:11:57does have a motion received and file?

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   3:11:59Second second.

   MarianoChair

   3:12:00All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you.

   Starkey

   3:12:04Um, I'm curious what trees were taken out.

   MarianoChair

   3:12:08Uh next person up

   Starkey

   3:12:09public comment? Uh Nancy Hazelwood.

   Starkey

   3:12:12Did we have a list of what we're saying?

   3:12:19Can you send me a list uh what what trees we're taking out?

   Nancy Hazelwood

   3:12:26Nancy Hayswood, [address removed]. You know I'll get a recording of that and just push a button.

   3:12:36Well, thank you all everybody for working on the tree ordinance. I know this has been a long process and everybody's been very thoughtful on all of it. Um, but I do have a couple of suggestions. Uh some of the same she just said, like upland mitigation amount could be raised to ten thousand an acre. Also, the same thing, more native species of trees need to be included in this ordinance. Uh

   3:13:07commercial sites under five acres and minor rural subdivisions, which could be r used in the Northeast Rural Area Plan a lot, have been exempted from the tree ordinance. So I I'm not seeing that as a good thing in northeast rural. Um They could come in and clear quite a bit of land with under that and also Um the

   3:13:39The the trees on the commercial sites that are exempt under five acres, you're gonna have a just parking lots, a superheated asphalt without those trees in it. and we've already got huge amounts of heat coming off that stuff. So If you could include trees in that No matter how big it is, maybe you want to do a reduced amount or something, but we

   3:14:09need all the trees and Please do not exempt um MRS in the Northeast Rural Area Plan. Thank you.

   MarianoChair

   3:14:21Nancy, do you want to submit that? Closed comments? Okay.

   Starkey

   3:14:25Well I I do want to get an answer on why we're um

   MarianoChair

   3:14:28we'll get it after we'll keep want to keep public comment going though.

   Starkey

   3:14:31Jasmina Foriol.

   MarianoChair

   3:14:34And who's after that?

   Starkey

   3:14:35Uh we've got one online, we've got two others.

   MarianoChair

   3:14:39Okay.

   Jasmine Forkin

   3:14:41Hi, um Jasmine Fulkin. Uh I live in [address removed]. Um I have ten acres in Hudson. I um worked with uh Chairman Mariano on uh Original alternative. Years ago. That didn't happen. But I agree with um Ms. Um Starkey about uh cutting so

   3:15:11many trees unnecessarily. I think We uh are doing so much of cutting. It's all bulldozed all up and down the little road and Hudson Avenue between Higgs and Hayes. Every day I f go up there, I I see another ten acres or forty acres cut too. absolutely bulldozed over. We used to treat trees as um resources. Now we treat them like

   3:15:41trash. They don't even mulch them anymore to give mulch, free mulch. They burn them down. Tree on this planet is cleaning the air and burnt tree is adding to the pollution of the air. So I believe that you should preserve every tree possible and the developers should be working around the clump of trees, not bringing up the the planes that don't coincide

   3:16:11with the plot they bought. But um They cut at least seven big trees to create a dry dry pond. It's all straight. I was trying to work with them and ask him to work around the trees and save those ancient trees and still have enough um space to collect rain water in a rainy season. No, they didn't, they

   3:16:41just cut everything straight, six hundred and sixty feet of straight ditch that looks so ugly and all the good trees are gone. So those trees would never fall on anybody's house because they're in an easement. They should have saved them instead of cut them down. If the tree falls down on an existing house, there's insurance that covers it. So I believe that we should take the cup off and they should pay for every tree. Or

   3:17:13Bring the cup out to ten thousand dollars or whichever is the greater because we cannot sustain environment in Pasco County At this pace. So please uh respect the trees for what they are and say. This is what's happening on uh Little road. Every day I go up, the trees are gone, bulldozed over, and this is what they're replacing them with. These trees will never be

   3:17:43viable. Um in twenty years. And these trees are not native trees, they are decorative hybrids that do nothing for environment.

   Starkey

   3:17:56Yeah. Can I uh move to accept those pictures?

   Joel

   3:18:01Just a second.

   MarianoChair

   3:18:02All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Do you want to give those pictures to us? Okay, bring them to the clerk. Over to there?

   3:18:10No, they gotta go to the clerk. Oh they do? Sindy Sydney Buckle record. You can look at them, but I mean,

   3:18:19All right, thank you.

   Starkey

   3:18:21Okay. It used to come all the time.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   3:18:24I can't see her either.

