Zoning Amendment – Evans County Line 80 MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – Evans Properties, Inc. – A Rezoning Petition from A-C Agricultural District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development to Allow 300 Multi-Family Units (Platted Townhomes and Condominiums), 100,000 Square Feet of Support Commercial, and 1,500,000 Square Feet of Light Industrial Uses on Approximately 80 Acres, Located South of County Line Road North and East of Lake Iola Road
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Denial
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Feb 6, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-25-7738 in full →PDE-25-7738 was taken up 12 times between Oct 3, 2024 and Jul 15, 2025, continued 5 times — this is appearance 6.
- Oct 3, 2024PlanningPC2No disposition in the minutes
- Oct 8, 2024BoardP47No disposition in the minutes
- Nov 7, 2024PlanningPC1▶No disposition in the minutes
- Nov 12, 2024BoardP68▶Continued
- Jan 9, 2025PlanningPC4▶No disposition in the minutes
- Feb 6, 2025PlanningAPC3▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Feb 11, 2025BoardP33▶Continued
- Mar 6, 2025PlanningPC1Continued
- Mar 11, 2025BoardP40▶Continued
- Apr 3, 2025PlanningP8Approved
- May 6, 2025BoardP43▶Continued
- Jul 15, 2025BoardP83Approved
What was said
Machine transcription of 4h 55m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 80% of 1,216 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Mr Chair, the addendum adja the addendum item APC three, PDE twenty five-seven seven three eight. It's a zoning amendment in the name of Evans County Line. 80 MPUD Master Plan Unit Development, Evans AD proper sorry, Evans Properties Inc. This is actually coming with a request to continue the item to the March 6th Planning Commission meeting in Dade City at 1.30. But I believe the applicant may be objecting. All
right, it's the applicant present.
Okay.
Yes, Mr. Chairman Joel II. I'm the land use uh development consultant for the property owner and applicant. We vigorously oppose any continuance. As you know, this matter was originally scheduled way back September 5th of last year with a staff agenda memo recommending approval and the hearing actually was opened and started. It was then continued. continued for the opportunity to have a community meeting, which we went and did. That was delayed
twice for two hurricanes. and we ultimately scheduled to come back to you on January ninth. On January 2nd, I received an email out of the blue from Mr. Vermillion telling me that he had been told that staff was to change its recommendation of approval. Um And Therefore, we mutually agreed. to continue the January nine scheduled Planning Commission hearing while we
could address those Yeah. Uh you actually made a motion and you continued this at the public hearing on January 9th to today's date certain. Um this application has been pending now for almost two years, literally twenty two months. Um and you now have before you Finally, which we all received late yesterday afternoon after me being told on January second that they were changing the recommendation
late yesterday afternoon we all received their memorandum now recommending denial. So you have their position today. To proceed. Um we also in the interim completely negotiated and finalized 54 conditions. consuming fifteen pages of conditions that would apply in the event you see fit to rec amend approval of our project. Those have been vetted by PED and the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Goldstein
has seen those and signed off on them in the event we get approval. So our position is you have everything in front of you to either approve it with conditions that have been agreed upon or anything else you see fit to add or to deny the project. But we respectfully request either a recommendation of approval Or recommendation of denial so that we can get this saga over with one way or the other. So we would like to be heard, please.
All right, thank you. Is there anyone here to object?
Are you talking but let's be clear, are you talking about I just want to know if there are people here that want to speak to this?
Mr. Chair, we do have a pretty long list of individuals who would like to speak on the item.
Okay. Um so you're recommending the you are asking for a continuance. You were but the county is actually recommending Uh denial.
Okay, right. So the request is to continue the item to March 6th in Dade City at 1 30 p.m. There are two alternative motions in your agenda packet. The first alternative motion would be recommend denial of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners. And then the alternative motion number two would be: in the event Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning, the applicant's conditions of approval which were reviewed by staff are attached to your agenda packet.
Okay.
Um staff does have a presentation um if so desired.
Yes, yes, angle.
Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, just a note for the record, uh we received um uh new material from the applicant uh last Saturday and also Monday. And uh we were requesting continuance to have more time to digest that information and also have a meeting for its chamber or county attorney's office. That's the that's the meeting.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Larry. All right. So you wanna go ahead with your presentation?
So Just just so we're clear for the audience, are you wanting to go ahead and have the public hearing today on it? Because I'm not sure if you're asking for public testimony on the request for continuance or if you're actually want to go and have the hearing. Well.
Money uh the the applicant clearly wants to be heard. It's the it's county staff that is requesting the continuance. I believe Mr Ingall's position is either continuance or denial. Is that accurate? Yes, sir.
I'm just saying I think you need to be clear with the audience as to whether we're having the full hearing today or you're asking them to comment only on the request for the
continuance. So should we perhaps have a motion as to whether to continue the item or not first and then from there
Yeah, I mean to be clear, you could have a full hearing and then decide at the end to continue it. That's your option too. But I just I wanted to be clear when you're asking somebody to come speak to this, whether it's the applicant or Now the applicant's already spoken to the request for continuance. They haven't done their full presentation on the actual application yet. When the public speaks I just want to be clear with them as to what they're speaking to, the application or the continuance. So that's why I asked for the clarification. Yeah.
But if y if somebody wants to make a motion on that issue about whether you're gonna have the hearing today, I guess you can that's up to the Planning Commissioner.
Yeah, I'd like to hear the r uh the um you know, what the Planning Commission feels that we need to move how we need to move forward on this one. The you know, I'm sensitive to the fact that um the applicant has been working on this for two years. You know, I think it's a long time. But at the same time I think uh you know there must be uh good reasons for for the county to ask for either continuance or denial. Without hearing all the facts, it's gonna be hard to
make a decision.
So I'd like to like to have the flavor of the board here
if you want to make a motion. Well part of it's being respectful of the time of all the people that showed up here to make a present, you know. I've coming on this um this has been continued a number of times and these folks have kind of been kicked down the road as well. So But um I'd I'd move that we uh hear the hear the case today and then we can make a decision at the end of that. Okay. I
will second that. I think the applicant is uh totally stayed at their position, they want to be heard today and want to get a resolution one way or the other. So uh and also being respectful of all the folks that have showed up to provide testimony, I'll gladly second that.
Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Not all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Okay, so we'll uh we'll hear it today, but I would I just ask you, we're gonna have to do this since there's a lot of people here, do this in an orderly fashion. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't no clapping and cheering and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Chair booing and uh uh you know, it's just try to be respectful of each other and have a fair
hearing and so on. Yes.
I'd ask that maybe one last time if they intend to speak. If they haven't been sworn, please be sworn because this happens where we end up with a lot of people that end coming up and then the clerk has to individually swear them. Excuse me, sir.
Just wait a minute. Okay. Be alright with you. Um
Yeah. Okay. So Just understand that if you didn't s you have not been sworn and you give testimony, it won't hold any water. So if you do want to give testimony and you haven't been sworn, we need to know about it. Okay.
M Mr. Chairman, a point uh a question of procedure. Would would you be kind enough to ask the clerk to also swear any staff members who are going to testify? Uh it's patently unfair for us to testify under oath and them not, particularly in this contested setting. I think under under the quasi-judicial rules we're entitled to that. So I would ask them to be sworn. They did not stand and swear originally.
Okay.
Yes sir.
I'd like the mystery speaker to get back up.
Sir, he's sir you mean. Come on. You cannot speak from the audience like that.
If you want to speak, come up to the microphone and give us your name and address. Have you been sworn?
Yeah.
I can tell you right now, I'm not gonna let this get out of hand. So if you can't be n b be civil, then
my name is Roger Snyder. My address is [address removed]. All I'm asking is you use your rules to everybody. If this mystery speaker can get up and rattle off without giving a name, an address, or who he's representing, that's wrong. So
you did give his name and address.
No you did
not.
You need to calm down, sir. Okay, so get your facts right-of-way
to the specific request in an abundance of caution when we do swear everybody in staff if you can go ahead and swear in as well. That'd be go ahead and do that. If you're gonna be testifying. So I guess that would be include you Will and maybe Mr. Ingall and Mr. Pitos. So let's do that right now.
And anybody else in the audience who's not sworn in, please do it now.
You swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth of the love you got.
Thank you everyone.
Yeah.
Good afternoon, Members of the Planning Commissioner Weightman, Planning Development and Economic Growth.
Before you today is the Avids County Line ADMP item PDE 257738. Here is a general location of the project site at the north of the intersection of Planton and Lake Iola Road.
This request is a rezoning from AC Agricultural to MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the maximum development of 300 multifamily units, 100,000 square feet of support commercial, 1.5 million of square feet of light industrial on approximately 80 acres. It should be noted that the conditions of approval that you have today have been edited by the applicant to distinguish that the 300 multifamily units are platted townhomes and platted condominiums.
approximately point three miles from the I-75 interchange.
Here's an aerial of the subject site. The current zoning reflecting AC agricultural The future land use reflecting EC Employment Center. Here is an overall context map showing the red subject site, I-75, the large category wetland, and County Line Road to the north.
Here is the applicant's proposed master plan showing the industrial non-residential sites with the multifamily site that can also be used for industrial.
There's one variation with this application from LDC 9016 D11 street design and dedication requirements. The applicant provides, seeks to not provide an interconnection to the east or to the north.
And for the comprehensive plan consistency report, I'm going to turn this one over to Nectarios Beethos.
Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Towards Pito's Planning Development, Economic Growth Department. To continue with the presentation here today, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the following comprehensive comprehensive plan policies, objectives, and policies. Um here we state a number of them: the future land use appendix A6, future land use map EC. Employment Center, that section of the comprehensive plan defines the future land use category itself, what it all entails, including
special provisions and principle guidelines and principles associated with that fluke. Flu being future land use. Policy flu 1.10.1, compatibility review, policy flu 1.10.5, relationship of land use to zoning classifications, and another series of policies in the public facilities.
uh element of the comprehensive plan, which are these are the water policies, objective Watt 2.4 employment centers, policy Watt 2.4.1, provisional portable water services for industrial employment center land uses, policy Watt 2.2, central water and employment center areas, Policy Flu 2113, provisions of portable water. Policy WAT Water and Sanitary Survey. Policy WAT 214, Provisions of Portable Water Rural Area. Policy WAT 224, public acquisition of private utilities. Policy
Flu 217, standards for review of the rezoning request. Rural neighborhoods. Policy Flu 2110 Corridor Overlay District for Rural Scenic Roadways in the Northeast Pasco County Rural Area. Policy Flu 211 Rural Residential Roads. And so what I'd like to do today is simply identify the main arc of the inconsistency associated with the present the lack of. or lack of presence of utilities, namely water and sewer in
the area, and how the project does not comply with the Northeast Rural policies of the comprehensive plan.
Uh so I'll I'll briefly touch on some of these for the for for this uh presentation today. Policyflu 110.1, which is the compatibility review. Policyflu 1.10.1 discusses compatibility and the appropriate timing of rezoning actions among others. In this case, Flu 1.10.1E notes appropriate timing based on an analysis of availability of adequate public facilities slash services, including one transportation facilities, two water sewer
facilities, and three other necessary infrastructure and services. The lack of transportation facilities at this location, water and sewer facilities, and other necessary infrastructure to service both residential and non-residential developments at this location is an issue for the comprehensive plan. The proposed project is inconsistent with Policy Flu 1.10.1 and that the timing of the project is inappropriate. Given the lack of facilities, especially water and sewer. Policy flu 1.10.5
is the relationship of the land of land use to zoning classifications. And in this policy, it notes that a property owner is not entitled to all zoning classifications or the most potentially dense or intense zoning classification within a land use designation. Numerous planning, timing, compatibility, public facility, and other generally acceptable planning issues affect the appropriateness of assigning a particular zoning classification or approve a particular land use with regard to a particular parcel of property. That's what the policy states. There are no public
water or sewer utilities to service the density or intensity of the proposed development. Additionally, there are no parks, public spaces, or public services, such as public services or police within proximity. There's no the nearest GoPasco transit facility, for example, isn't at the Pasco Hernando State College, which is about six or so miles away. Finally, with regard to policy flu 1.10.5, the Lake Iola Road is a rural residential road,
and we'll talk a little bit about that shortly, which does not and cannot have the adequate and typical pedestrian infrastructure and amenities in its rural cross-section to support the density or intensity of the proposed development. Moreover, Lake Iola Road cannot have this infrastructure as it must maintain its. its rule appearance cross section as a scenic roadway. And we'll talk a little bit about that shortly. As far as policy Watt 2.4.1, provision of potable water services for industrial and employment center land uses, and policy Watt 2.4.2,
central water and employment center areas, we notice in those policies that there is a mandate to for an evaluation of whether, quote, portable Water services are available or whether additional potable water improvements are necessary in order to support the desired location of industrial land uses and and employment center land uses and places a high priority on central water improvements. In this case, public utilities are not within reasonable distance of the proposed development as there is no water and sewer service in this area to support the proposed residential and non-residential
development. At this time, as as I understand it, the nearest connection point is approximately ten miles away from the subject site.
Policy flu two one seven, uh this brings us to the Northeast Rural uh policies. This is these are policy this policy speaks to standards for review of the rezoning requests for rural in rural neighborhoods. So policy flu two one seven contemplates rezoning occurring within the Northeast Pasco County rural area, which is rural area number one. Meeting specific review criteria to protect surrounding rural neighborhoods. I'm not going to go through each and every one of them, but if you were to look at the policy, it's
clear that the policy is not only applicable to residential development, it also contemplates how commercial and other non-residential uses interrelate with the residential. scope, which is the Northeast Rule. Pursuant to P and the agricultural scope, of course. Pursuant to policy of flu 217, the policy outlines a series of criteria that have not been addressed by the proposed development as it relates to the development of multifamily residential. as well as design compatibility with the character of the rural area.
Additionally, non-residential entitlements are not exempt from addressing the criteria of this policy. These also have not been satisfied with the proposed project at this time. Policy FLU two one ten Corridor Overlay District for Rural Scenic Roadways in the Northeast Pasco County Rural Area. So policy flu 2110 requires that any pot any proposed development on a designated rural scenic roadway uh comply with the land development code standards for land development along rural scenic roads. Lake Iola
Road, which is where uh access would be for this particular subject site, is a rural scenic road per section six oh four point four B1 of the Land Development Code. It's also identified in the comprehensive plan. The proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan since it does not adhere to the scenic roadway standards of the Land Development Code. Pursuant to policy flu 2110, corridor overlay district for rural scenic roadways. Roadways classified as either a rural scenic road or rural residential road shall be critical to sustaining and maintaining the rural
character of this area. And so Lake Iola Road is classified as a rural residential road as set forth in the Land Development Code, section 404, 604, excuse me, point four B1, and shall be designed to the rural typical cross-section as depicted in Figure 604-3 of the Land Development Code. Which is consistent with flu 211 and flu 2112, which I'll get into now. So policy flu 211 is rural residential roads. This policy states
Pasco County shall recognize the importance of rural residential roads within northeast Pasco County rural area for the purposes of protecting rural character and shall ensure that these roadways sustain and maintain. in this character. In accordance with this policy, as set forth even in the Land Development Code, section six oh four point four, figure six oh four point two, Lake Iola Road, is identified as both a rural residential road and scenic roadway. It would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan to situate More than rural density and intensity, whether uh
residential or non-residential, along rural residential roads or scenic roadways of the northeast Pasco County rural area, as it would detract from the intent of preserving The rural character of the area and does not uphold the intent of policy for 211. As an extra layer of incompatibility, we should note that when considering non-residential development along roads designated as rural residential roads, the rural residential roads presumes a resid residential
character along the roadway.
And that completes the analysis in terms of the the policies and the comprehensive plan associated with utilities, water and sewer specifically, and the Northeast Rural uh criteria. Uh the land development code sections will be reviewed by will be presented by Mr. Will of Vermillion. Uh these are the follow-through Land Development Code provisions to the policies that had have just been mentioned in the comprehensive plan.
Alright, Terry.
Is
any questions?
Yeah, I got a
lot. Yeah. I think
that's a good one.
One I'm gonna ask and we slow down. You just went through, I don't know, like a dozen policies and objectives from the comprehensive plan. And you said that the development doesn't comply with these policies and objectives. Then you didn't for most of 'em you didn't explain why. And being that I don't have our two thousand plus page comprehensive plan memorized, I don't have the text of those policies. I'd like to see the text of those policies and an explanation of why. But
let me ask a question about sewer and water since we're making it Actually let me back up. It sounded like from your list of policies that you say this doesn't comply with that there are a lot of them that you're citing because this development lies within the northeast rural area.
Is that correct? Uh many of the pol uh particularly the c policies on compatibility have to do with the timing of the project. I understand. But it's because they're in the northeast rural area. In that uh the northeast rural area being mainly agricultural has not I've not seen utilities extended through them.
I understand that. What I'm saying is there are certain policies that you're applying to this development because of its location being within the northeast rural area. Yes. If it wasn't in the northeast rural area, then those policies would not apply.
Uh for instance scenic roadways.
Yeah, scenic roadways is particular to the northeast rural overlay area. Okay. However, policy flu two one seven is cross-referenced and applicable within rural areas two, which is the rural transition area. Rural Area Three, which is rural character area, and rural area four, which is a rural neighborhood protection area. They they go back in the
reference to
one seven.
And for instance, in the EC Employment Center description in the flu appendix, there's a requirement. for them to transition the land use from more intense to less intense as it gets closer to the northeast rural area, specifically this EC located at the although the comp plan calls this wrong every time it's calls it the I seventy five US forty one EC. I think they mean C R forty one. C R forty one. Right.
Right. So if they weren't in the northeast rural area, those things wouldn't apply, right? If they were just in some E C somewhere else.
Uh if to the extent that there's no E C in the other rural areas, correct.
And they haven't asked to be removed from a rural area, is that correct? That's correct. Okay.
The reason that I asked that folks is there's a group of rabble rousers on Facebook that want you to think that this applicant has asked to be removed from the Northeast Rural Area. He has not. And there are certain provisions of the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan that they will have to adhere to if this is approved, and I don't know whether it will be or not. that they wouldn't otherwise have to if they weren't located in the n northeast rural area. So when the
Facebook people tell you That this application is a de facto withdrawal from the northeast rural area, they should probably go back and review the comprehensive plan. and the land development code and know what they're talking about before they Post misinformation on their Facebook group. And now let me ask you about this, Mr. Petos. What policy you didn't mention in your list was what about policy SEW three point one point six?
And I'll ask you this first before I ask you, is EC a higher land use than Res three?
Um
You me which policy did you mention?
S.E.W. three point one point six.
EC
is a higher future language category than S3. So I have this policy in front of me. It says Pasco County shall require the installation of a central wastewater treatment plant in accordance with the county sewer use ordinance. Where connection to an existing central sanitary system is not available, and the development is located in an area designated by the future land use map as Res 3 or Higher, which is why I asked you the question, and A. The development
consists of more than 25 residential units, which I guess this development does. And B, the net residential density is more than three units per net acre. And I guess three hundred divided by eighty is more than three per net acre, is that correct? Yes. Okay. So are you tell so does this policy not apply? It does. It does apply. So he it it he shall require it shall Pasco County
shall require the installation of a central wastewater treatment plant. Then there's policy Sue three point two point six. Does that apply to this development?
