PEG-24-0412

Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 62% of 47 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Aug 6, 2024
   Board of County CommissionersP57Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 52:43
   ▶ 52:437m

   Ron OakleyChair

   52:43Aye. Motion passed. 5-0. Move on to P57.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   52:50Again, this item appeared in the notice of the hearing of this item appeared in the July 10th, July 17th, July 24th, and July 31st, 2024 editions of the Tampa Bay Thomas.

   Ron OakleyChair

   53:06Item P fifty seven is PEG twenty-four zero four one two. This is an ordinance establishing the Pasadena Ridge Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190 Florida statutes. Providing for authority and power of the district, providing for powers and duties of the district, providing for the Board of Supervisors of the District, providing for the district budget, providing for functions of the district, providing for miscellaneous provisions, providing for an effective date. This comes to you with a recommendation. to adopt the ordinance by roll call vote and there's a presentation so desired.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   53:37Well I uh Mr. Chairman I have a question.

   Ron OakleyChair

   53:39Go ahead.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   53:40Um, first time I think I've really seen this math. I guess we have some particles in the middle who didn't opt in. Is that what's going on there?

   Ron OakleyChair

   53:48Yes.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   53:50So

   53:53Is that a ro I see that they're separated by this little narrow script. Is that a road?

   Hall

   54:01Okay.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   54:03I i uh

   Ron OakleyChair

   54:04we'll get the answer in a second.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   54:05Yeah, and it's gonna be interesting how they're gonna expect those folks to I mean these are these gonna be private roads in here?

   Ron OakleyChair

   54:16We'll we'll let the uh the applicant speak to it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   54:23Good afternoon. Jonathan Johnson, 107 West College Avenue, Cal IC, Florida, QTAC Rock, also on behalf of the applicant. So we do have uh four parcels that are included within the internal boundary that we don't own, uh nor do we have the owner's consent to include them at the present time. Uh we have identified two of those parcels which are you see in blue uh as future expansion parcels because we do have uh an option on those so we have the ability to acquire them and include them in the future. Uh in just

   54:53in reviewing and discussing with your staff the criteria for creation of the district is sufficiently contiguous, sufficiently compact. The statute does explicitly contemplate that you may have out parcels within the boundaries of a district. You just have to identify them. So we're very comfortable that the development as approved under the existing PUD can proceed and that the district can serve its function to finance ownership. maintain the infrastructure uh regardless of whether those L parcels ever come in.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   55:21Right. Um so on the the top right corn um parcel it looks like it bisects like a ranch um like the um ranch yard just from my experience of our ranch yard is that it looks like some of the some of the buildings are in your property and some aren't. It's just kinda odd. I I mean I I'm gonna vote for approval I just I just never seen anything like this.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   55:46I those I think those are as as identified in the petition are owned by Evans properties. Um I I can't really speak to whether there's a the the building current status um but they are not proposed to be included at the present time.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   55:58Oh so um I wanna ask the county attorney I guess these are um identified by um boundary line you know legal boundaries because to me it looks like splitting that person's house in half. So I don't understand how some of their house is in it and some isn't. The property. So Is that

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   56:16there may there may be a boundary dispute between between owners, but the way the petition should be filed is that all of the owners who are Who are being subjected to the C D D are petitioners and those who are not.

   56:39signed who have not given their consent are excluded. Um so I can't I mean this could be a GI S er error um I I see what you're talking about is the the bold yellow line goes down through what looks like the middle of a house,

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   56:57but

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   56:57Yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   56:58Um I I would be happy to speak to that. I mean uh what we have is is a graphic uh and it does have you know very thick lines. Um if you look at the legal description which is attached to the petition and is also therefore incorporated into your ordinance, um it does specifically describe the properties. We have a hundred percent consent from all of the owners of the property who are proposed to be included within the community development district, uh as well as the um ability in the future to bring in those expansion parcels once they're acquired. So there is no existing home

   57:28that is being split by this by this legal descriptor line. I think what we just have is a graphic where we have m you know broader lines than otherwise would really be indicated. If we drew it as precise we wouldn't be able to see it on the map.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   57:41Okay, and um County Attorney, I'm talking about you know the where those four squares are in the middle? They're not quite squares, trapezoids or whatever. There's two that are hatched. I'm talking about that property right there. It's like going right through it. That's what I have expecting.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   57:58Oh but

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   57:59um

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   58:00but I uh I agree with Mr. Shaw. The petitioner is the one who has the most at risk. Yeah, where we don't have to do that. I am sure that they have calculated where their ownership ends and where their

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   58:12ownership is. We have indeed. And I think what we just have, it's it it's it's hard to show the line without looking so thick that it looks like it's going over that, but we're not including any property that we don't have consent, nor are we splitting in existing.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   58:23And that doesn't come back on us, that will come back on them if there's some. And and for those people that access their property. They'll they will come in on your roads. I don't

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   58:32How's that? The roads with the roads that are in that are within and financed by the C D D, those are all public roads. There's no access restrictions over them, so there there should be no impediment whatsoever for anyone accessing their property.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   58:44And and I'm guessing they access it from that road that runs parallel that that's going east-west and your construction can't keep them from coming to the property.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   58:57It will not keep them from accessing the property at all. Okay.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   59:00I just I've never seen one with parcels in the middle like that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   59:03Remember this is a financing vehicle. So it that's a plan of development, the MP U D which I'm assuming you've already since they're showing a boundary that you've already approved, would would be what would allow them access or not. They can't cut historic access off unless they provide other access. Correct. Agreed. Totally.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   59:26On behalf of the petitioner.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   59:27Okay. Those are all my questions.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   59:37We have

   Ron OakleyChair

   59:37no one else signed up. No one else signed up. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item?

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   59:44Move to approve.

   Ron OakleyChair

   59:45Okay. Second. Got a motion and second. Is this a

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   59:49roll call?

   Ron OakleyChair

   59:50It's a roll call. Roll call vote.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   59:52Okay.

   Kathryn StarkeyVice Chair

   59:53Did you have a second? Yeah. Second, I did. Okay. Commissioner Oak District Two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District one, Chairman Mariano.

   Ron OakleyChair

   1:00:09Aye. Motion pass 5-0.