   Cindy Buckle

   3:18:29Cindy Buckle, [address removed]. And I am talking about the trees. Um I agree that either there be no cap or a cap of a minimum of ten thousand dollars. Personally, I mean I have these pictures I can give to you. Um that clearly shows how these

   3:18:59trees were here one day and the next day they were gone, bulldozed down. Um Crepe myrtles are not native to Florida. They are from Asia, Korea, They are not a native tree. They are deciduous, which means in the winter time they lose all of their color and they're normally hat racked, which means they're cut off. Um

   3:19:30the oak trees that um were cut down were trees that were at least fifty to seventy five years old. Um, they were attempted to be burned, but we were under a burn ban and I was quite clear several times to let them know that should they be put on fire that a fire department would be called. But at any rate The

   3:20:00new phase two has Little tiny shrubs. My concern is there's no canopies. I sent you a picture of canopy because as I drive I think of you and I appreciate the fact that you appreciate trees. But these small trees we will never see

   3:20:26Grow to be fifty or sixty years old. Um And it's time for the developers to be able to build around the trees. I live in a 2,400 square foot home. That house was built. So that with minimum tree locks. I have trees in the front on the side and I have a complete wooded acre in the back. And trees that die, if I have to cut them, I plant three more trees. The

   3:20:57other thing that you need to consider are pine trees because eagles roost in pine trees. Much like the one in Lake Davida that was taken down with two live eaglets in it and nothing was ever done about it. Um, I have pictures and videos of that. I know people who live there. So we need to concentrate on Live oaks, we do need pines. A lot of people don't like them, but if we want our eagles

   3:21:28to come back. We need them. But at any rate, I would like to see no cap at all because a developer could basically go in and clear cut. Every single tree for thirty five hundred dollars, that makes no sense to me at all. Thank you. But if you want these pictures you can have them.

   MarianoChair

   3:21:47Uh the motion bring it to the uh does the clerk?

   Cindy Buckle

   3:21:51Do

   MarianoChair

   3:21:51you have a motion received and file?

   Starkey

   3:21:52Second. Uh I make that motion.

   MarianoChair

   3:21:55Do you want a second?

   Starkey

   3:21:56Second.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   3:21:57Wait,

   Starkey

   3:21:57am I

   MarianoChair

   3:21:57second? Yeah, you can't do that. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you.

   Starkey

   3:22:04All right, the last one's online? Uh yes, that's the last that is signed up. Okay. Here.

   MarianoChair

   3:22:10Anyone else here to speak to the tree audience? Now we're gonna call it. No no you can't. All right, so no one else from the audience? We're gonna close public comment here and we have one online. Thank you. Kathryn Capella.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   3:22:28Good afternoon. My name's Kathryn Papello. I live at [address removed]. And it's great to hear everyone in agreement that the The existing cap of 3500 is way too low. I definitely would vote for a no-cat as well. Trees do enhance property value and aesthetics in neighborhoods. They

   3:22:58have the ability to clean the air, filter the water. They offer wildlife natural habitat. Insects, birds, and woodland creatures need their habitat, and it's wrong the way we keep taking away their homes and food. Um trees are natural buffers to hurricanes and they help fight climate shifts. Guys we should have talked.

   3:23:23As a result of as as a resident of Pasco County, I truly appreciate the wildlife, the trees, the waterways. It's important to preserve. natural flirtative ecosystems. Is there a point where we can say no more? Open up vision to see ways to house everyone using what we have already? Land that's already cleared, like empty strip malls or existing real estate? Pasco

   3:23:53County is the home of open spaces and vibrant places, not crowded spaces. We are stewards with the help of this wind. Seth We And the waterways, I definitely recommend no cap. And I'd like to invite you all to celebrate Harbor Day in Newport Ritchie. We're a designated tree city. And on January 16th, we'll be at Francis Park from

   3:24:2310 to 11 celebrating trees and planting one. Alright, I appreciate everyone before me and thank you.

   MarianoChair

   3:24:32Thank you. That'll close public comment. Um any other comments for the board? There's no action needed today.

   Amanda Hill

   3:24:40Commissioner Starkey, I just wanted to clarify the item that you had regarding um the live oak being removed from the public comment. Essentially what we did there is that instead of the previous language that listed live oak, we included heritage trees, and heritage trees as would be defined by the code includes live oak and southern magnolia. For the live oak, they're 24 inches, 34 inches and larger, and southern magnolia 34 inches and larger.

   Starkey

   3:25:05Yeah, and um to your point about trees getting knocked over, my understanding is live oaks, right, don't it's not they don't how do I say this? There are other kind of oaks that easily fall over, but live oaks are very sturdy. But so what you may be looking at could be a turkey oak or a water oak, not a lighter.