Three point two? Yeah. Point six.
It says consistent with the provision of services and facilities within the northeast Pasco rural area. That's what we're talking about here. Pasco County shall A continue to rely primarily upon individual septic tank systems as the method of disposal of wastewater within the rural area, B continue. require that new development within the rural area shall not be designed nor constructed with central sewer systems. Public and private central systems shall be Not may, shall.
If paid for by the landowner-developer permitted in the future if Number five, it is within the I-75 US-41 Interchange Mixed Use Employment Center Res 9 designated properties. Is this employment center the I-75 US 41 interchange EC properties? Uh it is the So this policy would say that they shall
Build a Suez Treatment Plan. Or that they may if they pay for it. in by themselves and the policy before it says they actually shall do it.
The policy I reference in the slides on that subject is policy
Two one thirty.
Two
one thirty
no policy. Yeah, policy flu two one thirteen is the same policy that the that is in policy SEW three two six.
So So you but you're saying that's inconsistent. This this appears to be wholly consistent. They're located in this employment center.
And this up This provision appears to allow them to construct a central sewer system so long as they pay for it. And it would seem that the policy prior, three point one point six, actually requires them to do it, shall require the installation of a central wastewater treatment plant. And they met all the criteria that are under that. So I'm trying to figure out how these policies are inconsistent with the development.
The and could you put up objective WAT two point four employment centers? Could we see that?
And policy Watt two point four point two Central Water and Employment Center areas? Can you put that up there?
Sorry, look.
W A T two point four. I'm sorry, policy Watt two point four point one.
So I'll note that The comprehensive plan contemplates in numerous locations central systems for utility service. Right. It specifically names this one. That's correct. It does name it. Um
However, the comprehensive plan uh leaves the implementation aspect of it to the land development code. And in the land development code, in section five twenty-two MPUDs, it contemplates uh publicly funded infrastructure in this particular Can you show me? Yeah.
We'll have to vote off the code first. Um additionally I would I would argue that pol these policies have to be balanced against policy Watt two two four, which is talking about uh public acquisition of private utilities. So there's a contemplation of a comprehensive plan. that private utilities are consolidated and turned into public utilities that ultimately are
Whoa Whoa
whoa whoa whoa wait a minute. Who said that anybody was developing a private utility? A non publicly funded, I should say. Well, there's a difference between having a packaged wastewater treatment plant and creating a utility.
Just sound.
I I would be able to
A utility is I provide service to other people other than myself. If he provides service to himself, he hasn't created a utility. And I would tell you, I would not be up here supporting the creation of any private utilities.
Yeah, but that wouldn't be a central system. That would be an a private system uh an
individualized system. Yeah, but we're confusing this. This doesn't say a central system, it says a central wastewater treatment plant. It doesn't say a private utility system or central system. I can appreciate And I quickly before I got here this morning and I'm I'm gonna say this to systems. I'm a little perturbed too to get this agenda. at three o'clock in the afternoon. the day before the hearing, the most contentious
case that this Planning Commission has probably heard in a year. Okay, I get it. And I get a list of comprehensive plan policies. I'm supposed to read those. And be prepared to Make a judgment, make a decision. And I'm asking you to put these up on the screen because I read some of these. And I I Don't get me wrong, I understand the staff's recommendation for denial. But what I see with this
litany of policies is that you guys went and grabbed a bunch of policies out of the air without actually reading them or understanding them, grasping at straws. I understand them. Some of which are not even applicable to this project. I'm gonna tell you, I've been working with the applicant's attorney for many, many, many years. He's a sharp cookie. And he's gonna take that list and he's gonna bring it to a judge And you ain't gonna stand a chance. If you want to come in
and make a recommendation for denial and I'm still wanting to hear the rest of this case, wait. Then you need to make sure you pick the policies that actually apply to the issues of the development. A lot of these say that the county is going to prioritize bringing utilities to this particular employment center. He could go down there to a judge and say, hey, the county's not following its comp plan. They didn't prioritize getting utilities to my property. What
say you to that?
The timing compatibility review is the key. When was the employment center created? In two thousand and five. But I will say
twenty years ago. Understood. But I will say the that you're suggesting that the Planning Commission hasn't had enough time to which the Planning and Development and Economic Growth Department our primary uh re recommended motion was a continuance.
Well, okay, so let me ask this question. This is one's really nagging at me. We came in here September 5th. And there was a staff recommendation of approval.
I look at this case today, and I'm sorry, because since I got it so late yesterday, I didn't get a chance to actually go look at the s the MPUD plan that was included in my September fifth agenda. But if I recall in the previous version of the MPUD plan, all of the warehousing and industrial was on the east side. I'm sorry, was on the west side and the apartments on the east side. It looks like they've been flip flopped. Is that uh I see. They're
shaky. So this is the same. So what's changed? You come in here on September fifth And There's a recommendation of approval, and we come in here today with the same exact development, and now there's a recommendation of denial.
So ex and I'm not saying and I I'll caution my colleagues and the county attorney just because I ask a question that doesn't mean I'm predisposed to a certain position on this case. We know you don't.
And it doesn't mean I'm a flip flopper either. I just want to get all the facts. What what happened? Wha why why the change of heart here?
Mr Moody, may I address that please?
I yield.
Okay. Thank you. So the the letter, the memorandum that was presented to the Planning Commission in their packet in September was a uh it was an approval recommendation with conditions. Things have changed since that September meeting, and the applicant asked for a continuous. Number one, the Board of County Commissioners is entertaining two other separate projects that have a similar situation where they wanted to get zoning subject to water and sewer. And
the board rejected that overture twice. Number two, we are very much uh Towards the end of the 11th chapter of the 12th chapter book with our comp plan, and we learned that the road infrastructure up in this area is currently inadequate from a planning standpoint because of all the traffic and trip federation coming from the northern Mendo Channel. So um I had I had spoken, I had a conversation with Mr. Two
um well over a month ago, trying and I wanted to explain that we we would prefer because of the implications of this project that we dealt with this in the comp plan because we're going to be adopting a comp plan this year. And Mr. Two wasn't willing to discuss that in the phone. So that's what's changed here. We had new information. And frankly, I'll take responsibility. That memo that came out in September was under my cover. And I and I I
am glad that we've retracted it and we're doing the right thing in our opinion professionally.
Okay. I appreciate the explanation.
Any further? Yeah
I don't have any I don't think staff finished their presentation on Mr. Vermillion. Actually I well we haven't even gotten to see the MPUD. Well we did see the MPUD plan. All right. I have a question about in the employment center. Is that for
the end of use? So if you Mr. Petos or if
you have a question about the comp plan, Mr. Pitos is the one. If it's the Land Development Code, Mr. Bamillion hasn't done his presentation yet.
What is the staff interpretation of
And I'm looking at from the flu appendix the description of the employment center. And I'm looking at the locational criteria 2E. maintain compatibility by providing a transition of land use types, densities, intensities, and heights to buffer existing neighborhoods and uses from non-residential areas. What does the staff interpret that to mean? I could see
where different eyes And different brains could interpret that to mean different things.
I mean it I think it's a fairly straightforward provision. It's talking about uh ensuring that the land uses that may find may find themselves adjacent to one another are compatible. Um that the density and intensity are are not exceeding um are not overly exceeding the rural to rural. Character? Or uh
I would say the highest density that the the rural area allows is res one. So res one to properties that are so AG or AGR or along the boundaries of the
Ron
Oakley.
Okay, well and I and I think that's what's going on. There's some agricultural properties around the boundaries. Same thing with intensities. So could you give me an example of something that you think Would be a land use type that would be suitable to be located in an employment center yet be adjacent to the historic agricultural uses of the northeast rural area.
What I'm trying to understand is what would be acceptable. I understand staff is saying this is not acceptable, so I'm trying to get an idea as what would be acceptable if presented to staff.
It's hard to say without uh an a specific um
idea but I think the issue is that the Northeast Rural area w has within it an E C Employment Center Future Land Use category, right? So Where we're at with this is that um if you're going to have an employment center land use uh present, that it ought to be properly uh situated, set back, uh screened, um not along residential, rural residential roadways. Um you're
not going to in in employment center land use such as uh that listed in section five twenty two point five, for example, um wouldn't be incom necessarily incompatible with the EC flu. So that could locate still within the EC flu. It has uh the Northeast Rural area would have development um
Still working with the thing. you would have to mitigate the appearance and location of that development even in the EC flu home. According to the standards in two one seven. Okay.
And would it be your opinion that what's been presented by the applicant could be mitigated to comply with that compatibility requirement?
Could it be possible? Yeah, I I suppose
Yeah, are there are there things that you think that they could do to make that development more compatible with the adjacent surrounding northeast rural properties?
There may be ways to address policy flu two one seven. and still meet and be consistent with the locational criteria of the EC flu. But i it's a balancing act that we haven't seen in this project.
Okay.
I don't have any more questions. Okay, there you go.
I I had the same question as John as what's changed since September fifth, but that's or he ans asked and answered to
Thank you, Terry.
Mr. Vermillion.
We're really planning development economic growth.
Some of this may be pre repetitive, some of it is not. Some is codified examples of what we went over in the comp plan. Others are not.
the first section from L D C four two two, Master Plan Unit Development.
specify standards of review. that staff must go through in reviewing an MPUD application. and what the county administrator designee
can use for their determination of their recommendation.
So what specifically
is what what specific part of four oh two point two F have they not complied with?
Perfect. So L D C four O two two F, this section of the code lays out these components like I previously mentioned. There's three in total, two that are of worth uh note today. The first is the impact of the proposed development upon public improvements surrounding land uses in the neighborhood and subregion and significant environmental features in the surrounding neighborhood and subregion. That ties back to the Northeast Rule Overlay whenever we're talking about proposed development and the surrounding uses within the neighborhood. And
number two is the adequate
Well hold on. So when we came in on September fifth, this was not an issue. Mr. Engel cited that the boards turned down other zonings over utilities. He didn't talk about not being compatible with with the rural area, so what changed?
I'm speaking to the uh uh the components of the staff review. So
what I'm saying is when you came in on September fifth, th this You were recommending approval and we weren't citing that they were inconsistent with this policy, so what's changed that that's now inconsistent? Like I said, Mr. Engel explained that you know the boards the boards turned down some zonings over the the lack of availability of utilities, but that doesn't talk about compatibilities and inconsistent compatibilities with surrounding northeast rural areas.
Mr. Moody, I I did speak to that. I didn't just speak about transportation. I also indicated that we've gotten a lot of new data in regarding traffic and uh surrounding area impacts in this area. And What's changed is we have more information now, and that's why we had asked the applicant to work with us through the Complan process to address all these issues. So we have orderly
wealth plan development in this critical area of the county. We've been also through the fall and into December, a number of large property owners are following the Evans project and they have indicated that they want to also do high intensity development in this area. So we are concerned that we're planning by project and not comprehensive planal planning by area. So that's what's changed and uh that's why we're
here.
What if we had heard the case and it's entirety in September.
That was what it's
Well we never we never s we never recommend we we yeah we did um and the new information was available and the applicant uh requested a continuance
Go ahead, Will. And again, sir, I I'm fully responsible for that original agenda memory. So it's not the staff. I'm the one who came out of my signal.
Go ahead. Perfect. So the the second of which touches on the utilities issues that we that we just talked about. The the second criteria for staff review in terms of recommendation of approval or denial is the adequacy of existing public services and facilities serving the proposed development, including transportation systems, utilities, fire, and police protection.
I read the policy that said That they could, if they pay for it, build their own central wastewater treatment.
But it says the adequacy of existing public services. It's not existing currently. Well why would they need uh public services if they're allowed to build their own? Well the I'm I'm telling you the standards of review say existing. That's part of the recommendation of denials because of the existence. Go ahead.
about those existing public services which include the fire department and the police department.
In the agenda packet that that was a little bit late, so I'll go ahead and read in to the record what the Sheriff's Office uh provided in comments for planning development and economic growth.
The Pasco Sheriff's Office Says that at 2.5 residents per household. This is projected to add up to 750 new citizens, and based on this recommendation Of two deputies per 1,000 citizens served, this approval would indeed an additional 1.5 deputies above and beyond what is currently needed to catch up with their ratio as noted.
So that's the same statement he gives us on all of these.
Still a statement to the public services and they're existing for the LDC.
I I understand, but that's never been a reason for a recommendation of denial before and we had a meeting with the sheriff and and and suggested that he submit an impact fee study and that we would consider imposing an impact fee on new development to offset the additional burden of new development on his department.
But go ahead. Sure.
the the other section L D C six oh four the Northeast Pasco Rule Protection I believe that we have covered that in depth. Essentially what staff is saying with this section is the applicant as currently proposed isn't complying with six oh four four to include the extra buffering and trees and the rural typical section that otherwise would be adopted as currently proposed. Uh like Mr. Nictorious Pito said. That cross section is 135 feet of two lanes with
no sidewalks on either side. As of now with the conditions uh proposed and the master plan, there's not enough right-of-way dedication being done by the applicant to even accomplish the role that's right.
You didn't answer the question.
It's a question. Have you asked him for the competitors? For which we're going to do that. Mr. Vermillion is saying that there if the right-of-way is insufficient to provide the the necessary facilities within the right-of-way and that the applicant isn't giving the right-of-way for those f necessary facilities and I asked have you asked the applicant if he'd give the right-of-way? But it's pretty much tradition in this building that almost every applicant gives right of way to accommodate improved transportation facilities.
Mr Mr. Moody to answer your question, there is a if assuming you were to approve this, and I'm not saying you would, there's a condition sixteen that requires the applicant to give fifty seven feet a right away from the center line for They could have broken.
So is fifty seven feet from the center line adequate for those facilities?
But I think it's not even case. So uh so correct me if I'm wrong. Um so yes, the condition that Mr. Goldstein noted um is a so that a request is clearly made to identify the necessary right-of-way. Um but the right-of-way that's in there and being as I understand it's terms. is an alternative uh width requirement. In the condition. Well I'm I'm sorry, I'm
not understanding it. So it's essentially you're up here saying that you're not gonna have the right of way and that the applicant's not giving a right away, but if we approve it there's a condition of approval that
says he's gonna give the right-way. Well that's not that's not the it's it's a hundred and thirty five feet of right away necessary. I don't believe that that's the total right of way and by how staff interpreted this, much like the buffering requirements that by asking for this fifty-seven feet as well as the buffers proposed on the master plan that that was an effect asking for a variation from the code. But we asked the applicants to call out all these variations from the code at the beginning. This wasn't called out, so we had no choice but
to call it an inconsistency with the code.
And it took since September.
I mean most applicants are pretty savvy, isn't it? they know if there's a problem like that that they need to provide a buffer or they need to provide some right away to get approved for an entitlement as large as this ask is, usually that's chump change. I I got a hard time believing that, but go
ahead. Sure. And of course the lack set last section is nine and one sixty eleven, which we spoke to on the variation with this not providing the connections to the north and east staff found that it was inconsistent with the code on nine and one sixty eleven street design and dedication requirements.
Comes to you through the right-of-way.
And again, would you back that slide up? Sure. And one more time.
The issue of Lake Iola Road and L D C six O four, none of these things would apply if this EC were not located in the Northeast borough area.
S yes, specifically Lake Iowa is called out as a scenic corridor. I understand. Okay.
We are here for further questions.
I do have one question for um I don't know whether it's Mr. Petos or Mr. Ingall, but um so on the water and sewer, I think you mentioned that the nearest point of connection was ten miles away. Is that accurate?
Yes, sir, that's the approximate distance to public utilities.
So
would it let's put aside the road discussion just for a second. But in terms of just water and sewer, is your position that
This employment center would be supportable from a utility perspective if those connections were made ten miles away. If if that actually existed, if those connections that are ten miles away existed to this employment center, they were public connections, not the private utility system, which you've made it clear that you would not support for other reasons. But if it was a public utility connection to the points of connections that are ten miles away, Would that be sufficient?
water and sewer to support the employment center.
Mr. Goldstein, we do not know that answer. We haven't had the utilities uh assess the capacity of the system if it were to be extended about that 10 miles.
Well, I'm the reason I'm asking the question is because somebody put employment center on this property. So I'm trying to figure out what and and your denial recognition is fairly clear because it's a lack of Water and sewer transportation. I'm just trying to figure out At what point in the future would would there be adequate infrastructure to support an employment center in this location? Would uh is it when there's a connection ten miles away? That's what I'm asking.
We do not we do not have an answer to that question. Pasco County Attorney has not provided a capacity analysis. I but the hypothetical would be extended water and sewer in that area, public utilities, if we have adequ adequate treatment capacity in order to pass in a service location. Uh keep in mind this is where The EC was put in place in 2005-2006 and a lot's changed in the county since that time. And we are focusing all of
our utility attention on our urban service areas. We're getting a lot of apartment development, a lot of industrial development. And this is not variety, it's not in priority.
So yeah, I'm I'm only asking the question because it appears that the crux of your recommendation is that this rezoning is premature because there's inadequate infrastructure to support it. That's correct. What I'm asking is What level of infrastructure would be needed to eventually support an employment center and what I'm hearing is maybe it's connecting to this this locations that are ten miles away at some point in the future.
Well sir, that's why I was defaulting to the comp plan. We are now engaged with our partners at Pasco County Utilities. And if if we were going to promote development in this area, the property is currently zoned AC. It's not zoned for higher intensity uses. But if this area were to be a priority of Casco County to develop in an urbanized fashion, we have to consider the fact that the interchange there is rural design, not suburban-urban
design. And roads are inadequate for this type of intensity of use and certainly other poverty owners that we need for higher intensity projects. Yes. So all that information should be done through the complaint, not we should be doing it by the project.
Okay, so you're saying there would need to be some sort of area wide Discussion about bringing adequate utilities to this area as part of your comp plan update?
Yes, sir.
But
the comp plan already says that. It says Pasco County will prioritize bringing utilities to this specific EC.
Well, one could argue that the two provisions are conflict 'cause it also says it paid for by the developer.
No no no no that's that's different. The the policies that Terry didn't put up on the screen and didn't read
If you go into the policy SEWs and and WATs, there are actual individual one sentence long policies, and I'm sorry because I don't have the giant comp plan right here in front of me that state. Pasco County will prioritize getting utilities to these areas. If you'll give me a moment I'll pull those or Well the applicants, I'll get those policies for you. The comp plan actually Says they will
make this a priority to get utilities to this EC. I'm failing to see how that was a priority if this was done in 2005 and we're here in the year 2025.
I mean I think I'm not sure that that the policy you're saying mandates that the county pay for
S. E. W. three point nine point two Central Sewer Employment Center areas. The county shall place a high priority on providing central sewer improvements to E C Employment Center future land uses. I also know that if we go into the water section, there's this identical policy for water.
