Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Nguyen Thien – Change in Zoning from an R- 1 Rural Density Residential District to an R-3 Medium Density Residential District– West Central Pasco County – South Side of Lacey Drive, Approximately 150 Feet East of Randee Road – Containing Approximately 12.00 Acres

58:21Now we're gonna move on to PC nine.

58:23Thank you, Steve. I think you're good. You're really not dry and boring.

58:33So PC item PC nine is P D D twenty three seven seven one three. It's a zoning amendment in the name of WENT for from R1 Rural Density Residential District to R3 medium density residential district. The parcel is located in west-central Pasco County on the south side of Lacey Drive, approximately 150 feet east of Randy Road. This is showing the parcel. It's surrounded by the Moon Lake Estates, I think it's

59:03Unit 19 subdivision, which is a platted subdivision. There's different lot sizes in the area. The lots in Moon Lake, they were platted prior to December, prior to December 1st, 1975, which is the adoption of zoning. They were platted in 1960. So there's different lot sizes out there, so they range from about 7,700 square feet to about 26,000 square feet. We consider those to be small lots of record. Or legal nonconforming lots. So as you

59:33can see, the parcel is on the south side of Lacey. To the north is the Moon Lake Estates Unit 19 Subdivision, Moon Lake. Uh to the south of the property is a county owned Property as I understand it. This parcel was purchased for the purpose of the Ridge Road extension. There are talks about doing a environmental lands acquisition management over this parcel, but that hasn't been completely solidified. And um

1:00:06So this is a a closer view of the parcel.

1:00:09Mm-hmm.

1:00:10The surrounding land uses, so the the s the surrounding land uses are res three to the north and res six to the south. And this is the existing zoning. So the existing zoning is R1. As I explained, there's small lots of records surrounding it, lots that are between 7,700 square feet and 26,000 square feet. And to the south, that county-owned property is zoned R4 high density residential district, which is typically 6,000 square

1:00:41foot lots. It's 12 acres approximately. The applicant proposes to subdivide and develop the property with a total of 11 single-family dwelling units. It's in the central market area and it's outside the serv urban service area. As I stated before, it's surrounded by residential development with lots that are between 7,700 and 26,000 square feet. It's within within a RES III future land use classification. And uh the I this comes to you with a recommendation of approval

1:01:11with cond of approval, there are no conditions, sorry, this is a Euclidean uh zoning, and I'm here for any questions that you may have.

1:01:20Okay. Any any questions from the diets here?

1:01:24I think I have one.

1:01:25Denise his So Would these lot sizes be

1:01:31R three zoning is seventy five by a hundred. Lots.

1:01:35So is that comparable to is that bigger or smaller than what's

1:01:38around? It's smaller than the smallest lot by two hundred square feet. So the smallest hot lot that we saw in the area is about seventy seven hundred square feet. So this is two hundred square feet smaller.

1:01:53Thank you.

1:01:58Any other th questions? I guess there aren't any.

1:02:02And the applicants team I believe they're all on WebEx, if I'm not mistaken.

1:02:07Okay. And there's nobody else here to speak about this one, right? Okay.

1:02:15The the only thing too, now that you're sitting back down is I might be interested in seeing the overlay of the wetland, uh rough wetlands.

1:02:27Circle

1:02:27isn't. Yeah,

1:02:30yeah. I'm

1:02:30a such

1:02:31thing.

1:02:32You you cannot talk from the audience because the clerk cannot pick up all that conversation. So please Please do not speak until you get to the podium.

1:02:41I'm gonna be sending the preap notes because a preapp shows the actual wetland delineated. If we if we use Pasco Mapper, the wetland is not

1:02:49exact. Yeah.

1:02:50Exactly.

1:02:53That still might be a good approximation though, just for discussion purposes.

1:03:02And is the applicant making a presentation?

1:03:08I wanna let her get pap uh the Map up there first and then we'll Find out if they want to make a brand of the right-of-way.

1:03:15So give me just a second and then we'll talk about the applicants team because I've got to forward this to Sonia.

1:03:20That's

1:03:20fine.

1:03:39The one thing I would like to say to the audience, because I know many of you want to say have have something to say Mm-hmm. We try to make we try to encourage people to if you're gonna come up and speak Please try to speak about something that we haven't heard. So that we don't hear the same thing over and over. And because it just takes up a lot of time and we already've heard it. So Um Whether it's traffic or whether it's, you know

1:04:06We welcome you to come up and speak about it. But we just like to hear something new when people come up.

1:04:12So for the record, just so that these folks can please be promoted for the applicants team, if you would please promote Alex Hoffman, Angel Ortiz, Ava Russo, and Mike Hoffman, please.

1:04:34And I'm not sure who's taking the lead on the applicant's presentation, but typically at this point you do a presentation on the item.

1:04:41Okay, so uh are they on now?

1:04:46We have all been up group up.

1:04:47Okay. So you're the applicant. We'd we'd like to uh welcome you to the meeting and uh Ask who is going to be the spokesperson, please.

1:04:56Hi, uh yes, my name is Ava Russo. I'm an EI working under the responsible charge. Of PE Michael Hoffman and I'll be representing advanced engineering as well as the applicant.

1:05:06Okay, and your address, please.

1:05:09Sure, it's [address removed].