   Amanda Hill

   3:25:28And then I just wanted to

   Starkey

   3:25:29And five hundred a live oak supports five hundred different species. A crate myrtle supports two just like ants of the second period. And what else are the records?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:25:43The second second hearing will be held on February seventeenth, twenty twenty six, at one thirty or soon thereafter at St. Navy Heard in New Port Richey.

   3:25:52Okay.

   3:25:53And

   Amanda Hill

   3:25:53then I just wanted to really quickly just summarize the things that you wanted the the staff to look at and bring back on the seventeenth. So um we are going to be putting the fees on the resolution. We're going to look at large commercial developments with trees potentially located within the center of the site and how to accommodate that. Um we are going to consider the option to eliminate the cap and what that would look like. Um we are also going to get you some more information, Commissioner Mariano, regarding the oge of the age of the oak trees. Um mature oak trees. All

   3:26:24the heritage trees. Okay.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   3:26:25But I did you say I thought we said no to the fees in the resolution. Is that what you said? Oh in the ordinance, sorry.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:26:35Yeah.

   3:26:38Not in the ordinance.

   Amanda Hill

   3:26:39Correct. That's why I'm doing this. Okay. Um and then also uh what Three. What other county rec what other counties require for irrigation in their ordinances? Is there anything else oh and remove the countywide canopy um studies that we were proposing for the resolution?

   Starkey

   3:27:00I don't know. Um J that county wide canopy, isn't that something that could be done by Th there's companies that do that pretty easily with technology that fly over. So it's not it's not anything that's real burdensome.

   MarianoChair

   3:27:13We what what do you plan to do with the study when you get it?

   Amanda Hill

   3:27:17That's what I previously mentioned. It turns out that's the right-of-way.

   MarianoChair

   3:27:22We already know that we've if a county project comes in, we can go put all the trees they want to put in No. And and bring it forward. So if that's what we're limiting it to, then I don't see the point of spending the money on that.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   3:27:33Chairman We have we have flyover, don't we, from the storms of before and after that we can use that's just done and we can see real you know, we have the data pretty much with before the storm.

   Unidentified speaker

   3:27:45Yeah, I don't know what what's entailed in a tree survey, but you know, we do

   MarianoChair

   3:27:53I I just don't see that I I don't I don't see how you're gonna implement w what you've got. You're gonna look at a project, it's gonna come forward, you're gonna put a plan in, either prove it or we don't. And you've got the flexibility to just get those done. So wh why why throw more stuff in the process? Put all the trees you want in Mike. Got it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   3:28:11That's it for me.

   MarianoChair

   3:28:13Thank you. And remember about the tree the as far as development goes, if there's a section of trees that are in the center, how we can look at trying to help us with that. That was her number one. Thank you, Commissioner Oakley. Thank you. All right. Um now we're going to proceed with the public hearing. We did do 67 already. Do you want to review the procedures?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:28:35We

   MarianoChair

   3:28:35did that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   3:28:36Did that earlier today.

3. 3Feb 17, 2026
   Board of County CommissionersP51Public hearingContinued

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue to the March 24, 2026 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. in New Port Richey with Chairman Mariano and Commissioner Yeager absent from the vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 56:58
   ▶ 56:588m

   WeightmanVice Chair

   56:58Please please staff please get with the customers in back. Okay, now we're gonna move to public hearing. We'll proceed with public hearing starting with ordinance P fifty one.

   Madam Clerk

   57:10That's good. K51, proof of publication. Tampa Bay Times, January twenty eighth, two thousand twenty six.

   Oakley

   57:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Octarios Pitos, Planning Development Economic Growth Department. Item P fifty one is PDE 26004. This is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, amending section eight oh two tree preservation and replacement. The request for today is to continue this item to March 24, 2026 at 130 P.M. or as soon thereafter as may be heard. Yeah.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   57:46We have a continuance on this one.

   Starkey

   57:47Move to continue. This is the last continuance I will vote for. This has got to get done. We are losing trees by continue and continuing. We

   WeightmanVice Chair

   57:57have a motion, a

   Starkey

   57:57second. I think I said that last year.

   Madam Clerk

   57:59I have two people signed up to speak.

   MarianoChair

   58:02Doing it's on the agenda as a continuance. All right. So folks

   WeightmanVice Chair

   58:07since this was on there as a continuance. Do you want to wait to speak to it when we hear the item at the next meeting?

   58:18So you guys wanna wait? We're not gonna hear this item today.

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   58:22Yeah. How do you mean they're not gonna hear the tree item today?