My only point is that high priority doesn't necessarily mean the county has to pay for. And three point two point six says that for this particular employment center, it says if paid for by the landowner developer. So I what I'm saying you you got you gotta reconcile the two policies. I don't think the the Just because it says high priority doesn't mean the county's supposed to invest a bunch of money to provide water and sewer to this deployment center, particularly when there's a policy right on point that says that
the developer's supposed to pay for it. But the policy you noted says that he can do a private central system if he pays for it himself and he's within this particular EC.
Right. And staff has made it clear they don't support a private system for other reasons. But but I'm I was just trying to ask the question
What level of infrastructure, water and sewer infrastructure would be required to support an employment center at this? interchange because there it's got a future lane use of employment centers. So I'm trying to figure out what in staff is positioned as there's inadequate infrastructures to support it today. So I'm trying to figure out what would be required in the future to support such a I understand the question. So it sounds like it would be some s some connection to the existing system that's ten miles away, is
that generally accurate?
We do have a individual from utilities. I don't know what he wants to say, but he he wants to speak to that. So with advance him online.
Sure.
Thank you.
Okay.
Uh yeah. Yes. Okay. So Sir uh Mr. Goldstein, central first central means centr connected to the central water system and sewer system. It's not an isolated system somewhere. Number two is in order for us For the ESCO community utilities to extend the line. for seven to ten miles with no customers on it, it's not gonna be
feasible to you because you need the customer base on that system and the test.
And the Pasco County utilities uh customers is the one. They are the one who is gonna pay for that ultimately when the system is turned to Pasco County. It's the ratepayers, it's not a general uh fund or anything. So we have to be aware of that. So we have to have the customer base on that system. uh that's that's very critical to any system that we extend. Um I have never been aware of that employment center
at that location, but I'm aware of other employment centres like the one on uh Sun Coast and um fifty two. Uh other employment centers, but I'm not aware of the that employment center. So it's uh I'm sorry about not being informed about that one, but I can see difficulties with this.
I'm willing to answer any questions other questions you may have.
I'm not sure his answer was much different than what Mr. Pito said, but but I'm not sure if you're He he's saying basically what I'm under here and say is that there would be some connection to the county system that would be needed satisfying. When it's economic. When it's when they've got the customer base to support it. That's
right. I I think what I heard from it was that the a central wastewater plant by definition is connected to the central system. So this policy requires them to provide that if they're going to develop it. So really it wouldn't be on Pasco County Attorney's to provide it ahead of time. They're gonna they're requiring them to provide it when they develop the employment center. And it says
if paid for by the
development. If paid for by the developer. Right. Yeah. So that's
and once they're available then they are required to connect to them.
Right. Okay, so I guess let's put the utilities I'm gonna ask this a similar question as it relates to roads. So
You made it clear that the existing road network is insufficient to support this rezoning. I mean, what would be needed? I mean like if they had a direct connection to Blanton and it was four lanes, would that I mean or have you not evaluated what would be needed from a road perspective to support this global development. I mean I you made it very clear that the connection to Lake Iola, your concerns with that and its existing configuration. I'm asking
What would give us an example of a road network that maybe that might be sufficient to support an employment center would it be
I I would I would default that to David's uh answer, which is we have to look at that from a Pasco 2050 comprehensive plan standpoint. The reason is because Landton Road itself is a scenic road as well, according to the same policies. So
I I would default to that position that it has to be looked at comprehensive plan.
Right, that I guess that's s sort of the root of my question is I'm just trying to figure out
We did put employment center on this property, is there some road network that somebody I'm not saying that the county would have to do with, but is there some road network that could be built? That would still be consistent with the Northeast Rural policies that would support an employment center. We would
have to study it. I I can't say yes or no to that question right now. Um we would have to study it and see what the results of that kind of study would be in order to identify a potential alternative connection that could further enable employment centers.
Well
so
Blanton Road isn't if I recall when I went back because I was rushed last night to read this because I got the agenda at three thirty in the afternoon, but Blanton Road wasn't one of those Roadways covered by six oh four, correct? It was Lake Iola Road that was covered as a scenic rural roadway.
Lake Iola Road, Saint Joseph Road, lots of there's a number of roads that are identified as scenic roadways. Plankton is
And was it at this location?
But it Lake Iola basically goes south to Blanton and Blanton basically is your connection to the inner.
I understand that. What I'm saying is is Blanton adjacent to this property? Is that a pr one of these roadways that the code seeks to provide some rural protection for?
Yes.
in this section in this segment.
The entire length. Okay.
Yeah.
Well while we're on roads, are we aware of any plans for DOT to improve the intersection at I-75 there?
Yeah.
I'm not aware
of it. There are no plans by Florida Department Creditation to upgrade this interchange. It is not on their tentative five year plan.
Following up on that question actually David, while you're on that, you made the comment earlier that the intersection is insufficient for this area. Is that I guess for the industrial use or you can say is it the geometry of it? Is it the the
I think it's a matter of storage capacity on the uh on the landing as well as the geometry for the type of traffic that we're utilizing with the suburban urban? Yeah, because we we did approve industrial deal as well.
So we are engaged now talking to our transportation engineering department and the county engineer about these type of road improvements in our comp plan process.
Okay, because we did approve I one on the other side of the interchange there and I guess we didn't hear that sort of concern during that uh that approval process. So that's that's the first time hearing that, so just curious what that.
Okay.
Okay, any other questions for Mr. Peteels? Are we still talking land development though? Well,
I think he finished his presentation on the line of Elmo Code.
Does anybody have any additional questions before we let the applicant speak?
Yeah, I don't think I'll I'll bring this up now for the get staff's input. How do five twenty two point five and point six apply this being an employment center? Is there a difference between a regular M P U D and easy M P U D?
Yes, there is. The the reason that these aren't referenced on the slide specifically is we were advised to use the comprehensive plan at time of submittal of this application, which Mr. Two said was twenty-two months ago. Relying on the twenty twenty-three comp plan, the omnibus from twenty twenty-four hadn't happened, which didn't require this MPUD to be an employment center MPD officially. So those provisions of the L DC were struck from this slide here. But to answer your question, there is a difference in the in the development
standards from a regular MPD, which include uses like support commercial. So this application was before we had an EC MPUD designation? It was before it was required by the flu and the omnibus that was approved in 2024, since this application was submitted in 2022. Two thousand and twenty three.
In two thousand twenty-three you could submit either an EC M P U D or an M P U D. Okay. In two thousand twenty four the Board changed that so that you could only submit an E C M P U D. Okay. And what's the substantive difference? The ECM PUD has very specific standards in the Land of Elma Code for EC M PUDs that don't necessarily apply to a What I'll call a regular M P V. All right, so it it's it's mo it's arguably more restrictive on
some of the permitted uses, has additional stand design standards in it.
Right, that's that's what I I gathered. So that takes me to five twenty two point six we have this area wide employment center planning process. With the intent of the area wide employment center planning process is one method for determining the required mix for an individual application project site. So if that's one method that would suggest to me there's there are other methods, was a plan was an employment center planning process undertaken?
For
this
employment center. Are you asking, was there an area wide plan developed for this employment center? Yes. Staff, can you answer that question? I don't believe so, but but No no sir. Okay.
Okay, anything else?
Okay, Mr. T.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman Mariano for the record, Joel to And I am a land use consultant for the applicant. Um I need to go yes to our PowerPoint. I'm going to go through our PowerPoint, but I will interject at points of that and directly address some of the staff presentation and answers to your questions as I go.
We have a full team with us. Uh Ron Pienta is the former planning director for Hernando County, now in private consulting with Coastal. He's here as our planner. Mike Razor is our transportation consultant. Mike Did. The transportation analysis in this case, which was approved by the county transportation staff prior to September PC hearing. Mike also was involved in that industrial approval on the east side when in fact that was approved without any
issues with the interstate interchange. So Mike's here to to address that. And we have unfortunately uh the legal counsel, since I am now retired as an attorney and acting only as a land use consultant, we have Mr. Scott McLaren from Hill Ward Henderson because of the prior settlement agreement and and the rights that the property owner has under that agreement.
The important point which you're well aware of is we have a pre-existing EC Employment Center Land Use Designation that has been on this property for 20 years. Our specific request is entirely consistent With the not only permitted uses, but the actually mandated required uses in an EC property as they existed on the date of our application. And that point was just made by staff. The first time they've acknowledged to me in all
this debate. was today that they just acknowledged that the comp plan which applies to our application is in fact the comp plan which was which was in force when we applied. Now all of us that do this for a living know that's true. I mean that's been the case for the 40 years or 45 years. But it's important here because they've tried to do some things that were not part of the comp plan. And it's more significant. In this case
Because
I'm gonna flip to this. Prior to two thousand and five. This specific property had mixed use Compland designation. Now, that's easy and steroids. That was the most intense future language designation that Pasco County had. And you could basically do anything you wanted. at extreme intensity and density, anywhere you want it, and in any proportions you want it. So this landowner generational
landowner family in Pasco County who's owned this land for 50 or 60 years, from the beginning of comp plan time in Pasco County, they had mixed use. In 2005, when the county decided to foist the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Plan. upon them and all the other landowners The county actually downplanned them from mixed use to this EC category. They forced this landowner to accept this more restrictive,
less intense, more controlling EC designation. Evans joined with 14 other landowners in Northeast Pasco, 15 of them, and filed a Compland Challenge. Fifteen individual interveners in Northeast Pasco, including Ms. Hazelwood and Richard Riley and others, entered that as interveners.
The landowners? The 15 interveners, the county? the then Florida Department of Community Affairs entered into a legal stipulation and settlement agreement. that put the EC on there and it specifically adopted by red line edits which I provided you in the yellow hide lindo attached to that settlement agreement. Is the specific resolution of the very issues that
staff is now trying to relitigate. Twenty years later, they're trying to relitigate The settlement and stipulation they made with all the interveners, with the landowner and the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Goldstein was the staff attorney here at the time. He didn't handle that, but he was here and he's aware of it. And that's why I gave you the all highlights. They say exactly What planning commissioners have said. You can basically forget all these vague references to just
this throw a shotgun against the wall, let's list some comp plan cat uh policies, and hope you believe them saying under oath that we're inconsistent with them, when clearly we are not. That was the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest smoke screen that I've ever seen. And they dumped that on us yesterday afternoon. It it's it's outrageous. I haven't I haven't been this outraged about the behavior a PED
and 45 years of working here. So what they're really telling you is we forced this landowner to take this. We specifically told them That you not only can have, but you must have this mix of industrial, multifamily, and support commercial. We apply for exactly that mix in conformance. They tell us You not only can have a private utility system, you must
have one and pay for it. If we haven't yet brought you public utilities. And we, in our condition, acknowledge exactly those comp plan policies. You don't have to go read other policies when you have four policies attached to a court order signed by the County Attorney's Office and approved by the Board of Commissioners and signed by the Chairman that says you shall do this and you can do this. We apply to do this.
That's the reason why After 16 months of review, it went through transportation, it went through utilities, it went through the sheriff, it went through parks. We got all the favorable agency and department reviews, we got their requested conditions, we agreed to every condition, and staff writes under Mr. Ingalls' signature, a resounding recommendation for approval that expressly says on the his face, we find. This is consistent with all compound plan policies
and all LDC regulations attributable to this property. So they already agree. and found it consistent because they knew that's what it required. Now, over someone's cocktail party over Christmas, somebody decided for some political whim that they didn't like this. And that's why staff is here. They're not here exercising independent professionalism or independent planning judgment. They're here because they've
been told to come up with some reason to not approve it. And that is patently. incorrect and not the way you're supposed to do things. In this county, and we haven't done it that way for 45 years, to my experience. And it's very disappointing that it's that way now. So We went one step farther. It is clear that we actually have the right under the settlement to do multifamily apartments. But acknowledging the pushback now. from
both you and the County Commission level that we have too much of that. We even agree after they told me January second that they were going to pose us, we even voluntarily agreed, Evans agreed, that they would absolutely stipulate that they wouldn't do that, that they would do fee simple, platted, Units. for sale again. So we even made that voluntary concession. And I will give them credit for this at mister Goldstein's
Urging. They agreed to go ahead and negotiate revised conditions that had all the protections for those townhome units, all the current design criteria. And on these other points, yes, they asked for a right-of-way for Lake Iowa Road. Guess what? In about three seconds, I said yes, of course. How much do you want? They're the ones that supplied the right-of-way footage. that we put in the conditions. We gave them exactly what they work for. And and if they may have made a mistake there
and they need more right of way to handle whatever required buffering and cross-section implantings are required to comply with those provisions, of course Evans will provide that. As Mr. Moody pointed out, we all do that on every application. We understand that. We didn't resist it. So Basically
It's nonsense.
They argued initially, which I think they've somewhat retracted from because I didn't hear that today, they were arguing that we didn't have the right to multifamily. But if we're applying the 2005 comp plan that was in existence, if you look at that schedule. that I gave you that was attached to that settlement, it specifically says That were entitled to it.
We also agreed in these conditions That even though we were not an EC MPUD, and even though we don't have to be an EC MPUD, They asked me would I nevertheless go ahead and agree to the limited commercial uses that they have been imposing on CCMPDs? And guess what I said again in about three seconds? Yes, we'll do that. And we've incorporated that. There's not a single condition. That either Mr. Goldstein or PED
have asked us to include, that we haven't included. Not a single one.
Look at what's around us when you talk about whether It makes sense. It's a moot point whether this E C makes sense. Because it was stipulated in the Kant plan. And approved in a court settlement. But Here's the reason.
There is C two. Right on the south side of Blanton. So this scenic section of Blenton Road Already has And by the way, those two large C2 parcels, their underlying land use is mixed use. They still have their mixed use. So they're complaining about our EC, which they forced us to take. when they've got mixed use across the street on Latin. As you said, they've already approved industrial. On
the east side, also in the employment sector. So why all of a sudden Do we get singled out? And mistreated like this. It's crazy. And I've laid awake asleep at night despite being retired. the last thirty days, simply trying to figure out why they're doing what they're doing. Because it baffles me.
Let's go to the consistency arguments.
Bye. Specific Conclusion. Think about this. They're arguing that the EC designation
That day the county.
The E C designation, all of that purple, that they put In the comp plan themselves in 2005. that we objected to and litigated over. that we then agreed to settle and take and that the county and DCC signed off on, they're now basically arguing to you that the county and DCA decision, and if you read that final judgment, DCA finds it consistent with the entirety of the comp plan. As it existed on that day. Every
policy that Mr. Pitos has cited to you was in that cop plan. So the day that the county signed a settlement saying this is consistent and DCA said, yeah, we reviewed it and we agree it's consistently, it's the law. All of those policies were there. So the conclusion of the county and the Florida Department of Community Affairs is that that purple EC area is in fact consistent with every single policy. That
was in the conference of plan at the time. We've applied under that same plan. So how now? Can they argue we're inconsistent they're violating the settlement stipulation? They're violating the order of the state of Florida. Can they all conclude it's not consistent? I mean that's about as disingenuous as you can get as you can get as to those Northeast rural policies, to Mr. Moody's point. The EC area is in the rural protection area. We haven't
asked to take it out because there's no need for us to do that. It was embedded and approved again. The county and the DCA understood when they approved it that it was part of that area and that its existence in that location was entirely compatible with the fact that it had surrounding rural protection area. In our MPUD conditions, when you get to the details about the cross section or the buffers or the trees, the very first paragraph of every
MPUD approval, including our conditions, you all know what it says. This MPUD is subject to The comprehensive plan And the land development code. and the following conditions. So whatever comprehensive plan or land development code provision is applicable to Lake Iowa Road, Blanton Road, Our adjacent properties, our preliminary development plan, and our construction plans are going to have to meet that. Whatever
those buffer requirements, whatever those landscape requirements, whatever those cross-sections, our conditions say we have to comply with them. We're not arguing that. We just want the entitlements so we can go to that step. Which brings me to utilities. They specifically say what you pointed out they said. We under that court stipulation and under the 2005 Comp plan, as long as the property owners within that EC
area. are willing to privately fund and construct their own centralized system They Have the absolute right to do so. It says shall. It doesn't say may. It doesn't say maybe. It doesn't say you have to ask Mr. Ingel or someone at Utilities. Mr. Ingel can't just unilaterally say, Well, I don't like that. I don't agree with it. His opinion today respectfully is immaterial on that point. The comp plan says
we can do it. The stipulated settlement agreement says we can do it. Now, if and when we do that, and the county ultimately gets public utilities out there. Then under the other policy, we would be obligated at that point to connect to public utilities and disavail ourselves of that private system. That's the way it operates. And, you know, they have been a little slow in twenty years about their prioritization of getting that line out
there. It's it's very clear, you're exactly correct as to what that and that applies to every EC area, and it did not exempt this one. So they have violated that provision. But we are willing possibly in concert with the other EC developers. To do that, you can't You engineers and you realtors and you planners, you know this. You can't go start raising funds for a private utility system when you don't even have zoning entitlements for your land. You've
got to know you've got something you can develop to figure out what utilities do you need, what's it gonna cost, and to get the capital funding or the loan to fund that infrastructure. Nobody's gonna go give us that based on ag zoning. So this is step one in that process. We acknowledge it has to be done that way. Evans thankfully has a Swift Mud permitted water well, sizable one. that can already be used to supply the water, that private water system. And
you simply provide land for the centralized sewer treatment. The utility gentleman is incorrect. In his public world, centralized means county, but in the context of this it very clearly meant That either we had to provide the funding for the county to extend the public lines, option one, or we had to provide the funding to construct our own private. Centralized system.
And that's very clear.
I provided this to you, as you know, in advance, so I'm not going to waste your time on it. But there's just no, you know, this is this is get to the MPD plan. This is exactly the plan that was recommended for approval in September, except that we added the commercial option. And if you look at the conditions that were in the staff memo, if you see fit to recommend approval. We have the conditions that deal with location. How many acres can be commercial,
how many can be residential, the fact that the perimeter of any industrial has to be clean light industry on the perimeter. You can't have, you know, and there's your compatibility and your transitioning. The heavier uses have to be internalized. All the perimeter parcels have to be an approved county use. We've addressed that. Fifteen pages of that. That deal with all of those issues that staff signed off on.
What do those actual percentages work out to, Joel?
Yeah, so um Twenty acres maximum multifamily would be twenty-five percent of the eighty acres. So we're just above the minimum twenty but way below the forty max. On residential. And the ten acres uh out of the eighty is twelve and a half percent, which is just over The ten percent Threshold on the commercial, but well below the maximum. So in both cases, we're not being
pigs. I mean we're just barely above. And we even have said Because you don't know what the future brings. We we we actually could do some or all of that commercial on the multi-family parcel. by doing first floor retail With fee simple units above it. and have a nice mixed use structure on f on front. So we've stayed totally within those confines. Uh the vast bulk
of the site is industrial, and in fact, that's what Evans would prefer to do. Evans would be ecstatic if they had industrial users to come do this because it makes the utilities equation much more simple. Very low demand from basically warehouse distribution or light industrial uses as composed to as opposed to the the residential. I mean, financially, there's gonna be a huge to try to go with the industrial distribution route. Because your utility solution is much more
simple as you engineers well know.