1:05:15All right. Very good. Okay, so here's the way it works. We're we you have an opportunity to do it. Present your application. Yeah. Uh once the application is presented, the Members of the audience would have an opportunity to come up and ask questions or state their concerns. You would probably be sm good good idea for you to make notes of those things. because you'll have an opportunity then to come back and respond. um to to to give feedback on those concerns.

1:05:46So um So now everybody knows the format of what we're gonna do. Please feel free to begin.

1:05:54Okay, thank you. So the proposed 12-acre property currently has a zoning of R1 with a future land use of residential three. As per the applicant, we're requesting to rezone the 12-acre property from R1 to R3 to allow for a single-family home subdivision with 11 homes, having a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The project is proposing eleven lots which will include single family homes at a density of one point seven dwelling units per gross acre, which complies with the allowable density in the R3 zoning.

1:06:25The property includes a roadway called Ivy Avenue, which contains a cul-de-sac that does comply with Pasco County standards. Being that single family home development isn't allowable use within the R1 zoning designation, we believe that this request is consistent with the surrounding area. The parcel does contain approximately five point two eight acres of wetlands, which have been identified in a wetland delineation report. Uh uh all wetland boundaries have a twenty-five foot setback and that has been identified on the master site plan. As

1:06:55per the staff and planning commission's recommendations, they have found this development Thank you. I'm gonna take any questions.

1:07:02Can we see your proposed development plan?

1:07:11Go

1:07:11to page four.

1:07:20Okay. And it was Ms. Russo?

1:07:25Yes, that's correct.

1:07:26What's the plan for water supply and wastewater disposal on this property?

1:07:33So we will be connecting to county utilities.

1:07:37And where are those located?

1:07:41Um, I believe it is likely counting utilities along uh Lacy Drive. We haven't gotten

1:07:47too far into the

1:07:48utility.

1:07:49Can we see the map? You believe that's the case?

1:07:54Yeah, let me uh excuse me just a minute. Stop before you don't any further. Let me just repeat one more time. Please be courteous and quiet so we can get through this section. We can hear the presentation. We can ask questions from the dais. You'll have a chance to come up and ask questions. And I'm gonna expect people to be courteous to you. So It's a it's a or it's a team effort.

1:08:21Lacey Drive is the street here on the right side of the Site plan?

1:08:28Yes, that's correct. Yes. Well

1:08:30I think you need to do some more research 'cause I'm gonna hand The staff over here a flash drive that has a utility atlas map for the area and there are no utilities, water or sewer anywhere near this property.

1:08:47Correct understood, then we'll likely have to do septic um and well.

1:08:51Well, in order to do septic and well, Chapter sixty two six of the Florida Administrative Code requires a minimum of a half acre lot.

1:09:00Okay. So then we would have to um supply a line from The property to the nearest Connection line.

1:09:08Well, I don't know if you know what the cost of utilities are, but it's a long way to get there.

1:09:17We'll have to speak with the applicant

1:09:18directly about that issue.

1:09:21thinking that you've got quite the exorbitant utility connection cost here. I do this every day.

1:09:27Mm-hmm.

1:09:29Hello, this

1:09:29is Alex Hoffman speaking. In regards to the utilities connection, if the offsite improvements are too too expensive for the developer, then we can And move towards a half acre lot design with the 11 lots, and we would only require variances of the lot width. And we would redesign the site so that the roadway would go up to the would be pushed

1:09:59to the property line on the north. uh the northwest side and the properties would then include wetlands In their land. To meet the the lot size requirements.

1:10:15Mr. Hoffman, we're still gonna need your uh address, please.

1:10:20Yes. Um the address of Advanced Engineering Consultants is 10009 Gallants Lane, Tampa, Florida.

1:10:37All right, right, thank you.

1:10:38Our land development code doesn't allow wetlands to be platted within residential lots for a new subdivision.

1:10:49Can we go back to that site development plan now? I'm not number four.

1:10:56Okay, so you want him to repeat what he just

1:10:59can you please repeat that, yeah, outside of what John is saying, which is absolutely correct, but could you repeat what you're proposing?

1:11:07Yes, to meet the lot size requirements, what I would be proposing is pushing this roadway to the north and to the west as far as possible to allow for the lots to be a pizza shape to support the lot requirements. And we would most likely need a waiver on the width of the lots.

1:11:34Brad, he also asked which section of the code prohibits wetlands to be platted within residential lots. I don't know if you've got access to the L D C right there, but

1:11:45I'll find it and get it for him.

1:11:49Denise, could you address what it his statement that about a waiver to the width of the lots? I didn't know that we could

1:11:56Yeah, I mean there's no such thing as a lot. a waiver of lot. It would be a variance.

1:12:05Right.

1:12:06There's no such thing as a lot with waiver, correct?

1:12:10No such thing.

1:12:14Then then we would be pressing forward for the variance and initially for this uh when we went

1:12:21to the

1:12:21right-of-way.

1:12:22I'm not sure how you ever can meet a criteria for a variance. That would seem to me to be A clear self-created hardship.

1:12:30Yeah, they would not be able to meet that criteria.

1:12:32So why why would I why would I vote to allow you a zoning district that could allow you to plat lots? in which One could not feasibly build on.