   WeightmanVice Chair

   58:31Yes, ma'am, you can come up come up and speak. But if you speak today, you can't speak in the

   MarianoChair

   58:37future. This is legislative, so they're they can speak every time. Oh they can't? But they can't your normal rules are that you don't take comments.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   58:48Well they pass too. We've we've continued this off and on. It's confusing and it's confusing folks. Go ahead, ma'am.

   Jean Fehey

   58:54Okay. My name is

   WeightmanVice Chair

   58:56name and address for the record, please. What

   Jean Fehey

   58:58I

   WeightmanVice Chair

   58:59name and address for the record?

   Jean Fehey

   59:00Yes. My name is Jean Fehey. I live at [address removed].

   59:10First. I wanna thank you all. For what you are doing for all of us in Pasco County, I really want to thank you.

   59:21It means a lot to me. It means a lot to my neighbors.

   59:26We purchased our home in Tall Pines. Because of the trees. And the Florida Wilderness that surrounded us there. Up and tall pines. We knew then as now. that trees mitigate climate change. Прен север storm damage. and maintain environmental health. Our youngest son. was fourteen

   59:56years old. He is now forty six. We came back home to the US. From Victoria, British Columbia. Where I was the director I've training and development for the province's Ministry of Lands and Forests.

   1:00:21Just between you and me. Don't you sometimes yearn? To see once again. the enchanting forest and wilderness of old Pasco County. Don't you wish your grandchildren? I could see that. You can make that happen. By putting preservation. back into our tree ordinance as a priority. has a major

   1:00:51priority. Has the priority.

   1:00:56This will ensure all future generations yours and mine. And yours. See and experience the beauty and magnificence of the Pasco County we we love. Because As Theo of Golden says. For anything to be good, truly good. There must be loving her. There must be love in it. So my lovely gratitude

   Julia Bartunik

   1:01:27to you. Thank you.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:01:29Thank you, ma'am. Next.

   Julia Bartunik

   1:01:33Julia Bartunik, [address removed]. And I won't take much time here. Thank you for giving us a moment to speak on this, even though it was continued. And I just wanted to thank everybody, especially Pasco County, for all their hard work that they've put into developing. Developing this tree ordinance, and it we love the strength of it. We love the uh saving 20%

   1:02:03of the tree canopy, and we also love the mitigation credits that are going to be uh issued in addition to the 20% that is being saved. Um, I'm not familiar if there's been a new updated revision. I would like to stay in awareness of any revision that we're gonna do. That are made, or I'd like to ask, will there be more revisions made to it before March 24th? If so, of course we do not want any cap because $3,500 to

   1:02:34mitigate and clear cut an acre of trees in Pasco County will really hurt Pasco County. Um it'll hurt residents, it'll hurt taxpayers. The long run, it will be so expensive to remediate this clear-cutting because trees provide stormwater benefit, biodiversity, economic benefits, increase property values, and help with community health and mental health. Lastly, we also don't want the five-acre exemptions

   1:03:04that will potentially for residential commercial loss. Any residential and commercial lot can be included in maintaining twenty percent of the tree canopy. Today when I parked here for this meeting, of course, I looked under uh for a tree to park under because trees provide shade for our community. Thank you so much.

   Jasmine Forkin

   1:03:33Hi, my name is Jasmine Forkin. I live in Clearwater. Uh

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:03:38address please.

   Jasmine Forkin

   1:03:40[address removed].

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   1:03:45Thank you.

   Jasmine Forkin

   1:03:46I have 10 acres in Hudson. I bought them 25 years ago. I take a trip from Clearwater to Hudson every day. When I first bought this land, there were cow pastures on each each side of Little Road. and there was basically nothing on Hudson Avenue. Now when I go up there every day there is a new parcel, totally deforested, completely bulldozed

   1:04:16over.

   1:04:19I don't recognize the place anymore. And if we continue this discussion, can we stop cutting trees until we make this decision? Because There will be no trees to protect by the time we make this decision. Uh I have a presentation but I'll save it for the next time.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:04:43Thank you,

   Jasmine Forkin

   1:04:43Matt. Thank you.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:04:44Thank you. All right. So a motion and a second.

   Starkey

   1:04:49Um under discussion. Yes,

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:04:51ma'am.

   Starkey

   1:04:52Um just the reason it's being continued is not continuing to work on it is because we don't have two commissioners here and we want everyone to be here when we vote on it. So commission Commissioner O Mariano is out of state on county. Business. So that's why it was continued. Because I asked the same question. Okay.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:05:13All in favor? Aye. Commissioner Yeager, is she online?

   Starkey

   1:05:16Oh yeah, roll call vote.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:05:17She's not. She's not? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, continuous pass. P fifty two.

4. 4Mar 24, 2026
   GeneralP34Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by roll call vote with the noted addition.

   Open this item →No recording