You mentioned a ten percent minimum, it was actually a five percent minimum on the
I'm sorry, okay.
Yeah, on the commercial. But you're twelve and a half.
And you know what? If that's an issue for you, we're flexible on that. We've been flexible on everything. We just want to comply with the provision as it existed, and frankly, we want to get what was agreed when they crammed the EC down on us in the first place. We at least want that. And they're trying to deny that.
But yes, if that percentage uh is an issue, we're happy we're happy to reduce that acreage uh if that's an issue on the right-of-way. Yeah, no, I
was just curious.
And it is just support commercial. Remember, they they did, we did agree to the ECMPUD limitations on scope of commercial, not regional uses. They're purely neighborhood serving uses. But we're we're flack we will do whatever it takes to get your support and move this forward and hopefully a majority or more of the BCC will honor the agreement that their chairman signed in 2006.
and was submitted to the court. Um We have I think what I'm going to do in the interest of time is We have our civil engineer, as I said, he can discuss the private utility options, but I think those of you on this panel are probably just as qualified as anyone. Some of you probably designed those, but but if you have questions, he's here. Transportation guys here will we'll dig into anything you want to, but I just don't think the details necessary because it is a smokestream. And
we need to go with what they recommended in September. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tule. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. No, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Liam just reminded me I forgot. Yeah, we need a if we could a motion to receive and file. Um it was the printed uh copies of the PowerPoint slides to the clerk, which you've seen. It was the September fifth, twenty twenty four PED meeting. Memo in support with conditions. It was the 2006 settlement agreement with the county and DCA. And it was the highlighted Comp Clan policies that actually are exhibits
to the settlement agreement, but I gave you a separate copy of them highlighted if you'd be kind enough so we're sure they're in the record.
Have a motion to receive a motion to receive and file. second for the discussion all in favor aye like sign okay Mr. Chairman Mariano for Mr. Two. I'm sorry, Mr. Stu, we have a question. Mr. Tu? Have a question.
Other question for you. So the the issue of scenic roads came up. Do you know off the top of your head what you know if whoever comes in there, what what those standards are for Is it landscape mostly landscaping screening, et cetera? I don't have I don't remember that. They
they the reason you don't remember is the county never followed up and actually adopted detailed LDC regulations implementing these vague comp plan policies. So the short answer is we're going to have to sit down our site planner and engineer and discuss that with the county. staff and agree on what they mutually feel are appropriate buffers and landscaping and cross sections, uh just like you would working out any other site plan. And obviously we're going
to put sidewalks where they tell us to put sidewalks and we're gonna put trees where they tell us to put trees. But they are not they are not defined. They're like everything else in the Northeast plan. None of that got Detailed out. It was just these broad brush cop plan policies. In fact that in my view, the most detailed thing about that Northeast plan were these specific policies attached to that settlement agreement to specifically define what you could do in this employment center. Those are the most specific things Anywhere
on that planet. Everything else is kinda aspirational and Yeah, wish list. But we want to be a good neighbor.
Yeah. Yeah.
Mm-hmm. A good neighbor means you do what you were approved for your property. I mean everybody that owns property is entitled to do what the comp plan says and especially what a stipulated court judgment says they can do.
Okay.
Any
other questions?
Yeah I do. Ba uh Johnna see if I can jog his memory. The EC was created circa 2005.
Yeah, that was a uh it was concurrent with all this. Uh it was Mr. Gallagher's uh idea. It was uh prompted by the concern of hometown democracy that there was a statewide constitutional referendum that would render all uh plan and zoning changes to public referendum. And uh Mr. Gallagher through the planning either DRC and the Planning Commission and the Board, they designated between eight and twelve.
employment centers at key places through the county. to guarantee that the county could protect what it thought would be its most valuable future urban intense areas to generate employment. in commerce. And obviously at the time, think about this, you only had on interchanges, you only had Original 54 Fifty two. And this one. You didn't have 56 and you certainly didn't have overpass. So people today say, well that's
crazy that Mr. Gallagher stuck that up there. I actually think it was brilliant because he understood the inherent long-term value of a federal interstate interchange in his county. And this that's why this was strategically important. And the reason they had those comp plan policies that dealt with the private utility system is for the very reason Mr. Engel and Utilities have pointed out. The utilities director at the time, don't think it was your dad, it was probably Bramlett. Um And Mr. Gallagher
understood that they had utilities nowhere close to this. They understood that problem and what it was going to cost, and John, in his usual way, was smart enough to say, That ain't gonna be on my dime. I want this employment center here, but I want you to do it for me. But that's why they made this exception. They certainly didn't want people running around building private utilities in the county. You guys all know that. That the reason they made the exception is they specifically authorized the private system on this property because this site
was that important to them that it became an employment center. And they wanted to be able to do it ahead of the point at which the county might get public utilities over there. So what we're proposing to do is exactly what was contemplated. If you can figure out a way to fund it, you build your private central system, and once we get the main the public system to you, you've got to disconnect and hook to us. Just like they require everywhere. But that that's the background on the employment centers. And
do you recall when was the Northeast rural area created?
Concurrent in the same plan amendment.
So
at the same time. At the same time. And the exactly the same time that this EC on this site was created and there was the lawsuit and the settlement, that was also the formation of the North. It all happened together. That's why it's so disingenuous to say, oh gosh, we don't want this in Northeast Pasco. That's crazy. It was put in Northeast Pasco concurrent with them getting the Rural Protection Area. And as I said, Ms. Hazelwood and Mr. Riley
were interveners and look at the signature pages on the settlement agreement. Now other people here may not know that. They certainly knew that. It was always contemplated. This isn't Evans being a bad neighbor or a bad property owner. And heck they could have done mixed juice. They could have had They could add four times this. The Bell Mother. under mixed use. Before this was forced up.
All right. Any other questions? No, we just answered. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna take a ten minute recess.
Maybe eight or right.
Uh
I think so. Yeah.
Is there uh newer thing? I mean it doesn't seem like there's newer things to
surprise any other
legitimate advantage for a period of time. Yeah, yeah.
But but the general gist of the
legitimate ads operation happened to be trees. Well we're trying to stop when we did that amendment was tearing down non ACT trees and claiming it was done for ACT. But
uh currently planted for her, but
my understanding of that amendment was they didn't have committee. Yeah.
we need micro, but it took me on that one.
And by the way, but it did have a tricky time to have a shot, which was like
Yeah, no but I'm saying like they either be in the like for a five year period they had in operating cars or if they had operated for a short period for a period of time like there would there was a lag period I don't look at the exact right but I mean
I guess they probably have given out one of their property. So I guess they probably did operate it.
Anyway, that's fairly clear, clear I think what look at is
I
say
I mean. Exactly.
So clarify the version of Multi and Multi Down for
Yeah.
The cowing one or two post-volution completely removed it. The county did not like mixed use of the language
category at all, partly for the reason Jules said you could do whatever the hell you wanted to necessarily wasn't employment tool games. Right.
What what did the county originally change what was what was originally challenged by this
use of analogy designated?
Yeah, maybe and so they felt like hey wait a minute,
you just changed my entitlement. So that's how all of this settled the change. But
but there was also some Joel focused on that part of the setting. They also some of the properties also don't they talk to North Bulls.
So that so some of the stuff about constitution, some of the came. uh choose it wasn't just about
This is
always a very good
thing. So they can see the settlement they can see that's going to fly with Seth Weightman. Yeah, yeah, I mean
besides the stuff Joel pointed out there was other stuff that got changed. What's that? Sort of the residential part of the art quality that's not really relevant. Okay, but the lawsuit wasn't just about the support. Yeah,
yeah.
So like for example, there was a language about topographical alterations. That language got modified. I mean there was stuff mostly it was the Okay. Some of the language that was put in there was probably so aspirational that it enabled effectively prohibited all development. And so that's why that's what I think. Yeah. In fact, in my opinion, that was a primary channel. This
employment center was part of it. But I don't think most of the fight was about over. These policies as far as residential things were about the support decisions. I wasn't directly involved in my work when I borrowed was helping the fight with the policy. She didn't really talk about
the leads. It was more about the other Northeast foreign policies. So basically that was a concession of the capital evidence and the rest of those problems they conceded to the EC button with some of the other conceptual account.
I can't tell you who gave what reason, right? Yeah, I'm not sure there would have been a loss to this people.
Is it the is it the current version of the code or the if you remember hold on. I'm ready, I don't know about going. Ask yeah I would ask you to ask the county attorney because there one of the things
that came out was they said they applied an earlier version of the code because of when they made the application. I just wanna make sure that that's not tangled up in that. I would ask the county attorney.
Yeah. review process is a very good thing.
With letters to everybody in the neighborhood.
I understand and I'll just say this. Those in my mind are what I'll call technicalities. Okay. If you say they have to have two community meetings, it's remedied by simply having another community meeting compliance. It's better to stick to issues.
Just
bring it up in the technicalities.
Because
all they'll
do is
just pay the fee, hold the meeting, and then say I'm in compliance. And we'll be right back. Hey John, why don't you start?
Oh, it's mad.
Okay. Let's reconvene. So I think uh Joel, I think in the essence of time you were you were saying uh let's hear from the uh public. Yes sir. And then your pr your uh professionals can respond and an answer questions.
Yes sir. Thank you.
Okay. Yeah.
Okay, so who we got on the list? Um excuse me Mr. Chairman I just want to put on record though that we don't have anybody signed up virtually to speak for this item today.
Okay, good. Thank you.
All right. We can have your name and address.
Hi, I'm Linda Potberg. I own the parcel that have the addresses [address removed]. I'm cramping my leg from that bench.
Can staff put up a
map?
What did you say? I asked if staff could put up a map so we could see where each of the speakers
is. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, does this is there a pointer that is available? Okay, and you're keeping time over there? Yeah.
So my son and I own the property that is three parcels north of that property on the same side of the road. Our family has owned property in Pasco County since the twenties, and we were stewards of the land, and Rick and Otto were very specific about uh representing our family as being uh conservationists and also thra uh donating land. So We always, you
know, forfeited millions of dollars, which I'm not recommending the Evans do. But in making sure that conservation of nature and integrity of the land was maintained. and through many, you know, decades forfeited millions of dollars in deals to do that and the last deal was with Swift Mud for the uh Sara Nova tract at north of the Starkey Ranch.
So that's just the background of that we're the last Pottburgs to own property in Pasco County, my son and I. And This is the the place where I will live till I die. And my concerns are The roadway?
55 mile an hour road. and they can give up all the right away they want. But if they start widening that road, what's going to impact our land and our road frontage? That's one concern. The other concern is if they're getting their money their water from uh wells, which the Evans have had, you know, for a long time for their citrus groves, how's that gonna impact our wells? And I don't know about you all, but I don't want to be living near a sewage water
treatment plant. uh and the possibility of that leaking, which we know that they do, and going into our aquifer and our wells. So those are two concerns that I have. And the fact that I've lived there, we've owned that property since 1986. And
We never knew any of this was going on, so I don't know how transparent the process was. about this, you know, becoming a settlement and EC and all the different variations of that. We thought we were in rural reserve. And we thought we were still in rural reserve.
Mm-hmm.
So It's uh I'm glad that it's gone through a process of continuance so that the community could be more aware of what was going to be projected and and proposed. So I'm here to say I'm very concerned about the transportation. I'm very concerned about the nature in the area, including bobcats, fox squirrels, an occasional panther, black bear. You know, we we have a a whole plethora of nature there and not to mention the gopher tortoises.
So all of those things are important to the people who live On in surrounding areas. I know most of them. I've been there for a long time. So, and there's horse farms, there's horse farms that are right up against that property that are going to be impacted. And it's not like major horse farms, it's just people who own horses who thought they lived in rural reserve as well. So those are important factors to us and this. far as you know widening the road, uh it's at at
the the I seventy five exchange, there isn't enough room on that bridge to widen that road. So we're talking about major you know, needs of supporting that kind of density in that area. And it is a beautiful place. with beautiful scenic roads all the way till you get to the solar farms down by the college. So I would like to be able to live out the rest of my life in rural reserve and having my road frontage safe and my wells safe and the nature around me
safe.
Okay, good next.
So the next I have on my list is Clark.
I know you you all are appreciate the comments and everything. Let's I appreciate it if you wouldn't clap because so we can make sure everybody has plenty of time to talk. Okay, thank you.
So the next person I have on the list is Clark Converse.
That's a good one
Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Clark Converse. I live at [address removed]. Thank you. Um it's uh in Saint Joe. It's Date City address, but it's St. Joe. Um Mike
W a lot of people in here are very angry about what's happening, and understandably so. People were born and raised out there, they've raised their families out there, they live in that area for a specific reason, and this uh kind of flies in the face of that. And I'm as I'm assuming which may make a fool out of me because it usually does, that most of you are well versed in F L U two. Um That's the comprehensive plan that refers to the future land use plan for the rural
integrity of Pasco County. The opening statement in FLU2 says to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle and protect rural communities. Ensure the rural lifestyle is preserved for existing residents. and remains available to future residents.
The problems we have, not only the water issues that we're concerned about, which obviously is a is in effect 'cause we all w have wells, but in FLU two it's specifically Addresses the preservation of water for future land use, for future owners, property owners. In 2.113 and 2.11, it says shall not be constructed with central water or sewer. That's in the i that's in the county ordinance is that you cannot develop out
there with central water and sewer. And yet. the WAT flies in the face of that and says, Yeah, if you develop it you you're required to put in central water and sewer. Okay, so The county has conveniently construed ways to override any promises that they made to the landowners out there, which is absolutely insane in my opinion. It also says that you have to maintain 50% open space on
any place where there's more than 20 residential units. That plan does not show 50% of open space.
The whole point of FLU2 is to protect the rural character of the area and protect the future generations of our families who live in that area for a specific reason. We were promised by the county that we would be able to live in that type of environment, and we look forward to living in it. We've raised our families, I've ra I'm raising my grandkids in that area. And to have that taken away from us potentially by allowing t the somebody to get a foothold in Whether it's legal or not is not
my call. However, it really is, in my opinion, irresponsible for the County Commissioners to do that and it is very disrespectful to the people whose lives have been um ensconced in that area. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
The next on the list is Ryan Flynn.
I have some uh packets that I'd like to pass. Here, move to receive and file. Second.
Motion is second. All in favor? Aye.
Aye.
Again, my name is Ryan Flynn. I live at uh [address removed]. So we are the uh the property directly north. My wife and I, along with my in-laws, own the combined 18 acres directly north of the Evans property. We invested in this in to live and raise our two young daughters. Based on the protection put in place by the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay District. Our dream is to raise our daughters in a safe, rural and natural environment. This rezoning
request violates nearly every requirement of the Pasco County Land Development Code, Section 604, to protect the character of the rural landscape, preserve scenic views and vistas, and ensure that one-site development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. One and a half million square feet of warehouse, along with 300 apartments, are not compatible with the stated goal of the future land use section 2.1 to preserve and reinforce the positive qualities of the rural lifestyle
and protect rural communities and agricultural areas. Allowing massive warehouses threatens the topography that is in vistas that are unique to the Northeast Pasco. Protection area. The rezoning to anything other than agri ag res, thereby removing it from the protected overlay would create a zoning island of incompatible development. counter to the whole intent of the overlay. The scenic view and topography from our property and the whole stretch of Lake Iowa Road are spectacular
and worth preserving. Something the rural overlay is supposed to be protecting for both Current generation current and future generations. And final, this is simply not at all compatible with the adjacent LAN uses. There is no industrial or multifamily on the adjacent parcels. We live on a family equestrian farm zone agriculture. and our homestead, along with others around us, will be permanently and negatively affected by any industrial development of
this parcel. Let's refocus on the good. The area has an incredible opportunity to become an oasis of rural land in what is quickly becoming an overdeveloped state. For old and new generations, families are choosing to leave behind the confines, traffic and pollution of cities, and instead invest in land, farms, and the chance to live and love the rural lifestyle. The unique beauty of the Sien Carrio will continue to draw in new residents who
are more than willing to invest in maintaining this area as the original authors of the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay had intended. In your packet, I have included a couple of photos. Photos one, two, and three show our property line with the eighty acres that are behind it. Photo four shows a piece of the lifestyle that our family gets to enjoy. I don't want to lose it. Our eighteen acres is long and narrow. We
share a quarter Of a mile of fence line. Our house sits less than a hundred feet from this property line and looks at this property.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
The next individual I have on the list is Nancy Hazelwood.
And see Hazelwood [address removed], a nice place. Um for some reason Mr. Two and I disagree on a couple of things wherever you went to.
I'm
sorry. Thank you.
So I I had something written out but I've added a few things on it. First off let me say the Northeast Rural was not forced on landowners. It was in trade for Pasadena Hills that didn't get mentioned. Um they got very high densities in Pasadena Hills and they've made quite a bit of money from that. And now they want Northeast Roll too. Imagine that. Employment center history. I think that Northeast Rural was created
just before that. There is a recession going on and the Employment Center was created for the recession. Mr. Goldstein, we might have talked about this a little bit. I was kind of in ejection because it had high densities. But the way it was created was one third multifamily and two-thirds good solid jobs. They were supposed to be medical or business, you know, they weren't supposed to be warehouses. So
he's kind of switched things around and he keeps going back to the original. Well let's give us some good solid jobs there if he's really going back to the original. Uh this looks like kind of like a land grab to me with the way it's being put together. Seventy five, I seventy five was made the way it was because it was never expected to have it the traffic that This is Create
it. It it was supposed to be like traffic, is the Northeast Royal Area plan. So, um Let me go back to my original. This uh Evans project doesn't fit in the Northeast Rural Plan, needs to be denied, it will have a devastating impact on our rural character. And I agree completely with the staff's recommendation for denial. Employing uh again this project in the Northeast Rural Area Plan has some special can
have some special conditions if you do approve it. A transition area needs to be created around the project. The building should be in the center of the project with a 400-foot buffer of heavy landscaping around it to protect the residents and the character of the agricultural area. A weight limit for traffic on our rural roads to keep semi-trucks and area other heavy vehicles. off our roads, they don't belong there. North East Rural Protected Area was never supposed to
have any kind of heavy traffic. There are rural roads. I hope the planning department and the planning board can think of more ways to key this rural if you do want to improve it. It needs something heavy. Uh you were asking what an EC in a rural area should look like. It should look like a business place in a park.
Design standards one more sense. Design standards for multi units need to have features to conform character to rural protected area, porches, balconies with farmhouse lodge or Greek revival look. Thanks for listening guys.
Good Maggie Nancy. Can I ask her a question? Nancy. Nancy. Have a question?
Don't get me wrong. I'm trying to understand. you're a signatory to this settlement agreement. What was your mindset when you signed this?
I was a newbie there. We were just starting up the Northeast Raw area plan. And um We needed to make sure it's it stayed rural and they were in objection to it. What we came up with I thought was more of a conservation subdivision. That's what I kept hearing about was conservation subdivisions. And um I don't necessarily agree with those at all. So
My recollection of it was a long time ago. And
I know you were moving fast in the interest of trying to get through in three minutes, but can you re read your suggested conditions?