1:12:49The lots would have buildable area enough for the planned

1:12:54times. Well I'm re talking about wells and septic systems here that require In other words, you're asking for the R three zoning district, which allows a minimum lot size of seventy five hundred square feet. You're asking me to approve that today. And it seems to me that the only district, and I I don't even think I think R one only requires twenty thousand square feet, which is still smaller than a half an acre. So I'm trying to find a reason why I would rezone this to R three when I know that even in the

1:13:24R1 minimum standards, you're going to have difficulty developing this property. And I'm although I'm not gonna make the final judgment, your client maybe's got a big wallet and will spend the money to connect to utilities somewhere out there on Moon Lake Road. But I'm not really seeing how that's financially feasible.

1:13:46Yes, so this site does have a lot of hardships with the wetlands. I agree upon that. And the reason that you would want to vote yes on this rezoning is for the development of this site and allowing for these 11 homes to better the area and bring in more residents generating revenues for the local communities. Community and taxes.

1:14:12Can you put up the rezoning attachment, Denise?

1:14:19Yeah. call signature, shouldn't be on three agenda.

1:14:47John, how many uh residents do you think is logical you could build on this property?

1:14:52However many he can that meets half acre lots. It's a unless he can convince me he's gonna bring water and sewer into here or

1:15:04And I'm guessing after we hear from some of these people they're not gonna be too excited when the sewer runs in front of their house and they have to mandatorily connect to it and they have to give up their walls and septics.

1:15:18I th I think that was a yes, they would.

1:15:21From an environmental standpoint, we might like that, but I'm sure they probably won't, so

1:15:27I'm happy to hear that the residents are in favor of this. I know they are currently using it for uh for storage of of their their boats and trailers and other aspects, which I have photos of.

1:15:41Well right now they're They're not to question the application, you are.

1:15:45What? I guess I never heard a definitive answer to Mr. Moody's question about whether the applicant It tends to connect to

1:15:56To county water and sewer.

1:16:00Can you Well oh the reason is the comments by the way, can you guys please flatten these things when you send us? There's five thousand comments in the agenda, which is why your agenda package is moving At a snail's pace today.

1:16:16Well while we're looking while this is being looked up, can I just ask the applicant to definitively answer the question about whether they will connect to county water and sewer.

1:16:26Because without that connection that moots the point of going to an R

1:16:31And it seems to me to be a threshold question for this application.

1:16:36Yes, so we would need to evaluate the offsite improvement cost um for bringing in those utility lines.

1:16:49So are you proposing that we continue this until you evaluate this cost?

1:16:54So it's approximately seventeen hundred feet.

1:16:57Seventeen hundred feet.

1:16:58And it probably more than that. There's that's kind of as

1:17:01And it's on the opposite side of Moon Lake Road, correct?

1:17:04Correct is plus a

1:17:06Yeah. I d we haven't shown the utility map, but in Moon Lake east of Moon Lake Road there are no utilities, never have been any utilities.

1:17:19Well

1:17:19I mean so the seventeen hundred feet I believe we did pass that by the developer initially and he didn't have an issue with that. However, I do know that well and septic if it's already there in the the area and to be consistent, if we um had the well in septic laid out in a manner that meant all the requirements of a seventy five foot separation distance between the two. Um I don't see

1:17:49a reason why we couldn't utilize the

1:17:51Florida Administrative Code sixty two six requires a half acre lot.

1:18:00Unless you were platted before nineteen seventy two.

1:18:07And so then it comes down to that uh LDC for the the

1:18:15lots having wetlands within the lot. But that's not allowed by our land development code.

1:18:25Correct. And and that so now for that

1:18:30Mm. That that would have to be a a variance request for due to the hardship of the site. But it can't be a

1:18:39self created hardship.

1:18:43Uh well the site currently as it's zoned is allowed for um more units in density lots than what we are utilizing. So I would say that this is a land right

1:18:57hardship. Unless you want to shut down down.

1:19:01Are

1:19:01you an engineer or a land use attorney?

1:19:06I am actually a EI working under the responsible charge of Michael Hoffman.

1:19:11Okay, well I'd like to give you some advice and I'd advise that you not try to practice land use law, you stick to engineering under the supervision of your supervising P E.

1:19:24Land use determinations fall within the law and thank you for getting this attachment. I wanted you to see this because one of the things that I'm asked to consider is whether the I think it's number nine, the property as rezoned can be developed in a manner which would comply with other existing county and state regulations governing development. So that's the question I have to answer to myself. So you're gonna need to convince me that number that that I can Feel confident you're gonna meet number nine if you

1:19:54want me to vote to rezone this.

1:20:00Then we may have to reduce the number of lots to to meet that requirement there. Um dependent

1:20:09upon all the variables. So then we wouldn't need to rezone the property if you needed to provide half acre lots.

1:20:17That is correct, yes.

1:20:19Thank you.

1:20:22All right. John, do you any other questions? Well I guess I'd like to hear where the Does the applicant still want to proceed with this application?

1:20:31Today.

1:20:34Uh it sounds like uh we have understanding of where the community and where um the board members do lie on this aspect. And we initially um made a determination that we may not need to rezone in order to get this uh through. However, we wanted to go through the MPUD process, which which staff then recommended Euclidean rezoning. So now we'll just go through the typical PSP-FSP

1:21:05process.

1:21:07So so are you withdrawing? So are you withdrawing the rezoning request?

1:21:13Can we postpone it? This is Mike Hoffman, the PE. Can we postpone this decision until we get back with our client to see what direction they would like to go with?

1:21:22Well that's up to the Planning Commission about whether they want to continue it. Um but there's a lot of residents here that have shown up to speak on this application. So if we continue it, they're all gonna have to show up again. If you would draw it then

1:21:37they don't let's move forward. Let's move forward and uh and work with the the the residents and see what that says.