Okay.
Transition area needs to be created around the project that's in the Northeast Rail area plan. The building should be in the center of the project with a four hundred foot buffer of heavy landscaping around the project. To protect the residents and the character of our agricultural area. A weight limit for traffic on roads could keep semi-trucks and other heavy vehicles off air roads. They don't belong there. Northeast Road Protective Area was not meant to have heavy
traffic. I am hoping the planning department and the planning committee can come up with some other things that if you decide to put this in, which I hope you don't and I think you should deny it. Just
a transition area with a four hundred foot buffer and a weight limit.
Yes. For traffic coming through. Keep some eyes off our rural roads. They're that way for a reason. Lanton Road and all those roads are supposed to stay two lanes. They're we aren't ever supposed to have traffic. Our growth and development's in a different way.
Yeah I know.
We know you need to
be able to do that.
Mr. Chairman on the list is Paige Dennis.
Hi, I'm Paige Dennis. I currently live in Land O' Lakes, but we own the property at [address removed] directly across from this development.
Directly
across the street. Directly across the street, yes sir. Okay. Well we we had there's three parcels, um, one's twenty, two are ten. It was 40. We went through a very long process to get that divided so that we could build and our two children could build there as well. So um just I have some things to say but a lot of them have been covered but I'll stick to the script. Um at the meeting in September it was asked which came first, the EC or the Northeast Rural Protectionary,
and obviously that's still up for debate. Um what it seems like there was no guidelines Specific guidelines put in place at the time, and here we sit 20 years later trying to hash it out. I'm not sure that they're all compatible. I do like Nancy's um suggestions if we're gonna have to have it. Um however it just Seems like now 20 years later things might be a little different. The Land
Development Code 402.1E review considerations state that the PC and the BCC shall consider all the following and reviewing a proposed zoning amendment and nineteen items are mentioned. I just want to bring attention to number two, which states whether the approval of the request would result in the creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. And number five, whether the proposed change will adversely affect living conditions
in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods. While the other items may also apply, the warehouses and condos as a land use is unrelated to the adjacent nearby districts, which is agricultural. The development would also adversely affect the neighbors immediate and surrounding areas. Traffic has been mentioned. We, you know, have a difficult time. We have to be very careful when we're trying to turn left onto our property because that
particular part of the road is the first section where people can pass after they've moved. made the curve. And so when we're turning left, if you are not watching, someone's going to pass and broadside you on the on the way. So the traffic is a issue.
Basically I'll I'll skip all this because of my time, but I feel like it was very forward-thinking in 2005 and 2006 when the overlay of the rural protection area was created, knowing that one day development would come to Pasco County and this area would be in jeopardy of losing what makes this area of Pasco County special. Pasco County is booming in growth, and growth is happening all over the place. To be diligent to protect the
rural area and scenic roadways as they were rightfully deemed deserving of protection. The bottom line for our family is this: we are getting ready to build directly across the street from this parcel. When we purchased, planned, and worked so hard to get our property divided so we could build, we did not expect to become neighbors with the warehouse. We did not dream of moving to the country so we could look out to see condos, warehouses, and semi drugs. The proposal just does not fit in the Northeast
Rural Protection Area, and I beg that you As a Planning Commission, see the the fact and on behalf of everyone here and all the neighbors who were unable to attend, please deny this request. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Just a question, when did you originally purchase your property? Twenty twenty.
Mr. Chairman the next person on the list is Austin Miles.
Good afternoon. I'm Paige Dennis's son-in-law. So my ad my my name is Austin Miles and our address is [address removed].
I envision a life a lot like Mr. Ryan described um beginning I also have two daughters and w one of the reasons like Ms. Dennis said We envisioned going out there and living in a rural community and you know that's the kind of lifestyle that we were looking for. And uh and so obviously the development of this parcel in question impacts me and my family greatly. Um well in for the
foreseeable future, because we plan to live there for the rest of our lives. Um we and we chose this rural or this area because it's rural and it's the most beautiful road probably in Pasco County. Um and It's gonna be ruined when you have semi-trucks driving down it and probably an estimated six hundred different cars driving down it. Um and so that is one of my biggest concerns about this particular development. Um in
addition to what the impact it's gonna have on I-75, um because the ramhorn you go on when you're Exiting to uh take this road to go to where I'm going to be living, it g it can get backed up, especially in rush hour times. Um and so I would feel like that's a potential hazard um and could uh ultimately result in a deadly situation. Um so I really appreciate the ability that we have
to voice our opinions and y'all's time to hear us out and we just hope that Our plea does not fall on deaf ears. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Chairman the next on the list is Robert Brussel.
And I'm just gonna apologize now in case I get the name wrong here. We're
not gonna hold your shirt
against you. Come on. Alright, anywho. So I I mean I don't have any super technical arguments. Not gonna probably bring up anything that's you know new information. You've hashed it out pretty well this afternoon. Um we're yeah, we're at 30603. Well, we have the land there. We currently live in Wesley Chapel, so it's the It's right across the street on Lake Iola, but it's [address removed] at the corner of McJunkin and Lake
Iola. I'm Paige's other son-in-law. But
When I when I came to uh came to the area over a decade ago, uh I fell in love with the the hilly oasis that's kinda composes this northeastern uh Pasco Rural Protection District area. In Florida it's extremely flat and then all of a sudden you you get these hills coming out of nowhere. It's uh it's beautiful. Um and
you know, my my family's property is right across from the subject. And uh while while I'm against this rezoning request due to the uh the approved zoning and land uses in the surrounding properties, even if we did assume that The approval of this project was compatible with the surrounding properties, which I believe is not the case, as stated by others here. There's currently no infrastructure to support it. You had uh no uh public sewer or water, and
and I know we've uh hashed those items out uh in in in detail. Um But it's on a two-lane road that you know if you're building one point five million square feet of warehouse and industrial it's going to have a a heavy impact. You got semi-trucks coming coming in and off and um Yeah, like that interstate exit is not currently constructed to support it. I as far as I could tell I I looked around on F D O T as much as I could. There's n no planning or approvals in process to
update that exit. Um and I know y uh for a fact Even once that is needed and an idea to improve an exit is conceived, it could take years to get approval, further years to get it funded, and even more years to get it corrected and complete the project. I think one of the main issues right now is with timing when it comes to this rezoning request.
But you know, uh finally I just want to end with um what has made America a great nation is that it has been led by men and women with the willingness to plant trees whose shade they would never sit beneath. It's important to plan for development of this nature. It is my concern that we have not done the appropriate planning for a project of this magnitude in an area which is ill-suited to support it. I urge the committee to deny this request. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming.
The next name I have on the list is Jessica Rutherford. Rutherford?
My name is Jessica Rutherford. I live at [address removed]. Um, thank you for hearing me. Um I guess the the first thing I wanted to ask about is I was reading the Future Land Use Appendix, and there's quite a bit of stuff related to developments down on SR-52. So they had their entitlements plan vision and they're laying out, you know, what it should look like. There should be awnings and a roof. Lines and farmers market. Like they get all the things down there. And up at Blanton
and Lake Iola, um, it seems like initially it was sort of left to what the developer thought was appropriate. In their initial plan for the apartments, I mean it really looked more like a warehouse for human beings. And now they've modified that a bit to make it slightly better. Um, but why the disparity?
I'm asking like the Planning and Zoning Commission why does SR fifty two have a very coherent area wide plan. But you're going into the decision making process for a parcel at Blancen and there is no coherent
plan. Well we didn't make the plan.
Who who made the coherent plan for S R fifty two?
So the comprehensive plan
No, no, the appendix, in the new appendix that came out in December.
Okay. Yeah so. The flu appendix is part of the original comprehensive plan. There were some slight modifications made dealing I think Especially here with employment centers. But the overall flu appendix and the overall land plan is not made by anybody up here. Okay. That was made by our planning department and then adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at the time at
the time. The original comp plan was created in 1989, and I don't think anybody sitting here was a planning commissioner in 1989.
You're probably quite a bit
of
a
Commissioner Oakley, she m she m I don't know specifically what she's referring to, but she may be reading sub area policies that apply to the project at the
northwest quadrant code fifty two and I seventy five? That's the only thing I can think of that's
a a specific um part where it's talking about different specific parcels within that development area. And there's some some clearly very new information about specific parcels that are being developed in their size and the entitlement.
Yes, exactly. Exactly. Yes. That's a project that was brought forth within the last six months or year? The zoning, correct. I don't know when the land use for days. But the land use, the The assignment of the future land use designation of employment center. And the prior Land use that
was on this property, the subject property of mixed use, that's an original comp plan designation. That's from 1989, and according to the testimony given here today, the employment center land use was placed on this property in somewhere around 2005 or 2006. There's nobody here that had anything to do with creating this. employment center.
No, I understand that. I'm just saying that they have clearly updated.
I believe the answer to your question is that I believe the project you're referring to is what's called the PD Plan Development.
It's the the whole description in the appendix for the entitlement for the Gateway Hub.
Right. That's a planned development. Right. Which the criteria for plan development have to be embedded in the complex because there are no generic criteria. It's it's it's a it's the equivalent of an of a MPUD for the complaint. In other words, it's a negotiated land use category that is negotiated between staff and the applicant.
So that was all basically created together with the developer in partnership, is what you're saying.
Yeah, the developer and staff worked on a Land use category that was tailored to that particular project.
Okay. Moving aside from that, I think my reading of the comprehensive plan that there's really two main issues. The the water and sewer is a logistical issue, it's not a decision issue. The two decision issues are the road. um and the buffering. So talking about the road, the policy FLU 2.1.11, Rural Residential Roads, does specifically list um Lake Iola Road as one of them, and then Blanton Road is a scenic rural road,
it's not a rural residential road. But what it does say in section 2.1.12 is that the rural roadway system them. Um Specific collector arterial and rural residential roads shall not be expected to require, nor are they planned to receive, capacity improvements over the 20-year planning period unless otherwise consistent with Chapter 7, Transportation Element Table 7-4A, Pasco County Corridor Preservation Table, unless otherwise requested or required by state
law or county ordinances and policies. Yeah. The county concurrency ordinance, the county shall discourage additional roadway expansions of these two facilities beyond two lanes. Prior to the determination of any concurrency requirements that would require lane expansion of the roadway network, the county shall evaluate whether there are and may impose alternative solutions for meeting the identified capacity need. So has there been I I mean uh first
of all I guess does do Blanton Road and Lake Iola Road fall into this category of collector arterial and rural rural residential roads. And secondly, has there been any state law, county ordinance or policy or county concurrency ordinance that would approve the expansions to four lanes from two with multiple stoplights?
Ma'am, that's the essence of the question I asked Steph earlier and the answer I got back was they would need to study that area. Their intent is to study the area for potential expansions of the roadway network. They don't have they don't have any plan in place today.
Okay, I realize my time is up. I just wanted to say that when we were looking at the map that the developer had, you could see that there's kind of four quadrants around the highway and you could do a lot to Protect protect the rural residential roads if you pushed all of the major expansion and stoplights right up against the highway and ran basically access roads along the highway that these developments would use. I'm probably not like some of my neighbors. I assume the development will happen. I just think that the impact
on the surrounding property should you know be minimized. as much as possible and if you had these access roads it would push all of that truck activity, all of the you know high traffic up against the highway and impact people as much farther back.
Here we
go.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman the next person I have on my list is Danny Well.
My name is Danny Wheel. I live at [address removed]. I didn't really plan anything to say but I'll say I can kinda empath em empathize with the landowner. I had a piece of property
excuse me, Danny. I know you said you didn't have didn't plan to speak, but did you were you sworn in?
Yes.
Okay.
With the class.
Okay, thanks.
I own a piece of property in Pinellas County. Had one little house on it. And the future land use was 21 houses. For 30 years I had developers. want to buy the property. When I f when I finally did sell it They all went down and the county said it's just not compatible. Simple as that.
Somebody explain what's compatible about Three hundred apartments. One point five. Millions. square feet of warehouse anywhere on that picture.
Okay. That's it. Thank you. I still got two minutes, so if somebody wants to stand there if you want to I mean if somebody if somebody wants to explain how it's compatible we'd like to hear it. No. I don't feel that it's compatible at all. In any way, shape or form. What's going on is anybody else now? It could be split up into Twenty small parcels, eight small parcels. little family farms like these folks have. But there's nothing in that picture
that says, oh yeah, that's a sweet place for One point five million square feet of warehouse.
Sir, to be clear, the Planning Commission does not respond to public comments. The the applicants are not going to be able to do that. Yeah, I'm just I'm just
I'm just stating my
staff
with public
comments and if they want to respond to your comments when they're when you're done.
I'm just I'm just putting ideas into y'all's heads. Y'all are the ones that are gonna make the decision. Okay. So it's just like there's nothing on there. In any Y it's it's hard for y'all to keep a balance in a greed driven society, I'm sure. But There's a right thing and the wrong thing to do it. It just doesn't work on that picture anywhere. 100%. It just doesn't work.
Thank you.
Mr Chair, the next person on the list is Julie Weal.
Okay, so after that is um Judy Maddox.
Okay.
You can make your comment down?
She wrote her comment down. Okay.
Oh
Are you gonna need to be coming up here? You still need your name and address.
My name is Judy Maddox. I live at [address removed]. Um and we're at the end of that the top road up there on Hawkeye. My husband and I look forward to the property for uh several years before we we found that property. Because we wanted to build Um ours Forever home, which we did. We have a beautiful log home right
in the corner of that piece of property. We we chose it because the land was so pretty and quiet We hear birds. We see I had a bobcat come in front of my dining room and just sat. Set there All of that will go away when there's more people, more traffic. And I just think that that there's other parcels of land that
could accommodate uh an apartment complex. Uh that doesn't fit in this rural area that we live in. And I really think that you need to take a second look at at this development that I don't think is Good for our neighborhood. Okay? And my comment was: I'm here to say goodbye to the to the Evans team. So Um but th
thank you very much.
Thank you. Appreciate you coming in.
Mr. Chair, the next person on our list is Mat Maggie. And on my paper it looks like your last name is W. Kat. I don't know if that's correct. Maggie?
Maggie, is it Maggie here?
So the next one after Maggie's Patty.
Yeah,
read the last name.
Ooh, I'm gonna spell the last name. R-I-O-R-D A-N Weird.
After that is Kathleen.
Kathleen?
Okay.
My name is Kathleen Schneider. I live at [address removed].
You may not understand But I am very proud of my husband Roger who spoke earlier because he is very passionate. He's not loud and out of control. We have very good friends, the Plunketts, the Flynns, Caroline and Anna, that live just north of this property. I don't think what's being proposed fits the area. I
would like to know why the Evans family does not think Hey, we could divide this into five-acre little farmats and let people come up and have horses and have animals, have the wildlife. that would work so much better. And I without even turning around, I would bet that the people behind me would be more than happy to have something like that in our
neighborhood. The exit office 75 was never built. For families. When we get off there's we've seen so many turned over semis because they take the curve too fast. When there is all the extra traffic that's gonna be there, it is going to get worse. I I am requesting that the Evans family please go back and look at what people are saying
and the people that live here. Why can't you do something that fits in? better. And you would be a welcome neighbor and a good neighbor because what you're doing does not make you a good neighbor. You have so many people whose lives are being impacted by this. And it doesn't need to be that way. Look a different way. Don't be so dang blasted greedy
that you have to go for the big bucks. Evan has enough. He could do this and think of how many families could move in there and now have their little piece of heaven. that they could live out their lives and that their kids could enjoy. It breaks my heart that our friends are dealing with what they're dealing with. I hope you stop and think that there's other options and I hope that the Evans family and that their attorneys stop
and think what could go on that parcel that would fit so, so much better. And I plead with you. to reconsider any approval of this 'cause it is gonna ruin us. It's just gonna ruin us.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman the next person I have on the list is Scott Bland.
Hi, my name's Scott Bland. I live at [address removed]. It's right there in the semicircle at the very top. Right there. We actually have property that goes on both Hernando and Pasco. My wife Debbie and I have lived on Lake Iola Road for 26 years and raised two sons on 20 acres in this wonderfully rural community. Again, our property spans uh right across the county line and we get two tax bills. Thank
you very much. Although I expect my words to have a little impact, I'd like to make you aware how destructive this proposal will be to this community. Our house is a little larger than most at 3,200 square feet. The proposal would add buildings nearly 600 times that size and add hundreds of thousands of square feet of impervious asphalt for parking. This is utterly incompatible in character with the nature of the area and is in opposition
to the stated goals of Pasco County's comprehensive plan. The buildings, traffic, groundwater usage, light pollution, I have two telescopes, and sewage generation will totally erase the rural character of this area. Over a thousand vehicles a day would be added to this already dangerous two-lane highway. Recently I drove up I-75 from Tampa. The traffic at State Road 56 exit is horrific, while the area itself is nothing but
franchises and concrete. State Road 54 is much the same. The personality and character of those areas is zero. Yeah. State Route 52 is in the process of being bulldozed and paved over. It's as if someone years ago saw the beauty of Pasco's pastures and farmland and decided that it should be erased. Exit 293, Blanton Road, and Lake Iola Road are the last remaining slivers of rural Pasco along I-75. Bicyclists,
motorcyclists, weekend drivers come from far and wide to enjoy the rolling hills, rural nature, rolling countryside, and scenic highway that defines this area. Bald eagles are frequently seen here and hunt this area. Wildlife is everywhere. Allowing this gross development will permanently erase the rural nature of this community, not just for the people and animals that live here, but for everyone that comes to enjoy it. I implore you to refuse the development proposal
and preserve this tiny final piece of what makes Pasco a great place to live. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr Chairman the next person I have on the list is Michael Bratz.
Michael Bratz, [address removed]. First of all, it seems to me that there's no way to determine the compatibility with the rural area without knowing what the occupancy of 1.5 million square feet of warehousing and light industrial is going to be. 300 residential units is obviously incompatible. I heard the word wastewater bandied about quite a bit. Let's call it what it is. Sewage. Do any of you want a privately built and maintained sewage treatment facility over your wells
where you get your drinking water for your family and your livestock? Have any of you been to that location where this is gonna be at? I heard I was amazed to hear the applicant say that the transportation department had approved this plan. That is Negligence at best, mouth easement's at worst. The best traffic study I could find that was compatible with this was preferred prepared for Riverside County, California. It showed
a low count of 0.4 to a high count of over 10 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of light industrial and warehousing. So you multiply that by 1,500 for what's going to happen on that road. And then you have 300 residential units, the accepted standard for that is 1.8 vehicles per unit. There's absolutely no way that Lake Iola Road can safely handle that kind of an increase. I've invested in real estate in the past. I own real estate that I've invested in. There's no guarantee you're gonna make money when you invest in real estate.
I'm sure you guys have done the same thing. Evans Company is privately held. That's a lot of money for one or two people. What's in it for us is Pasco residence. Pasco has an unemployment rate of 3.4%. We do not need an employment center at this location. That's what I have at this time. I urge you to deny this. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr Chair, the next person I have on my list is Melanie Lamberson.