1:21:48Well, mm let me just tell you this. I I I think you I think you know the flavor of the board and you know what the

1:21:58And um As Chairman M I'm not I don't have the final say, but I can tell you this. that I am not going to vote to continue this. uh to another date because I don't think it's fair. Think you should have come become come prepared. You should have known about the sewer and water issues. These are things that Um We we don't need to waste our time on. And uh So I think if you wanna take another shot at it then you're just gonna kinda come back through

1:22:28the the gate. And be ready to

1:22:33And so that would be my Suggestion to my to this board. And I'd like to hear a motion.

1:22:42Well you the the problem is you can't Act on the application without hearing the public.

1:22:47But I can

1:22:48tell you I have the

1:22:49same sentence.

1:22:49But I

1:22:49mean

1:22:49if he's willing to withdraw, then you don't need to hear from the public. But if he wants to proceed

1:22:53but let me just say this then.

1:22:57Did there anyone? That's here to speak from the public that would object. if we turn down this Application.

1:23:05No, no, no.

1:23:10Is it anybody would does anybody want to speak if that's our inclination?

1:23:16Well I think you I think in my opinion. I think your opinion is

1:23:20important.

1:23:23I

1:23:23I If there's anybody that wants to add a concern that has not been previously raised by Mr. Moody I think you need to let them speak because the applicant needs to have a chance to address the concerns. He's he he's heard m they've heard Mr Moody's concern, so they have a chance to speak to it. But it's possible some member of the public has a concern that was not raised by Mr Moody. I think if that's the case you need to let them speak.

1:23:50Is there someone who would like to raise something more than what Mr. Moody has raised? that has not had a chance to speak. What I don't want to do. Because I don't want to go through another three hours of listening to people It's com compliance. And then come up with the same result. So

1:24:10If you want to speak, please come forward.

1:24:16Is the applicant done with the presentation?

1:24:19Yes, we're done with our presentation. I'm going to call the developer and see if you would like to move forward with the offsite improvement costs.

1:24:29Okay, but you still need to have somebody listening to the public if you want to rebut them.

1:24:32Have you determined that there's capacity available in the system? I mean have you spoken with our utility department?

1:24:42We have not gone through that process as of yet how

1:24:47are you gonna I'm just asking you as an engineer, how are you gonna advise them of that cost? And you don't know what that cost is. You don't even know if there's capacity available in the system.

1:25:00That that is correct. Um and through other jurisdictions we've we've had to conduct the utilities aspect further down the road and they weren't allowing us to do it at this point. But if you're allowing us to do that, we'll start um going through that process early on.

1:25:21So I I know you have a s gentleman ready to speak, but Mr. Tippin's been trying to speak to Oh Brent, I'm sorry.

1:25:31Planning and development. Um yeah, no, I just wanted to answer the question about the L D C code. It is eight oh five point six that has the restrictions on wetlands and lots.

1:25:41Thank you.

1:25:42And then I also want to add that for the record there was a pre-application meeting that was held that all these things were explained to the applicant during that time.

1:25:49So And I'm gonna add one more thing, which is that This is a Euclidean rezoning, so you can't condition it. But I guess in theory the applicant could agree to a deed restriction that mandated that they connect to county water and sewer, but that's something they would have to offer up. I have not heard them definitively offer that up. But we'll see if they do that during rebuttal. So go ahead and sir. Sorry, to move in your head.

1:26:18Go ahead. Please, your name and address, please.

1:26:20David Wallace, [address removed]. First of all, it's not speaking I'm speaking for myself, but the majority of our residents we reject The county's uh future land use of R three. We are a historic R One community. Yeah, we are a mature community within R1. We're comfortable with that zoning requirement. We reject this attempt to change. uh from R one to R three for multiple reasons. The list that you have on the on the board I would like

1:26:50to add to that. We also believe that items one, two, five, twelve, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, 18 and 19 also apply, uh, and I'll quickly read those. The proposed change is not consistent with the existing land use pattern in the area. The proposed change would result in possible creation of isolated district unrelated to the adjacent and nearby districts. The one farther south of that is zone uh R4. Which is very high density. Our only buffer

1:27:21is an R one and if you change it to R three, you're gonna reduce our buffer from the impact of an R three. R three triggers the utility thing that was brought up before. That's why they want it to go to R three. We do not want the utilities forced upon us. We want it to stay that buffer. That's why we w we demanded you keep it R1. Uh certain proportions of the property are not suitable for development under the proposed zoning classifications. The property is developable, developable

1:27:51currently under the zoning classification of R1 without appropriate public facilities, including but not limited, water, sewer, and electrics. Uh the site proposed for zoning change would be the subject of flooding and affect such flooding on the proposed or possible improvements on the site. The physical characteristics of the site and the degree of the site alteration would require make the site unusable for any of the of the range of potential uses for the proposed zoning classification. The proposed zoning change would

1:28:21not be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and recommendations set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan. The existing zoning classification accomplishes a legitimate public purpose.

1:28:34Your biggest concern is our biggest concern. We don't want R three because of the utility encroachment upon the R one. We need the R one as a buffer from the future development that the county's planning on the southern property. So we request highly that you reject this uh change to zona. Okay, thank you very much.