When we moved here thirty years ago, Spring Lake was an area for watching the night sky because of the of the lack of light pollution. Bikers were frequently seen on Spring Lake Highway, Blanton and Lake Iola roads. Holding races there because of the rolling hills, beauty and fresh air.
Nature.
Oh, sorry. Melanie Lamberson, [address removed]. That's a uh Brooksville address. W I we're just over the line, uh
the sign saying entering Hernando County and then we're pretty much right there.
It is my understanding that Joe Hancock of the former Hancock Rose was killed on his bicycle when hit by a car on Lake Iola Road. The traffic on Spring Lake Highway is too heavy to support the sport of bicycling now. I fear that if this development goes forward, Spring Lake Highway will have to be widened again and possibly four-laned. I noticed that one of the things that was on the screen was easy access to State Road 50, and that would mean Spring
Lake Highway.
I wonder if the Hernando County Commissioners are even aware of this threat to their budget. If rural character is to be maintained, the people living on Spring Lake Highway and its offshoot roads should be able to enter Spring Lake Highway without waiting endlessly for traffic. Endless traffic is not consistent with rural character. While my interest is in what happens to our life on the other side of the county line in Hernando, Pasco County's plans have enormous impact for
our rural character and the life we live here. There is nothing about warehouses and apartments that are consistent with rural character. The all-night lighting from warehouses and apartments as well as air and noise pollution of trucks are not a welcome addition to our area. There is no infrastructure to support this development, nor is any desired by the public for it to be built. Pasco County is listed as third in the entire country for development according to
Google. Drainage and traffic complaints abound as the results of all this existing and in-process development, while water is a finite resource. When will it stop? This area is supposed to be protected from development, contrary to its rural character. Warehouses and apartments have no rural character.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman the next person I have on my list is Bill Lamberson.
What I wanna do is just mention this from purely a civil We need your name and
address, sorry.
Beg your pardon? Name and address for the road. Oh sorry. [address removed].
Thank you.
What I'd like to address is a civil engineering thing. The both the southbound and northbound exits off I seventy five Our Th the the the traffic on them is already too much. They're s short Off rams. And furthermore, where Lake Iola and Blanton Road
come together. It's already congested there. And there is a Planned 900 space RV Park. Less than a mile from there. And also Traveler's Rest is maybe a little bit further than a mile. But The infrastructure there, the roads, are just They're not
good enough to support anything else there. Thanks.
Thank you very much.
The next person I have on the list is Brittany Delp Dello? Sorry if I said that wrong.
Hello. My name is Brittany Diliello. I live at [address removed]. While I am in Hernando County, this directly affects me since I drive to work every day. Um everyone has complained about how this obviously doesn't fit the rural agricultural You know. things we have going on in this area already. I'd like to point out specifically that their traffic plan that they have provided us. Specifically says that right now we have two
thousand two twenty trips of cars a day. An estimated 5,232 extra cars are going to be coming out of this development. That is two and a half times more cars and vehicles that we are going to experience at this thing. Specifically, the residential project, it's going to add 65% more traffic going southbound on 75%. And the Industrial project adds fifty percent more traffic going
southbound, 30% more traffic going northbound. So obviously something is gonna have to be done with that intersection specifically. Um the their their um traffic plan only never addressed widening that intersection at all. Um it only addressed widening their turn lanes that they are going to need. So They need to address that as well. Um And
I would also like to point out that in your Section 522 of the Master Planned Unit Development District, 522.6 Area Wide Employment Center Planning Process. Under kn Review process number four, the applicant shall conduct a minimum of two neighborhood meetings to solicit comment. Feedback and input on the proposed area wide employment center. I don't know about everyone else. Um there was only
one neighborhood meeting. If anybody else knows of another one.
The answer to your question is they didn't do an area wide th this wasn't an area wide plan. This was a plan for one particular property owner in the E C not the entire area.
Uh but it's for the employment center area, correct? We're talking about the employment center area, right?
There's multiple property owners within the employment center. And the Complan and the Land O'Man could contemplate that there could have been an Area wide planning effort for that entire EC. That's what I think that's referring to.
Uh okay.
And and staff to in defense of staff, I think that's what they're asking for is they want to do an area wide planning effort for this EC, at least that's what I think Mr Engel was saying.
Okay.
All right. Well presumably if they did they would do follow the process you're talking about.
Okay. Well, um if you'd also like to address your um own twenty fifty plan. Your population density that you have in proposed population density in 2045 is zero to five residents per acre in that area. An estimated Employment density is less than zero point four or zero to five employ employment den well Workers per
acre as well and that's twenty years. So I'm not sure why we're rushing this and trying to Yeah. Um
I'm sorry. Um never mind, sorry, thank you.
All right, thank you very much.
Mr Chairman Mariano is Daniel Diello.
Hi, my name is Daniel Diliello. I live at [address removed]. And every week, whether for leisure or work, my wife and I have to drive by where this development is going to be. As previously stated, the on and off ramps for the interstate are very short. The turn ramps to go from Blanton Road on or off the interstate are very short. If there's one person coming from the interstate to turn left down towards the RV park. It's five cars
backed up in a very short space on a curve, and just one person turning can back it up. So I can't imagine what 300 new units and warehouses with trucks, school buses, people coming and going all the time is going to do to that area. Um
There's people who ride bikes on that road, believe it or not, and having this much more traffic is going to be very dangerous. There's tractors that drive on this road, and people who live in an apartment complex aren't going to understand that that's a part of living in a rural community is You have tractors on the roads. They're gonna try and speed around them, go around them, and they have nothing to do in this area. There's not even a gas station. The nearest gas station is 10-15 minutes in either direction in Brooksville or more
into Dade City. And these people have nothing to do other than travel through Brooksville, use the interstate, and those are tiny two-lane roads. That are dangerous if you have too many people on it or you're having to pass people or people just don't understand the rural characteristics of rural roads and the wildlife that's on them, the tractors, the agricultural stuff. Um And it just simply doesn't fit. There is nothing around
this development Other than one tiny electrician warehouse, I think closer to Blanton Road there.
Yeah, there's nothing for these people to do who move here other than travel through the county, travel through Brooksville. The infrastructure in Brooksville is already so low where if there's two simultaneous car accidents, someone's just gonna have to wait. The last time I called 911 in my neighborhood, they didn't even have a time frame to when they could get here and I had to drive my neighbor to the hospital myself. Um
And that's all I have. Thank you very much. Appreciate coming.
Mr Chairman the next person I have is Kathy Lambert.
Happy love. Okay. So the next person I have on the list is Mr. Russell, John Russell.
John Russell, [address removed]. Um been sitting here you know I've been to some of these not so much this meeting but uh County Commission meetings in the past and uh you know I have a fair idea how these things operate. Um I uh was was the Democratic nominee for US House District Five in uh two thousand six and um just in relation to how things
may operate. Uh not accusing anyone, but uh I got a call from a guy named uh Ken Freeman, DC lobbyist for Big Pharma. I'm a healthcare professional. And uh John, if you're willing to work with play ball with the pharmaceutical industry, we get you all the contributions you need. And I've seen some of that uh when I've been to you know when I pay attention to what goes on in uh Pasco County uh
politics.
Could we just get to the point? I'm I'm
getting to the point. I'm trying to illustrate people of
previous details. We we know you think we're all crooks, so just get
to the point. Well well I'm not saying all you guys particularly. I'm saying I know how politics operates. in here. And so these people are speaking with with uh fervor and emotion and are factually correct for the most part. and presenting documentation thereof. But when we're talking about an employment center, Usually you'd have an employment center somewhere where it would be more convenient for people who are seeking employment. This
is not the most uh convenient place I think most people would uh would uh garner uh putting it kinda out in the country there. I think it's more of a placeholder. And what was mentioned uh earlier was the fact that once the camel's nose, this is well be the camel's nose under the under the tent Um that opens the door to the people who who are big landowners who are already inquiring about how we can put our stuff up for sale. And so once
the once that rezoning and uh of land occurs, then the whole place is shot. I think there's a problem there's a problem with people Uh in um Positions of power. Actually understanding value. I've heard a lot of people here take note of what the value truly is in a place other than Wesley Chapel. And when we talk about safety, so I'm in healthcare.
I've uh worked in trauma at Tampa General, and uh so I've seen lots of the detritus that occurs on our roads. And when you're talking about, I don't know if anybody here's uh into motor racing and knows what the Laguna Seca or the corkscrew at Laguna Seca is, because that's exactly what coming the southbound exit getting off onto Blant Road is. It's like the corkscrew at Laguna Seca. It's very dangerous, and when we're
sitting here and we're wondering about um You know, is is the County Commission serving serving the community as a as a servant of the community or a servant of the developers? It seems to me, having been around here for more than 20 years, uh much of the membership on the County Commission are either landowners or they're servants of landowners. I would speak to, you know. Specifically to Mr. Oakley would
be one one to pay attention to. But there's no there's no um there is no um his time up, sir? Yeah, uh you know, I think I've probably sent it off. You get my drift. We want an honest decision that suits the terrain that is the that Northeast World Care cor corridor. And I don't want city water. I have perfect water. I have perfect water right now. I thank you very much, and I hope you'll come to a an honest
and and thoughtful decision on this. Uh When it comes to that point. Thank you very much.
All right, who's on the next? Mr. Chairman I don't have anybody else signed up, but I believe there are several people in the audience who wish to provide public comment who have not spoken yet.
Okay. Can
I see your hands?
Okay. Have you been sworn?
Oh yeah.
Okay, let's anybody that wants to speak and hasn't been sworn, please stand up, raise your right hand.
You swear for the testimony you're about to give is the truth of love and God. Yes.
Okay, and I know you're all passionate about it and I want you to have an opportunity to speak, but I'd like you to be speaking about something besides what we've already heard because we you know we kn we're pretty tuned in on what your concerns are and but I want you to s feel free to speak. So come on up. We'll give you your time even though you didn't sign up.
Um Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for coming. My name is James Navarro Sr. and I live at [address removed]. I'm not going to bring up anything that's been discussed here. You guys, as you mentioned, uh know pretty much the the thing. But I am confused and and this is my confusion. My confusion is uh the Evans team here had gone through litigation
and they've acquired rights to this property. And they have uh
outline some of the things that they want to do there according to what this county had agreed to back I guess in 2005 and 2006. Now, my confusion stems is, why are we here? Let's let's think about that. Why are we here? Are we here to Agree? To allow them to do this, to ruin this area. Or are we here to find ways that
we can make them move in without Bruno in this area. Can any one of you guys explain to me?
What is it that we can do with having these folks here as neighbors. Can we allow them?
Or are we just wasting our time?
Excuse me? They're seeking to rezone the property, that's why we're here.
if they're if they're seeking to rezone the property Then Why are they not allowed to put what they want before according to their agreement? Maybe you can answer that.
Excuse me, sir. You can't address them.
Oh I'm sorry. Yeah. That's all right. Um if they're gonna go rezoning to to this new plan Is it something that you guys have last say on or is that something that you have to agree on?
Any residential property would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Okay.
Even though they had this a legal agreement that they have a there's a comprehensive plan land use designation for this property of employment center.
Okay.
That's the comprehensive plan. They still need to obtain a zoning approval to do the types of entitlements that they're seeking.
And we're the first step in reviewing that, second step is Board of County Commissioners.
Okay, so so second final. So you can take some of our uh opinions and and considerations into into your decision. That's why it's a public hearing. Right. So having said that, if you guys can at least at some point Look at what everyone says here and take that into in account 'cause I'm not going to go over of the insane things, but at the same time I want to have the nice views and
and also the pleasant uh living conditions
we're doing today. Thank you.
Thank you very much for
your time.
Who's next?
Oh yeah.
Careful.
Hi, my name is Kim Witt. I live at [address removed]. Uh I'd like to submit these if I can uh and give your attention to the summary pair of the. Motion receive
and file.
Second. Okay.
All in favor?
Aye.
So ma'am, this is a summary of the neighborhood meeting.
At the meeting that they held, I believe, on the December tenth.
That's what you're giving us as a second one. That's what I'm giving you. Okay. And that was some of the questions.
Was there something specifically you're pointing out to us?
Uh just the summary uh Because we can't read the whole
summary while you're while you're there. We wouldn't want to hear what you think.
Well, it was not a very good meeting in my book. Um
let me ask the question a different way. Is there anything that was said at that meeting that's different than what we've heard today?
Just very unprofessional, I thought. Um but that's I'm giving that to you. You guys can read it if you want. Uh the question I have is that if this is an industrial uh that's happening, what's going on with the waste. How is it gonna affect my well, my property? Um I grew up in West Palm and I grew up in Tampa. And I have seen the
changes. It's not good. My husband Who grew up in Luz? was involved in an automobile accident because of so many people on the road. And he's paralyzed. And we moved out here and he just grew because there was more things to do on his property. If you allow this, you're affecting people's lives.
And the last thing I wanna say is if you can do something, it's not always the right thing to do. Thank
you.
Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments.
Good afternoon. My name is Brock Lochlear. I live at [address removed]. It's just north and across the street from the subject properties being discussed. Uh I bought it some 25 years ago. At the time I bought it, Pasco County told me that God couldn't change the zoning out there. It was going to be one dwelling unit per five acres.
I eventually sold off the 37 acres and five acre plots, some six, some seven acre plots. Everybody would stop me on the weekends on my bush hog and ask if they could buy the property up there because they fell in love. with the rural area. and they wanted a little farm that. I walk my dog out by that highway in the front yard every morning at 7 o'clock. My dog has got a routine. And
uh I have to stick with that routine 'cause she's a big Labrador. I have noticed the traffic. Increased. since they widened and put the bicycle lanes which is kinda insane because cars do a hundred miles an hour in front of my house because it's a straightaway. The Sheriff's Department of Hernando County and Pasco County are scared to death of that county line. They won't go near it because they
don't want to chase people in Hernando. Hernando doesn't want to chase people in Pasco, so they're afraid of it, so the traffic goes crazy. Motorcycles are doing hundred miles an hour. out there all the time. Bicycles are out there with this traffic. This is going to add more traffic. I noticed the traffic in the last seven years has increased dramatically since they have improved and put those bicycle lanes out there. I
am afraid of the problems with the infrastructure for something like this. This is like throwing a diamond in a pile of rocks. It just doesn't fit. And I hope that people will understand that adding to an already overburdened infrastructure is ridiculous and insane thinking, in my opinion. Yeah. You're gonna add uh water I've got a pond in my
backyard. What is this sewer system gonna do to my drinking water? I've got a well. What is this gonna do to my drinking water? What is this gonna do to the traffic out on the road? In front of my house there is a pipe underneath my fence that feeds the well on this property, and it comes from a pump on some property down closer to the county line at Hawkeye Road and Lake
Iola Road. Does the punk on Evans property up there, is it gonna take care of all the water for this or are they gonna use that well system from down the road? And that is just a booster pump up there on the hill. I think that this needs to be explored further and see how this is going to be accommodated all the infrastructure burdens that are going to be placed on it. Thank you.
Thank you. They'll have an opportunity to answer some of these questions when they come back up.
I'm sorry?
When they come back up, they'll have an opportunity to answer some of those questions. Thank you.
Was there anybody else? Okay.
Yeah, is it all right?
Yeah.
I'm Janet Olson. I live on [address removed]. My family has lived on Lake Iola for 75 years. We're not opposed to growth by any means. But it's gotten out of control. We don't want to look like Starkey Ranch. Nobody over here wants to look like that mess over there. Nobody. Everybody wants their quiet life. People have moved here for that quality. And it is terrible.
This man, you need it.
Excuse me, miss. Miss, you
have to
address us. Can't turn around and talk to the
You turn around and tell him what I got to say.
He can hear you. That's why you got a microphone. it.
He needs to go sit at Lake Isla Road, as it crosses over, comin' off of plantin, At six o'clock in the morning. When you're trying to go to home assassin, go scalloping. It is bumper to bumper to bumper. It has gotten ridiculous. It's out of control.
There weren't that many scalps this year.
Sculping was okay.
Uh not that good.
But The keys were better for lobsters. Just ja just so d you know, you know.
You know, I I feel so sad. I know the Evans family. I've known them for years. I have worked for them. I think Jimmy and Harriet would roll over in their graves if they saw what Emmett was doing. I really do. I really, really do. Hi. I really do. And it upsets me. They don't need the money. But you're gonna put a three hundred multifamily Apartments? How many people is that gonna
add? Six hundred, nine hundred, Everybody's got a car. Everybody kids are living at home because they can't get a job. You're gonna put this A warehouse or warehouses? We've got a warehouse on Pasco Road. If you come out Pasco Road, you go up to 52 where the Burger King is, there is a warehouse there. What was told to the public years ago when it, oh, we're gonna bring in 600 jobs, three shifts of 200
people per shift. You go by there, there's one car, maybe one truck. They ain't no people in that parking lot. It's a joke. It is a joke. And I know that they've probably got uh all kinds of tax incentives to build that thing there. That's an eyesore. I understand they have master plans. I I understand that. I understand growth. But we don't want to look like Starkey Rant. We really don't. And you go down Bellamy Brothers and you look at all that's ripped up land, it's just horrible.
You got three subdivisions going on Saint Joe Road. going from Happy Hill into town Happy Hill, you got one right there, fifty-two right there. That land was designated as agriculture permanently. Julia Pittman told me that. She d gave that to Drew. There's eighty houses, ninety houses going in there right now. And it's it's sad. Am I over time?
You sure are.
Well I'm alrighty then. Thank you. I don't I don't mean to be over time. What was that address for the lobster again?
Well we got some nice bugs this year. I've got a bag full in the fridge. Well, I well I do. But I I thank y'all for what you do. It's a hard job. It it really is. You have a lot of bull dropped in your lap and and it's how do you walk through it? But being here for a long time and and there's generations sitting right back here And I'm still considered a newcomer. Even though I've been here. Am I not? I know that. And and but I love
this community. I I've I have volunteered and bartended fundraisers in this community for twenty five years to give to the community because I can do it. And I hate to see What's happening? I really do. I do. But you ain't putting no There won't be one by my house. No, no there won't. So thank you all for what you do. We'll see you in the next fundraiser, Jim. Thank you. I like you. He's got this
My name is Colby Cassidy. I'm at [address removed]. But um Me and my wife actually just purchased a 10-acre lot on Amberlea in October. Amberlea Road is about one or two miles south southeast of this on the other side of the interstate. We purchased this land because of the scenic views and the rural overlay. We purchased this because of the Northeast Rural Protection Area. The drives are obviously beautiful and everything we ever
wanted is here. We plan on building our forever home on this property. Um this is completely incompatible with the entire character of this of this rural area. I think that's pretty obvious. Um I'm not gonna parrot everything that everybody's said, but it The Lake Iola Road is completely incompatible with the traffic for the mobilization of this project alone. Um and the div once it's developed is a
whole other story. So like everybody said, the interstate on ramp and off-ramp is is pathetic already. Um to add this to it is gonna be absolutely insane. Three hundred units. A million and a half square foot of it it's just ridiculous. Um So I I just think it contradicts the entire idea of of what the rule overlay is and what this stuff is for. We spent our life savings in October, close to our
life savings, buying this 10-acre property because of everything that this area is. I actually called the planning department to find out if there is it was gonna be anything like this in any time in the future and I got a a a no. So this was in October. I'm not really sure why I got that answer. Uh but that's a conversation for another time. Um there's a lot of questions obviously with um the project uh whether it's get a whether it gets
public utility water or if it's got a plant of its own. the either way is bad. It's terrible for the environment. It's the terrible for the the ground, water and all the lakes and the surrounding area. And I gotta um a uh a drop in our land with some springs in it. right next door. So I was also told about this About What time is it? I was told about this meeting at eleven A. M. this morning. by
a neighbor who I just so happened to meet and get her phone number and we've been in contact 'cause her husband has cancer. She couldn't make it so she texted me. I had no idea about this. Like I said, I called in um in October to find out about this prior to our during our due diligence of buying our property. So anyways the people in this room are the ones that are directly affected and I'm a newer generation but I think it's clearly obvious that this the the roadway's not built for this and we all know how long it takes for that whole
um gallop to go once it goes there, once this project is done. Um and I I don't anyways, I just hope you guys take consideration um to what everybody here has said today. Thank you guys, appreciate it.
Thank you for coming.
Okay, was that anybody else now?
Oh my god.
My name is Lynn Silvers. My address is [address removed]. And
It's very rural. And in fact the road is condemned because of the traffic. And so And it is Hernando County. But I think they ought if in order to keep it looking rural and
They ought to put maybe five or ten acre farms on it. And I know they paid over a million dollars for it and they're probably crying already, but Um is you can't really put a um you have to have water brought in because we all have arsenic in our water. So you can't even put wells in very well. And um everybody in that ar in that area has got arsenic.
And um the problem with me is that
Everybody uses our roads as shortcuts out of Brooks, but So that's gonna put more traffic on our roads. and it's gonna wear 'em down faster. It's just that I'm worried about the traffic. and uh all that on Spring Lake Highway and old Spring Lake Road and Powell Road and Aries Road. So that's all I got to say.
Okay, thank you.
Is there anybody else?
Okay. All right, Mr. Titty, you want to have your Uh technicians respond or you want to respond?
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Joel too again for the applicant. I'm going to be extremely brief. I'm getting way too old in retirement. I'm worn out after three and a half hours, even though I only spoke for my twenty minutes. So I only want to say uh two things. Number one is I uh have to go home to my own ninety five year old mom who's lived with me the last two years and will probably shake her finger at me when I get home. So so I'm used to it. And I'll tell mom the same thing. Mom, I hear what you're saying. I understand
your concerns and and what you have out there. But You know, the facts are what they are and the comp plan is what it is. This family has owned this land for 50, 60 years. That family doesn't have any greater or any less rights than anyone else who owns land out there. And this land from the beginning, from the origin of time of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, had a mixed-use designation on it. Um any
realtor. Who sold any of these people any property, certainly Could have found that out. um that mixed use was actually downplanned to this employment center designation in O five over their objection. That was a huge that the employment center as I said was actually embedded in the original Northeast Rural Protection Plan. So it's not that it was a surprise, it was a known factor. from the day there was any concept of Northeast Pasco So
either the people weren't here and weren't aware of that whole proceeding, which was months. I mean this was a year or two probably two years it took for that comprehensive plan amendment to go through. So i it's not a surprise. It's always been the fact and it is what it is. We are sympathetic and that's why I said whatever the comp plan policies are, whatever the land development code requirements are, as we go through site planning, once we have specific users on specific parcels so you can determine what is appropriate,
we will buffer, we will landscape We will have setbacks and we will do what the Comp plan and the LDC require. And we'll comply with any additional requests that are reasonable as we go through that process. So that's really, you know, those are my two points is is that we can't change that. And my final point, cause it's a lot easier for me to say it than the Evans family, but I've worked for them for twenty, twenty-five years now. Um it's a little unfair for the family to be personally attacked because
people only look at one situation where all they're asking to do is to have that which they've been entitled to for 30, 40 years. The same family, since the issue's been brought up, is the same family that funded a million dollars. privately to start the V OPH financial plan because the county only had four hundred thousand dollars. And they led that property on our group. They also were the family that committed for 10 years that land for the VOPH
superpark. at a substantially discounted value on land that had far greater development potential, That family also, as Mr. Williams knows, has provided him school sites, gladly done so, not fought him for school credits rather than being paid in cash. So it's unfair to paint them as a greedy, wealthy family. They have they have been a mainstay, uh, largest employer back in the day in Dade City with that citrus plant when they started it with likes and then did their own plant. So
I think it's unfair to turn this into a personal attack. on the family. Hopefully that's not where this is coming from. Um but I just feel like they need to be defended, uh and I'm I'm happy and and and uh proud to defend them on that point. We all have rights. If it was my land I would feel like I had my rights. Thank you.
Joe Penny. Can I ask a question?
Yes sir.
How did you guys arrive? At the at the million and a half and a half square feet of warehouse. And the apartments. I understand and I'm looking at this document you gave us from the s settlement, the stipulated settlement agreement.
Some of the uses could have been corporate business park, targeted primary business. I'm not exactly sure what that is, and I think that probably changes over time. I know at one point warehouse and distribution was a targeted primary business. Um and industrial uses And I see multifamily included, but why the warehouse and industry versus corporate business park or whatever targeted primary business is?
If you if you refer Mr. Moody to the agreed uh conditions that we worked out with staff, we actually covered all of those. We we have as permitted uses the corporate business part, the target industry, the I-1 light industrial, certain limited I-2 uses. The thought process with staff when we were cooperating on what this should be was let's give you a reasonable Board as long as we eliminate noxious noxious uses and uses that would be offensive, like outdoor,
you know, storage or outdoor manufacturing uses. Let because we're going to be competing with that Pasco Town Center Double Branch and Heinz. The thought process is that most of those appear to be heavily headed toward medical uh technology and and and And medical type uses, we think that this will be a good site for a broader mixture. We we we probably will get some warehouse distribution. I think we'll get some clean light industry. That's why we said that all the perimeter parcels
have to be clean light industry. The others have to be buffered in the center, surrounded by those uses. As to the quantity, the county staff at the time wanted us to make. it as robust as was reasonable giving a normal FAR ratio. and also the contemplation is if there's enough demand the whole site. would be those employment uses. We we may not build the multifamily if that happened. And so if you do the math on that, it's an FAR of maybe point five, which for that type
of large warehouse structure is not you know, overly heavy. Uh so it was a number that worked with a reasonable FAR ratio if it got fully built out. But that's why it says up to that amount. Um and then of course we limited the Remember now we voluntarily limited the multifamily to only platted fee simple product. There have been references to apartments today. And we agreed, even though we have every right to those under that category, we've
agreed we won't do that.
Cheers. I might ask you this question, but it's more for clarification of some of the comments that came up here. In this future land use designation of EC Are you allowed to do single family detached
You are not.
Exactly.
See that's the thing. You absolutely cannot. So we're doing that which it allows, except that we're voluntarily agreeing not to do an initial rental, you know, apartment. Uh we're doing feet simple platted products. So I think we're actually and we've limited the retail to only what staff agreed were or good neighborhood support uses, not large-scale regional uses. We've limited the industrial, carved out noxious uses. We've agreed to put light industrial
only around any perimeter lot. Uh there is one issue I want to bring up for about the gentleman that owns the immediate parcel to the north, and you need to be aware of this. We had originally We had to fight staff because staff wanted the mandatory cross access to every adjacent parcel. And we said, Well that's crazy. Why would we force a connection to the gentleman to the north who given his ten acre parcel in his home, he likely isn't going to be happy with that. So that's why we I asked for the waiver of
the mandatory cross access. Staff's the one. trying to force that cross access. That shouldn't happen. You know we shouldn't. be required. He doesn't want us to cry, just talk to him. He obviously would not want us to cross-connect. So we're we've tried to do everything to be sensitive to that. So that's why if you do see fit to recommend approval, please include, which it's in the conditions, they had agreed on this originally. You know, be sure that you approve that
part to grant that waiver to not require that mandatory cross-access. to him on the north, 'cause if I were him I would not be happy with that. So But that's how we came about it. We just did a logical FAR that if the full site went to an industrial or target business or any of those uses, uh you conceivably at an FAR of of about point five, you you could get close to the million five square feet. Probably
not very likely to happen. But it really depends what happens with Heinz and Columnar down at fifty-two. Because you know the the other problem is the county doesn't have any enough of these sites. You know, you you talk to your economic development people, they'll tell you they don't have enough pre approved industrial uh you know corporate business park areas that are ready to go. Um And that's the reason why this went at an interstate interchange. I
mean this is a long that's why the comp plan is long term. Um You got a plan for that. But that's how we came up with the numbers. I mean... If a million five is a problem, then We don't think it is, but if that doesn't make sense, let us know. Like I said, w they're they're actually reasonable people.
And how did we arrive at the fifteen year life of the proposed M P U B versus the standard six.
Yeah, just being realistic about the market. Um I I think it would be foolish to only do a six year build out here. Uh Uh because you gotta wait for that market to come to you. So we've done the same thing at CPEV, we did the same thing at Pasco Town Center. All of these large projects that we've done, particularly the employment center projects, we have built a longer horizon just so you don't have us back in here having to do a full MGD modification and go through
this again when all we're asking for. is five more years. So the thought process is if we're going to do it and since the Comp Plan has always contemplated it, at least give us a reasonable business horizon to market and build something like this out. Uh Because we've got a lot of utilities to pay for. Um There's gonna be a big nut up front uh to start this. Private. Private not
Okay.
Thank you.
Is there anybody else from your group that you want to speak?
Not unless you guys have a specific technical question. That's why we put everything I don't
know if they want to speak about traffic or
I wasn't asked the same question as well.
Well it it's
Well the reason the reason I didn't feel compelled to do that, but we certainly can is in the record from the application. There was a full-blown review of the transportation study that was approved by engineering. And as Mr. Goldstein knows, he's had me agree in the transportation condition. That if we do anything that generates even one trip above that assumed number, we got to do a new study. If we do any commercial, we have to do a new study.
So this will go through the standard access management requirement. And the reason that it's important to do those on an update is as you know, until you have a specific use on a specific part. parcel in the property, you can't really do an intelligent analysis of access and what the impact is. Because different uses, you know, but this this assumes a large build out number. And what it demonstrated is at build out and Micraser can it's
it's in the PowerPoint Paper copy and the one I sent you. All those all those links still operate at at acceptable level of service and the county transportation Engineering staff signed off on that. And we've agreed that if we do anything other than what they've approved. We have to do a new one. And it does require both left turn and right turn lanes. It requires the additional right-of-way on Lake Iola. And like I said, we'll provide whatever. They gave us the
number they needed for Lake Iowa off the master long-term roadway plan. I mean the county has that specified. In the L R T P. And I said, tell me the dimension that you need and and we'll we'll we dedicate it for free. That's in the conditions. Joel, uh but if you want Mike Razor, yeah, can we have Mike come up? Sure, I've got
a couple questions on Mike too. So I got one more question for you real quick, Mr. Two. On uh your slides here, you've got the ECU flu is limited to and only allows industrial distribution support commercial and multifamily. Where's where's the distribution come from? I just I'm not seeing it where it's specifically called out for the ECU flu.
Um I think it is in the overall E C category or which one are you looking at? Are you looking at the one that that's in the full comp plan or the one that was attached to the settlement that just dealt with the percentages?
I'm looking well I I looked at both and I don't I'm not seeing it neither one but uh on your slide or distribution cloud specifically 'cause the the line and I think the comp plans it uh
Well I did I did Central Pasco Employment Village and I did Pasco Town Center Double Branch with Mr. Engel and I know in all the E C areas we've allowed uh the industrial uses and the corporate Now typically on some of the others that were EC MPDs, you know, we had to allocate a certain percentage to those target uses, which we've done. But I don't think there's any question under the comp plan, there's never been any question, but that you can do industrial uses in the EC. And
I I I'm sorry I didn't nobody's ever questioned that to haven't looked. But we can look at that before we get to the board.
Certainly. But I'm
pretty confident that we can.
And I'm just kinda looking at the letter of the law and the what we've got here. I don't I don't see in underneath industrial it covers manufacturing compounding, assembling, processing, packaging treatment. Um I I think You know, you brought up the original intent from two thousand five. I had the benefit of getting stuck in the car with a guy who was a part of that and thought. Um and and the way things have changed, I've talked about this a lot. You know, this to take somebody from two thousand five and put 'em into today's world,
blow their mind, right? I I don't think distribution centers at the time were a thing. Um
And maybe that's why the county now automatically does that. I know I know input we've received. Uh if there's any one use on this site that's looked most favorably by the powers that be, it's the it's the wide breadth of industrial uses for what that's worth. I mean the pushback I got was on multifamily apartments
right
and or multifamily, but I've had no one question and actually they asked that we include as broad a brush of acceptable industrial corporate business park target industry that they they seem to want the broadest we can have as long as we exclude those noxious noxious use items which William and I Did.
Yeah, and I I think
But we're we're certainly happy to look at that. If there's an issue with that, we can review that with BED and Mr. Goldstein before BCC and if we need to tweak those industrial uses, but I'm pretty confident that the board's gonna want us to do those industrial uses for what that's worth.
Right.
They're limited job creators in my mind. Um and and just
it's not employment center.
Right, it's not employment center to me. I think you know, I think employment center, I think of like um
Just those job creating businesses, you know, some so I just and we've got a distribution center that's sitting there at like somebody mentioned it, Pasco Rubber sitting empty.
The target.
The target the own
again, off again target.
Off again off again target. So um
Well somebody has a lot of money invested there, they'll eventually they'll eventually figure out that use. Right. And then I and I doubt that Mr Ingle could get to that knowing him well enough, I doubt he gave them any economic benefits until they they produce jobs. So
I can probably answer the question. If you look at section and admittedly this is an M P U D and not an E C M Pud, which Joel's quick to point out. But if you look at the E C M Pud standards of what's allowed use in an E C M Pud, if you look at section
Um one B it lists the industrial uses and number seven is distribution plants.
Right, that's what I've seen.
And then there's a number twenty which talks about light industrial flux space, which is
Yeah, I know there are places in the comp plan that I've done.
So I so just so you know the the list of uses that's in five twenty two point five um D, these preferred uses, which include a corporate business park and These were all developed with the Pasco Economic Development Council. These are the uses that PEDC told us that we should authorize in EC. Now, admittedly, things may have changed since this was done back in I don't know when this was done, probably in two thousand and eight
or nine or so. Um but PEDC has not asked us to remove distribution or light industrial flux space from the permitted uses in EC. So but it if you're asking are they allowed today the code says they are. Well
at one point that was targeted business. Is it still a targeted business do you know?
Yeah, there's actually a separate list of targeted businesses. So There's a whole sh market. There's a whole there's there's a C which is targeted primary businesses, which is manufacturing, whole list of manufacturing uses, medical research, office uses. So it's uh tell you is please look at five twenty two point five D which lists every preferred use in an employment center. And it's got corporate
business park, industrial uses, Bine industrial flux space distribution. I'm not I'm not expressing any opinion about whether this list is too broad or not. I'm just telling you that this was the list that PDC gave us when this section of the code was developed. Okay. Okay, Jamie, I think you
wanted to see the right-of-way.
Yeah, and for Mr. Razor, he's gonna need his slides back. Could we go back to our PowerPoint?
Come on up.
And uh you'll have your slides on the PowerPoint at their uh you know there's toward the end if you need to
Well good afternoon, getting into good evening. Uh my name is Michael Racor uh with Racer Transportation Consulting. Um I am a registered professional engineer with a specialization in traffic engineering and I have been sworn. Um There may be specific questions, but I will give you a brief overview of traffic for this project. When we initially took this project on in 2023, early 2023. We had prepared
a time and in phasing analysis to accompany the rezoning. That study looked at 250 apartments and about a million square feet of lead industrial. The results of that study, as reviewed through staff, both through the methodology and the stand the analysis, identified that transportation performance standard pursuant to the land development code were met or exceeded.
From that point, the as we have heard from uh today's discussion, the entitlements have been modified, generally upwards. We did not update the study because during that time period, uh Mr. 2 had identified that there was an exemption in the code for this project requiring a timing and phasing analysis. Uh 9012 C3. C, I believe, where a project with an underlying future land use of EC is exempt from providing timing and
phasing analysis, so we did not update that. But the original one that we had done with slightly fewer entitlements identified that the transportation study area met the adopted uh standards pursuant to the land development code. I've also heard discussions. today regarding the interchange and I think we can all agree it's an older interchange and Most of the interchanges in Pasco County, all of them have been old at one point and they've been reconstructed when the need and the growth is there and hits it. And this would situation wouldn't
wouldn't be any different. I had spoken with DOT about this particular interchange during the project at the Northeast quadrant of uh of the interchange, which uh we was rezoned a few years ago to to IL or I W. one, I'm not sure, industrial of some sort. They had indicated at that point that they had no issues with the interchange they had no concerns about that particular project. Um when reaching back out to them this time around, I think some of the folks behind me had gotten to them and they were not so um
forthcoming and stating that they didn't have an issue. Um they said they needed to look at it, they needed to talk with folks in Pasco County and whatnot, so I never really got an answer to that. At that time, we looked at five years of crash data. There was not a crash history associated with the interchange that was atypical or pointed out any specific deficiency. In asking DOT for updated information, they said that they didn't have complete records over the past five years. So the prior five years is what we've looked at. And again, there
wasn't a specific deficiency identified through that. Review as I testified before uh the Planning Commission and Board for that project at the Northeast Quadrant. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any specific questions.
Jamie?
Well m my my specific I mean uh multiple people got up and and voiced concerns about the those interchanges particularly at the interstate and uh Maybe you just touched on it briefly, but w I mean I was trying to get an understanding of what is the process. I mean I've I've seen enough D O T projects that I'm hoping they're complete in my lifetime. Um
Right, they're always uh building something somewhere and sometimes things don't get done. However, um Overpass Road got built fairly quickly, as did fifty six interchange. So there's some But there's some outliers, specifically in Pasco County. Um but as you know, being in the engineering field yourself, you know the the the need, the demand needs to be there first. Just like we heard with water earlier, they're not extending water lines ten miles for no reason. The need needs to be there. Well
I didn't I didn't know what trigger I guess what my where my question was going was is what would trigger you I guess you would only trigger the the requirement to do a TOT DOT level study if you're connecting directly to a DOT road, in which case you're not.
I I think I know where you're going with that. And you're and you're right. The This development once it assuming it gets approved, if it does get approved, is is not going to be a snap of a finger and generating, you know, max build-out traffic. It's going to happen over a long period of time. Other development will come online, traffic will slowly grow, and during that period The DOT evaluates these things. They will hear from folks. They will hear from the county. David uh Mr. Engel even earlier said he's gonna be incorporating some of
this in the twenty fifty plan. Um so these things happen I'm gonna say naturally through through planning efforts over a period of years. So it's not like this development is gonna be, you know, next year generating, you know the the maximum build out level of traffic.