1:29:01Hi. Hi. My name is Cindy Lang. Oh, could you put up that thing showing the wetlands?

1:29:07Miss Lang. You want to pull that mic down just a bit. There we go. And we need your address too.

1:29:12[address removed], which is on Moon Lake, directly across the street from the subject property where the water flows in a drainage easement. Over to the said property. goes onto that property into the wetlands. You cannot see that drainage, the water, from an aerial photo because of the canopy of the trees. That water flows when the lake level gets high during a rainstorm, s you know The hurricane. And

1:29:43without that drainage ditch, which is considered a critical linkage, That lake's gonna rise causing property damage, lake everything you can think of. if you do not protect that ditch that goes over to that wetlands That ditch We'll stop the lake. From Very new. This has been mislabeled by the county. Um the correct cas uh classification

1:30:13for the lake has not been reviewed from the critical linkage in twenty ten, I mean excuse me, twenty twelve and nineteen ninety-eight when the county bought up all that property, abutting it. that we missed getting reviewed.

1:30:33Federal government and the state government. Presently the property appraiser search is incorrect. Line three, use code for the five acres is coded ninety six hundred V. With a description of wasteland. The zoning with an O O R one. Why would you develop a wasteland? Um it should have been coded 9604 wetlands. The drainage ditch

1:31:04easement is coded 9600 V with a description of wasteland. And zero, zero R One. How can you develop that ditch and put a house on it? and it should have been coded ninety six oh four Wetland Critical linkage. This property should be coded as a protected habitat under the federal and state endangered species, which includes these species. Otters,

1:31:34snapping turtles, soft shell turtles, little heron,

1:31:39white horned ibis, sand hill cranes, bald eagles. The federal government, um, the Army Corps of Engineers, if you have a wetlands and you're gonna put concrete on that wetlands, they require a hundred foot buffer. We only require a 25 foot buffer. But the Army Corps of Engineers says you have to be a hundred feet from a wetland. We have missed classifying our lake as a category one lake. With a category linkage,

1:32:10which is called a critical linkage, to a critical linkage weight wetland oh excuse me, wetlands. That wetland is critical for the drainage of that lake. We missed it on every record I searched. I searched the databases of the fish and wildlife to see if we met uh on any of their categories and we don't. Based on the National Wetlands inventory, the present classification for Moon Lake is L-I-U-B-H. which

1:32:41is inaccurate. I'm sorry, your L U I B time has expired.

1:32:44Is uh is it your testimony That there is a direct connection between Moon Lake and this wetland.

1:32:52Yes, you can't see it. See where that starts at Moon Lake? My house is right across from it. I have pictures of the drainage lake.

1:33:01That that right there?

1:33:03Yeah. You cannot but you can't see where it flows out of the lake 'cause there's a can a tree canopy above it. It goes under the road, it goes under Lacey Drive and comes out on the subject property. Which you still can't see until it gets to the wetlands because the ditch has a canopy over it. Aerial wise Uh the county didn't screw up because if they look at the aerial pictures, you can't see. that it drains from the lake. It's always drained from the lake. And

1:33:35Yeah. This is this is a critical thing. If you don't have that drainage going, you won't have a wetlands.

1:33:42Uh I understand that and One of the things I didn't mention earlier is that Moon Lake is listed by the Department of Environmental Protection as a water body water body not attaining standards. It's has an excess of chlorophyll A, which is usually caused by nitrate. And I didn't bring it up because unless the applicant was going to discharge directly to the lake. it may be a non-issue, but if there's a direct connection between the lake and this

1:34:12wetland, then I would say that is an issue. Um and that's going to require an additional level of stormwater treatment, nuc nutrient reduction when you get to Swift Mud. And our county rules are the same as Swift Mud, so you'll need to do it for us too. So and

1:34:29I make oh Can I make another comment?

1:34:32I would like to

1:34:32be up

1:34:33to the Chairman Mariano. If if there's another question, yes. Otherwise your time is expired.

1:34:37Well the property

1:34:40with

1:34:43I don't have a

1:34:45statement and I just you know I have to be fair. I'll provide this to the clerk. This is a map showing the water is not attaining. Useful information and we thank you very much.

1:34:54Can Can I um submit the documents, the maps I showed?

1:34:58You you can, yes. You can do we have a motion to Move to receive and file. Second. Receive and file. We have a motion to second. Further discussion? All in favor? May I mean to give it to the clerk. Yeah. We have to receive and file. Okay. Thank you.

1:35:18Thank you.

1:35:20Yes sir.

1:35:23I live at [address removed].

1:35:32[address removed]. Uh if you could bring up those Pictures again. Oh the roads.

1:35:39Randy? The actual photographs?

1:35:44I live at the corner of that. And

1:35:47can we get those pictures on there?

1:35:54The very left hand corner. And uh What [address removed], we just came up on the

1:36:03Raise it just a little bit. Oh, the other way. Yeah.

1:36:17What's your address, sir? [address removed].

1:36:26Zero five zero.

1:36:34I see it right down there. Right there. Yeah. Right there. Okay.

1:36:40at the

1:36:40microphone. Yeah, you have to be at the microphone.

1:36:42We we have we have it up here now. We know where you're here though. Sir. Yeah, we see it. We see it up here. We

1:36:50we just need to hear you at the microphone.

1:36:53Okay. Okay. I've been fighting since early eighties. about to get that ditch cleared out. So it drains into that wetlands. Okay. Um Just in the past two months or three months They have approved that drainage to be cleaned out. Um they have never recognized it up until just recently. That it was their response your responsibility to do it, which is um there's a drainage

1:37:23dish there. That goes from The was that the north side Of Randy Road till Under Under the Road. And then where that light spot is right there. Mm-hmm. There's uh Twenty five foot easement. That goes back in across all that property and into the wetlands right there. Okay. And um it's Detrimental to my Livelihood. I've flooded three times. Um

1:37:55We don't need any more property being sold for Change in the Codes.

1:38:03Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Anyone else?

1:38:16Can you have your name and address? Yes.

1:38:18I'm Mary Jane Day. I live at [address removed]. I've been there twenty three years, moved from Pinellas to get away from And where I'm at, I'm one of the oldest houses on the lake. We have a big sea wall, whenever it floods, It comes up over the seawall and I call the county. They close the park down. And it flows out through that property. That is a king pin property. to drain our lake. all of the properties around the lake. are

1:38:48zoned to drain into the lake. I have two houses on the lake. One my house next door they just put a ditch in to drain all the back roads into the lake. We have all kinds of piping that comes into the lake. All the ditches around the swamp heads, they fill up with water, they drain into the lake. That's the only out. And that's a b a big necessity for us. And what it does is it takes it through those wetlands Down through hidden lakes, To the Pithlacucci. Okay. And that's why

1:39:18it hasn't been developed in all these years, because that's the main drag.

1:39:23Okay. Thank you.

1:39:27Anyone else? Any per other person?

1:39:32Okay.

1:39:37Uh he beat you to it. Yes.

1:39:39Sam Dam, [address removed]. I think you pretty much answered our question. I mean if they abide by what you said, they have no room without the septic and well going in, so they have to decrease the size of the lots or what. I mean, make 'em bigger so there won't be as many houses in there. But I'd like to ask the commissioners, w what are you going to do about Moon Lake Road? I mean, we can't get out now. You should have put the entrance to that down at Lacey instead of abiding across the street where the homes bring in more money, I'm sure.

1:40:09But We eight minutes I sat there one morning trying to get out. I bet if you lived out there you wouldn't like that at all. So I'd like to know what you're gonna do about that road that go along with all this development. You've got two housing additions going in, one townhouse and one of a hundred and fifty homes farther north on Moon Lake Road. You gonna put all them houses in and then then you gonna make the road or what are you gonna do?

1:40:32Well

1:40:33we

1:40:33That's what I'd like to know. Okay. Well we're not the road

1:40:36crew.

1:40:36Well, I think that ought to be considered too, because we can't even get out of our audition now. You sit there and eight minutes we've timed it several times that we've been there as long as eight minutes to get out of our road. Now, if they'd a moved that light down one more block to Lacey, where everybody across the street could have come to their middle entrance, Hell it have been a lot simpler, but that doesn't make any sense, does it?

1:40:58I know there's improvements set up for for Moon Like in the future, but we're not but we're not but we're not the board that oversees

1:41:04that unfortunately.

1:41:10But what you said, sir, is that the property is not suitable to put that many homes in. So go back to the original zoning and uh Put four homes in there and We'll all be happy.

1:41:21Mm-hmm.

1:41:27Okay.

1:41:31Here comes one of the fa most famous men in Pasco County. I wish, I wish.

1:41:36My name is Jeff Montgomery and I live at [address removed]. That's [address removed], with my wife for 20 years. I apologize for my attire, because my wife and I both are self-employed, and we both felt so strongly uh to oppose this that we both took off work. No work, no pay. And

1:42:01It's been so nice out there for the past twenty years that we live there. You know, in the morning having a cup of coffee, afternoon maybe a cold beer out back. You see the deer, the wild turkey. We even had a three or four foot alligator out there one time. So, you know, I mean the the thing is about the nature out there. But you know, now be looking at a concrete wall or a vinyl fence by a retention pond that's adjacent to my property. By the way, where is the weir going to be located on that? Because the way I understand, they're not allowed to dump their

1:42:31water onto my property. Okay, and uh this is a rural area, not the place for multifamily homes Apartments or townhomes. Plus as like what Sam talked about, the extra traffic, you know. You're talking, you know, another hundred cars out there if they get that changed over. But You know, what's next? Another red light that at whose cost? You know, the taxpayers, and that's y'all and us. Instead of the developer. So, you know, if if all he wants to build

1:43:01is those houses, why is he going to change it to an R three from an R one? Thank you very much.

1:43:06Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Anybody want the Bush Hogan done, that's the man they do it right there, I tell you.

1:43:16Okay.

1:43:21Okay. Anybody? Rebuttal? Okay. We have uh we're ready for rebuttal, I guess.

1:43:30Oh, we got one more.

1:43:33My name is Lisa Carter and I reside at [address removed] in [address removed]. My thing is, how are we gonna do all this infrastructure? It's a well area. I saw four well drills this year alone, just this year alone from my neighbors. Uh one on the the corner of Randy and Lacey, my neighbor across the street. She had a well only like six, seven weeks ago, and then my neighbor

1:44:03behind me had a well. My neighbors on the on the right side of me had a well. Where's all the infrastructure gonna go? And I love the nature and I would like to make it that way. Thank you very much.

1:44:14Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming.

1:44:18Okay, one last r ask. Anyone else?

1:44:25We got one more, it looks like.

1:44:30Yes sir, if you could state your name and address.

1:44:32Herb MacFarlane. I live at [address removed]. [address removed]. My concern is several. I know you've all heard the same thing before. But uh the traffic is horrible out there. Now, and you want to put more out there? As far as the land goes

1:45:00You bought it as Zone one. We need to leave it as zone one.

1:45:09One life. I have a turtle. She's that bigger on. Comes across my property. All of her offspring. He was born back here. Thank you.

1:45:23Yeah. Okay.

1:45:31Okay.

1:45:34If not.

1:45:36Uh we would like to hear the rebuttal, please.

1:45:42Yes. And this is Alex again. I've taken notes of everyone's concerns. And Julie noted them. Okay. In regards to the consistency of the site, the current zoning is R1, whereas the future land use is R3. We are utilizing a Euclidean rezoning for R3 zoning designation, whereas the budding property to the south.

1:46:13The future land use is res 6 and the the zoning is R4. So for the consistency, we are abutting that property and we're still providing buffering to the adjacent homes being that we're using R3 instead of R6. So we are going to be continuing a zoning buffering and following

1:46:44consistency. As for the flooding,

1:46:50It has been duly noted that there is a drainage easement and that there is currently a drainage ditch from the lake to the wetlands. We will be working with our environmental team in regard To those aspects, and then additionally working closely with the stormwater department and our civil engineers to meet all the code requirements for the SWIFT MUD permitting of this site

1:47:20to ensure that no flooding takes place.

1:47:27As for uh the gentleman with the the home backing up to the retention, we are not looking to have a concrete fence. Um As for uh we wouldn't be meeting all the requirements in the stormwater manual uh of a believe a six-foot fence in that location. Um However, we have strategically designed this so that you don't have a roadway to the back of your home. Um as I had previously

1:47:58stated the redesign approach that we would take. Um and this way you still have green space behind your home with a a pond. And And the the back of other homes as other homes across the street have in your area, which is consistent and conforming to the vicinity. And as for the weir, our overflow weir and drainage would all go towards the wetlands in the middle, um,

1:48:28meeting all the requirements set forth in the stormwater manual.

1:48:36Um as for the comment in regards to regular zoning and keeping it regular zoning and putting four homes, the current R1 zoning has a density intensity of 2.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which technically would entitle this site to a density of 26 total lots. Whereas we're using less than half of that.

1:49:04Okay. And then

1:49:08I believe that meets all of the comments and concerns that uh I've taken note of.

1:49:15Okay. All right. I'm gonna give make a comment to you. And then if you're gonna come up and make such pronouncements about the density, you might wanna read our comprehensive plan and learn that you don't get to count wetlands in the density.

1:49:32Yes, so i in that case if if that is the case, um Ava, do you mind telling me the acreage of this site that's not wetlands?

1:49:44We would be allowed sixteen more.

1:49:48So can I ask a follow-up question to that then? So if you're confident you're allowed sixteen homes, then why do you need to rezone this?

1:49:56Certainly

1:49:56for the lot sizes.

1:50:00Yes, we initially went through to go the M PUD process to have flexibility.

1:50:12under the current zoning, correct?

1:50:15That is correct.

1:50:16Then why do you need to rezone it?

1:50:19We don't. We're we're just looking for flexibility, that's all.

1:50:26Mm-hmm.

1:50:28I'm gonna make a suggestion.

1:50:32You can either move to you can either voluntarily withdraw your case. Or I can make a motion to deny your case.

1:50:45And before I answer that, I would like to state I spoke with the developer and he has ensured me as he had done previously that he is okay with doing the or polling the off site improvements of the utility seventeen hundred linear feet. Do we know that there's capacity

1:51:04for that?

1:51:07That's something we'll need to work with your jurisdiction and it sounds like uh you would like to move forward. I appreciate everyone's time. Um so in this case we will withdraw for the current moment and re-evaluate

1:51:27with uh your utilities and get back with you in regards to the direction we take.

1:51:32Well sir, just to be clear, you there's no such thing as withdrawing for the current moment. If you're withdrawing the application, you're withdrawing the application and then refiling it whenever you Do all your research. Is that what you're doing?

1:51:50Um that that looks to be the direction that we will take uh if

1:51:58So so that's a yes that you are withdrawing the application?

1:52:03And do you have authorization from your owner to do that?

1:52:09I don't have authorization as of yet and also I need uh Let's

1:52:13back up let's back up.

1:52:14Who is the authorized agent

1:52:16for this application, Denise?

1:52:18Mr.

1:52:18Hoffman. Michael, could you have regards to this? Mr. Hoffman is the authorized agent?

1:52:23That's correct.

1:52:26If he's the authorized agent, he has authority to withdraw the application. So

1:52:33So the main thing I I would I'm I've just been absorbing every all the comments uh and the only the owner has communicated to us that he's willing to pay for the utility Uh on seventeen hundred feet. to to access that the only Open item here is Is there sufficient capacity in the system for this?

1:53:03So if we if we do not withdraw it Then your position is you're just gonna deny it? Is that what I heard?

1:53:11Well I might.

1:53:12I'm thinking

1:53:12about it.

1:53:13Well, sir, to b I'm not sure it's accurate to say you're asserting that that's the only open item. Okay, but That's your Yeah. That doesn't mean that's a correct argument. So

1:53:27I your your own expert just testified that they don't need to rezone it. To get sixteen lots. So I'm not I'm not even sure you've established a basis to rezone the property at all.

1:53:39We we have to make a determination today based on what you have given us. If we don't have all the information that we need to make a determination, then how can we approve the application. If if that even if there's one open item about capacity, that's an open item about capacity, how can we approve that application if that one item's open, even if there are even if that's the only one.

1:54:03Is there a provision to pro to approve with a contingency to verify that?

1:54:08No, we can't we cannot condition a Euclidean rezoning request. We could if this was an MPUD, but we it's not. You I mean you can Volunteer deed restrictions, but

1:54:20I'm not sure that You you're You're implying that the only open issue here is the utilities. I'm not sure based on the right-of-way. the comments I've heard today that that's the only issue.

1:54:34And sir, it I believe I have answered all the concerns and comments um with a appropriate manner to Okay, with

1:54:45all due respect, I asked you If you can get sixteen lots under the existing zoning, why do you do why do you need to rezone it, your answer is I don't.

1:54:56Well we do need to rezone it in order to have the lot sizes that we were.

1:55:01So then were you lying when you said you could get sixteen lots under the existing zoning?

1:55:09For the the hardship of the geometry on site. We we cannot fit the the the lock count. So in term in that term, yes we would need to rezone. For the density sake, we do not need to rezone.

1:55:24Well Alex uh with with due respect, I think they brought up the fact that you cannot count the wetlands in part of that density.

1:55:32Correct. And using only uplands, we have sixteen dwelling units.

1:55:36I asked you whether you could get sixteen. You s you testified that you can get sixteen dwelling units under the existing zoning. That includes the existing lot sizes. If you're testifying if you're testifying to the Planning Commission then you can get sixteen units under the existing zoning, that's all the existing zoning. That's not just the The density, that's lot sizes, setbacks, that's everything. So were you lying to me? Were you lying to the Planning Commission when you said that you could get 16 units

1:56:07under the existing zoning?

1:56:10I was not to clarify to clarify I was speaking in regards to the density, um not for all aspects of

1:56:19the That wasn't my question, sir. My question was, can you get sixteen lots under the existing zoning? You told me yes.

1:56:26No, I no we cannot.

1:56:28So we so were you lying then or are you lying now?

1:56:32Sir that uh the the the word lying is a little strong. I think he w he learned a few things about what's counted in that and so I think he's restating his position. I don't think he's perfectly lying. You know me

1:56:46did you guys terrifying you guys need to go back And you need to reevaluate what your job is as an engineer. Your job is to engineer a solution. Right now you're attempting to practice land use law. And you're not doing a very good job of it. And it took me a long time. I've been doing this, I'm in my 29th year this year as being licensed as a professional engineer in this state. And

1:57:17a lot of times I say that engineers are underpaid land use attorneys, but we all ultimately have to figure out that we are not land use attorneys. My job is one of a technical nature, and so is yours. Leave the land use law to the land use attorneys. And I would tell you that there's a very nice lady sitting in a green dress in the audience out here that could probably give you some advice.

1:57:41God.

1:57:43If you wanted to.

1:57:45And so let me uh

1:57:49So I recommend, Alex and Ava, that we withdraw this, get back with our client, revisit all the requirements, and come back at a different day if that should be the case.

1:58:01Okay. Sorry I gotta I gotta be clear with you. Okay.

1:58:06If you're withdrawing the application, that means you're withdrawing the application and you refile a new application for whatever you think after you've done all your homework, if you want to refile it as an MPUD or something else. That's that's a withdrawal of the application and it's a refiling of a new one. Okay. You can't temporarily withdraw something. Are you are you asking the Planning Commission to approve this or continue it? What are you asking the Planning Commission to do? Or withdraw. Pick one

1:58:36of those three. How about that? Are you withdrawing? Or are you asking the app the Planning Commission to continue this or approve it?

1:58:47Is that two or is that three?

1:58:49So I'm giving you three choices.

1:58:51That's why you ought not to practice land use

1:58:53at all. So I've given you three choices. You can voluntarily withdraw it, in which case you are going to refile a new application if you still want to proceed with something other than R one. Or you can request the Planning Commission to continue it or approve it. They don't have no obligation to do either one of those things, and they could just deny it. The only one that's totally within your control is withdrawing it. So I'm giving you three choices. You can withdraw it, Or you can make it very clear to the Planning Commission

1:59:23what your request is. Are you con or is it a request to continue it or a request to approve it today?

1:59:31Michael, I think we should move forward with withdrawing it. So just say that we want to withdraw.

1:59:36My my my suggestion is a continuance so that we can extend this to another time.

1:59:43Well

1:59:43who

1:59:44speaks for the applicant?

1:59:45So m it's Mr. Hoffman's the authorized agent. I would so so So we're

1:59:51we are going to withdraw this. Mm And rethink this whole thing. So we are withdrawing this application.

1:59:58Is that Mr. Hoffman speaking?

2:00:01This is Michael Hoffman, PE speaking. And you are the authorized agent. I'm the authorized agent. Okay. Very good.

2:00:08Thank you. The application has been withdrawn. No further actions required.

2:00:18You should have all stood when you were applauding.

2:00:26Okay. Well, I think that answers many questions for many of the people here. So if you'd like to stay and hear everybody else's problems, you're welcome to.

2:00:40Or not.

2:00:46Maybe we should run for all.

2:00:49You want

2:00:49a two-minute reset? Damn right.