Okay, and then I think I also remember a couple years ago we had another project that in this area and there was concerns and I I think even your intersection analysis, which I'm surprised I think your intersection analysis says it's a level of service D at Plana Niola or level service F. But yet your statements that all intersections meet criteria.
Right. Level service F is an acceptable criteria personal to land development code, depending upon volume to capacity ratio and specific delays. Level service F is a qualitative metric of transportation performance. There are qualitate quantitative metrics as well. Level of service is the quantitative. There's delay and volume to capacity ratios, which are the the quantitative measures. So you can have a level of service F operating condition and still meet standards if your VCs and your delays meet other standards.
Can you explain the qualitative
part of that? So level of service is a letter grade between A and F. Just from grade school, we all kinda kinda understand what that means. But exactly. A's not very efficient for a transportation system though, because that means that there's no delay and you know The the origination of What you would assign a level of service letter grade is based on other values. One of those is volume to capacity
ratio, which as it states is the traffic volume Over. or compared to the capacity for a particular movement, a roadway segment, or whatnot, depending on what kind of facility you're looking at. So a volume to capacity ratio is a measure of the demand to the supply. Delay is a value that is based and it depends it in the context of what we're doing here and in the study that we did, delay is on an average uh
number of seconds per vehicle stopped at a certain condition. And The delay is a specific function of conflicting traffic, traffic can the type of traffic control, whether it's a signal, what kind of phases they look at. Whether it's a stop sign control, um, you know, there's a there's a there's a good number of factors that go into the analysis that identifies ultimately what that average delay is. The average delay
is then assigned a letter grade. But once you get to a certain uh level of delay, it's always an F. So the Land Development Code recognizes that a level service F may not necessarily be a deficient condition if, for instance, the delay is not significantly above the level of service E category, or if the volume to capacity ratio is at a certain point. And and a great example is if you're on a road.
Okay. uh State Road fifty four where it has very long traffic signal cycles. If you're in a minor street, that traffic signal cycle may be a three minute cycle and it is mathematically impossible to it to achieve an acceptable level of service because the overall delay is so high. So to to bring this back home, level of service is not the only performance standard recognized by the Pasco County Land Development Code. And so the results
from our analysis Whether there's it if there's a level service F That means that the e the V C ratio and delay combination still meets the the um the the criteria for it not being a uh failing or deficient movement.
Okay, and in your opinion adding fifty percent more industrial twenty percent more resident and a hundred thousand square foot of commercial is not gonna trigger you.
And that's why I preface this conversation by indicating that The study that we did was based on the land use plan provided to our office. The two hundred and fifty apartments in millions square feet. We had run that study and those are the re those are the results that I reported on. We met the we met the the code requirements. The entitlement package proposed had been changed. At that point we identified we were exempt from timing and phasing, so we did not
have to do another uh study and in Pasco County there is no c transportation concurrency, so to speak. Um Mobility fees are assumed to take care of all transportation impacts. Transportation mobility fees. So
With that I don't know what the results would be if we had run a different scenario because we were not required to do that by again by the by section 90113C of the of the LDC.
Yeah, I just my my concern is is that obviously even though you're not required to do it, and we've got p everybody here is gonna attest to and and testify that there's there's a problem and yet you're gonna add more traffic on the road, but we're just gonna look the other way. Because you're exempt. That's the concern.
It's no different than us analyzing MP. That's no different, Jamie. And I understand your point and I agree with your point. But I will tell you this. We've I've sat up here and pointed out many a day that the land of when we get the traffic engineering testimony We analyze an MPUD and we look at it in the microscope and we don't look at all the other MPUDs that were were and were approved. last week or last month or last year and the cumulative
effect from all of those things because we got rid of the concurrency system in favor of the mobility system. Okay. It's a it's a problem of the code. I'm not sure.
Well it it is, but if I could address that because Mr. Goldstein and I obviously work on this a lot, that is the reason you have mobility fees. That's why they're reviewed and adjusted. And let me just give you an example. You could marshal the mobility fees from a large employment center area like this and you could earmark those two a specific improvement. So there are ways for the county to get there, plus obviously there's DOT and federal funding when you're dealing with an interchange. But remember, even though we are exempt
and Pasco Town Center was exempt,
we're
not asking to be treating any differently.
Right.
Everybody that has EC is treated. We're just asking to be treated the way the code allows it. I understand your point. But But the point is the county will be receiving transportation money that can address specific problems, and this is the kind of thing that could be identified down the road as a potential issue. In the meantime We still have to do access management. So don't don't forget that part. We've still got to widen road and do turning lanes and access improvements, so it's not like we don't have to do anything,
and we don't get credits for those. I mean we have to do the access improvements and still pay the mobility fees.
Mr. Joel, I I I do want to clarify something though because What Mike is testifying to is different than what your draft conditions say. Mike is saying that the access management study he did was only for two hundred and fifty multifamily units and what was the square footage of
Nine sixty something. Under
under a million,
just under a million.
So Well
I think I think staff provided the numbers that are in the condition. If if Mike's numbers are different then we can make that change in that condition to reflect the actual quantity that was in the study. The condition contains what the staff review gave us to insert.
I'll I'll let William address why it reads the way it does. I just I'm only pointing out that The testimony we're hearing is different than what
is in the language. Mike did the study that he knows he submitted to staff and staff approved. So if Mike tells us what those numbers are, I'm happy to have that lined into that condition so they accurately reflect what he submitted. We
agreed to what we were providing. Because it does it it does say that if you do commercial you've got to redo the study.
And we've agreed to that.
But I think part of what Jamie's concern is is that it doesn't really necessarily require any study to add more apartments beyond what he analyzed.
Okay. Doesn't the condition actually say, David, that if we generate any trips beyond those
assumed in the study? The problem is that the baseline is three hundred multifamily units and a million five.
But but hear me out. What the condition says is if we generate any trips beyond the assumed trips, it doesn't matter what type of use.
Well it says any development of land uses that generates greater greater traffic impact than those assumed. But it says what was assumed was a million five and three hundred
But it says the impact's assumed. The impacts are the trips. Okay, let's put Mike what are your numbers and just put them in. This is not worth quibbling over. Let's put what Mike says the numbers are in. even though it's really trick based so it doesn't really matter. But given the
numbers.
Two hundred and fifty multifamily units. Nine hundred and thirty one thousand five hundred and thirty one square feet of industrial.
So
and no commercial, right?
Well commercial's already addressed because it says they have to add commercial they have to do a new study. So Regardless of what you do with this overall application, since it sounds like the applicant's conceding that Those numbers need to be what Mike just said. I think we need a motion to amend condition ten. Again, I'm not saying this needs to be this is gonna get approved, but at a minimum we need a motion to amend condition ten so it's reflecting the numbers that Mike just stated. So move
Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign.
So but to go back go back to the commercial, I mean this this application is for a hundred thousand square feet of support commercial. But it says
they gotta do a new study to get commercial.
But shouldn't that study be done before
That's that's a discussion that that you all need to have. I'm just saying that
They can't get the commercial unless they update their study. But how can we do a hundred
thousand square feet of commercial if there's no study that has been done that is required if there's a hundred thousand square feet of commercial?
Can can I try to address that, Mr. Chairman? I mean what we normally do, this is not abnormal. Almost any MPD zoning that is approved has an assumed set of uses largely for maximum theoretical purposes or best guess purpose. But anytime you come in with a preliminary development plan or preliminary site plan, you on it you have specific uses in specific locations and you have to do an access management study update for that.
So what we agreed with staff was that again this support commercial was added because I was asked to add it. Okay, some of the powers that be said, well, we also would like to see the opportunity for support commercial. So the way we said we handle it is
Well, there's a 5% minimum.
Right, right. And and if we get a retail user when we have, and it's gonna make a big difference. What type of user is it? You people that do commercial site plans know it makes a huge difference. So when we get a specific one, when we submit for a promotion. Preliminary development plan or preliminary site plan approval with that use, part of that submittal will have to be the new access management study. on that commercial use. So you will have it before any plan
approval or permit is issued for a commercial use. And it makes it makes a little sense because now, for example, if you told Mike go do it now, what hundred thousand of retail uses would he assume? I mean what what mixed bag would you look at a crystal ball and guess? You you can't you wouldn't even know what what use is 'cause they all have different turbulence. So
why don't we I wanna be clear about something. All my only point whether you guys want to approve this project is up to you. My point is the condition ten is factually inaccurate based on Mike's testimony. All I asked for was a motion to make it factually accurate. That's all I'm trying to do here. So so did you approve that motion? We did. Yeah, I did, yeah. And what you do with the project was that was my
follow up after. Okay, all right. So I can I ask. Cliff and I I I think maybe address Cliff question. Yeah.
if there becomes the necessit necessity to build a private central water and wastewater system How long do you think it would take to get permits from the state to design, build and construct a sizable wastewater treatment plant and then the effluent disposal that goes with it.
Two years. Two years. So it's not impact. It takes a while, you've got to get the um Design, permitting, uh DEP, Swift MUD, water use permits, water quality testing, water quantity testing, all done, approved, and then um once your permitting's done, select your contractor and build it, but it'd be a two year process. And any idea
What
I'm sorry, uh Cliff Manuel, coastal engineering, uh professional y engineer with uh forty-four years of experience in design of water and sewer systems.
Um any idea the type of effluent disposal and how much area that would take up?
So the loading rates for the fluid disposal do depend on whether you take it to tertiary or secondary treatment standards. This would probably be secondary and we would need at least ten to fifteen acres in addition to the plant site.
All right. And and just for um purposes of of for the folks in the audience that has expressed concern about how this would look, how wastewater treatment plant would look, can you just kind of describe what that plant would look like?
So the it's the interesting thing in my many years of experience um this was designed and built a lot for these types of places where water and sewer hadn't got there from the public sector. private plants were put in. They're generally located internally and buffered. Um it's our desire not to make them a neighbor. to you know our neighbors. So they're internally designed. They're very small footprint for the plant itself. And then the buffering and the the the actual disposal ponds are
at grade and can't be seen. And so they perk into the soil. The perk rates are all regulated by the Department of Professional Regulation. Those perk rates are designed to make sure that the water quality standards are met in the surrounding areas and that's all reviewed during your design. Two years. Yeah. At a minimum. Okay.
What about smell
and leakage?
Ma'am, you can't speak from the audience. Well, since she asked, well You can, you can ask.
Well yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at too, is just uh 'cause there's some concerns about the aquifer and quality of the water for people with wells.
A properly operating sewage treatment plant doesn't smell. One that's not properly operating smells. That happens in municipal plants and private plants. That's the nature of the beast, no different than your s your septic system at your home. When it's functioning properly, you don't smell it. When it's not functioning properly, effluent from your drain field is bubbling up through the ground and it smells. The
other thing that um complements smell is the distance of loading a plant. So when you have a plant on site and your user is right there with you, because these are private plants for specific use adjacent to the plant, they're not as smelly as ones when you have to send the waste two miles before it gets to the plant. Sure, and it's septic by the time it gets. Right. Absolutely. Okay. That's all
I had. Thanks, sir. Any other questions? I had another question on condition ten. So when they talk about any development of land uses that generate greater traffic than those assumed. Who's who's making that at least initial determination for triggering triggering that? Is somebody complying or is the county looking at the uses or how does that work?
Presumably I think I can answer this. Yeah. Presumably the staff should be checking that if they come in for a site plan and it's generating more Trips than what was assumed. They would say you're not getting approval for that unless you do a new study. Gotcha. Thank you.
If anybody from transportation planning wants to give a different answer, I'm okay with them doing that. I don't know if that David does anybody your team want to answer that?
Okay. my answer is accurate. I'm assuming that. Thank you.
Yeah, and 'cause I understand it for the purposes of the audience. We're not approving any specific construction on that site or any particular design. We're only con we're only talking about land use. Yeah. We're talking about zoning because we're going to be able to do that.
uh meetings to discuss if they wanna develop the site in terms of the site plan and the buffering and all that stuff.
So generally if you're asking will there be additional public hearing, the answer would be probably no, because at least in Pasco County our site plan approval process is an administrative process currently. I just
want to explain that to them.
So if the zoning's approved, this would be the last time that there would be
Well except there's still a
county commission hearing.
Yeah, I
mean
but the zoning is approved by the board. Um But the site plan approval process is generally administrative unless there's some odd variance or something that's coming that goes through the public process, but generally it's an administrative process.
Okay.
And I I I understand for purposes of of the commercial that, you know, you don't know what commercial is going
to
be. So I understand for that that you haven't done another traffic study. But the way I understand it is prior to any construction on this property, there will have to be another traffic study done because there is a five percent minimum requirement for commercial and it says if there's one square foot of commercial that's constructed, there will be another traffic. study. So it is a 100% chance according to the way the the the flu is written that there will be another traffic study conducted.
Right. And and and we basically have stipulated the condition ten that the first development plan we propose that has any commercial element, that plan has to include that new access management study. That's what we understand condition ten to say, which David and I had I think David and I agree that that's that's what it says and that's what would happen.
Well and now that we've amended the condition it would also be any multifamily over two fifty or any or letting
industrial over nine hundred and some odd
thousand that might fifty correct so correct. But regardless that there's gonna be have to be another traffic study down because there's a minimum of five percent coverage of commercial.
It
it somewhat depends though because in theory they could come with with the industrial or multifamily first. Correct. Which wouldn't necessarily trigger a new study.
That's
correct.
Um Mr. Chairman before you take the quotes of the Planning Commission, I do think you need to give our staff a chance to rebut state any additional comments they want to state based on the testimony they heard and Will, do you have anything? I don't know if David Engel or Will or Terry want to say anything.
Dave?
I um I don't really have much more to say. I just uh ask the Planning Commission to be very measured and thoughtful. Uh we we like balanced plan growth and as the the Planning Commission indicated previously, which is new information with connected cities that they were concerned about development, not following certain protocols and delivering certain things and Um this is a situation not only affecting the Evans property but creating a precedent without
a good comprehensive planalis of this area, looking at traffic, looking at drainage, looking at compatibility. All the things that we've spoken about today, I really feel that may have an unintended consequence that would be negative for this area. Secondly, the warehouse distribution does not pay mobility impact fee. So it would only be generated by the commercial departments.
Thank you, Dave. Well, you got anything?
Terry?
Let me just clarify one point David Engel made. He's correct that warehouse distribution is not currently paying mobility fees. However, we're about to go through a mobility fee update next year and it's possible that could change. I don't know, but I'm just his ac his statement is accurate as of today. I just want to be clear.
W if this gets approved as of today, does that mean that that
mobility fees are assessed when they come in for building permits. So is it possible that in the future they could be assessed mobility fees? Yes, it's possible. Okay, just make a shortcut.
Because it's a low job generator.
Uh thank you Mr. Chairman Mariano Spito's playing Alman Economic Roth Department. Uh I'm not going to repeat all of the uh arguments that were made at the beginning or the the initial presentation arguments that were made at the beginning of the meeting. I just want to point out though that um as it relates to the particular land use within the EC future land use. The the argument is not about the inconsistency of land use, but about the timing of the development as it relates to the presence or lack thereof of water
and sewer utilities. So just want to remind that because that that did come up a few times during the com during the discussions and the various uh three-minute presentations from various individuals and from the app.
Mr. Chair, the uh public Pasco County Attorney Representative would like to uh
I just need uh to leave a quick note here that the county has been always having trouble with private utilities. If you try to if you try to create a private utilities, that you try to create a problem on their own, which is really uh Glasgow County doesn't wanna
tackle the part and try to acquire these utilities. We don't want to create a utility that will create a customer base under a private entity. Uh with doing it has been a policy for tax county utilities throughout the year, starting with when I worked with Bruce Kennedy and down all the way town. Uh so I just wanna leave this uh part of the of the comments here. Thank you. Thank you.
In an abundance of Carson Joel, any final comments based on staff's comments?
Uh Jill too again, only to the utility comment. We already went through this. We we're not creating a private utility that goes out and has a utility customer base. We're doing a centralized private utility system to serve the project or serve the E C area. So I don't think the utilities representative really is comprehending that distinction. So that I want to clear that up. Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Chairman I'm a little confused because last Friday we had a meeting with Mr. Two, David Goldstein was involved and he said that he's been talking to the surrounding property owners about putting together some type of utility uh source treatment as well as you know some water distribution.
Well Dave, the Policy that we've now given you several times makes it clear that a private central system for the EC area is allowed. The EC area is the entire FLU EC area. So if that group, once they get their entitlements, want to share that system for the EC area, that policy allows that. But that's not going out and getting into Penny homes and service people outside of
the EC development area. The policy specifically says a central system. For the EC area. And in fact, that's what was contemplated. What was contemplated is the county could write. I checked for tens of millions of dollars. to run the public system out there. Or they could allow the EC FLU area as an EC project to figure out how to privately fund that and do it with a central system. So theoretically you could have
one for each property or those people could jointly within the EC area do one just for the the areas. We can't control them. Our initial plan will be to solve our own problem. But uh that policy clearly would allow that for the EC area. That's that's what it says on its face.
I don't know if that was the intent of the way that policy was written. Mm-hmm. Because again, County doesn't want to create util our private utilities, obviously. So
again, please remember our condition our condition requires us with respect that if a public system gets there, we have to take hours out of service and collect to the public system. So we can't run We can't run a private system except for our project. We have to disconnect and connect to the public system.
Right.
Which they're supposed to prioritize. after twenty years to get to w we'll be happy if they'll go do that. That'll make us very happy not to have to build a system at all.
Okay, do we have any more questions or comments or Do we have a motion for discussion?
I I'd I as a point of just comment and discussion, 'cause this is a conflicting issue. I mean I understand where everybody's coming from. I spent the most probably f formative years of my life on Bayhead Road, living out there. And again, I have the benefit of being stuck in the car with somebody who knew the plan and knew that
Development was coming at some point. at the same time we've got this emo or economic center that if we had a plan this would be subject to we don't have a plan yet. Understand the the the they've got entitlements, but it we're we just got done talking about Connected City where we didn't we had a aspirational plan that we didn't get met. Like I don't have the solution, kind of bring it to you guys to think we get creative about
how we either grant these entitlements, but then we gotta develop a plan for the rest so that we don't end up with a hodgepodge of things that don't make sense within this economic center. 'Cause I mean I think the economic center is important as well because we've always been a bedroom community in Tampa. I I drive into Tampa, I get on seventy five southbound. It'd be really nice to go seventy five northbound and get some other people going seventy five northbound to some jobs in this area. That'd be great. And I think that was probably the original intention. Uh It'd be
great if we could find a creative way to make the most of this opportunity we've got at the beginning of developing this economic center. I I don't know what that is. But it feels like we need to find a way to do that and make the best of it.
I th from what I understood I think it's some of the reasoning behind staff's recommendation to continue the project again was to evaluate how it fits into the rest of the employment center future land use. So which they
Haven't had the chance to do you know of course this is a an old application, twenty two months and and making
and that's the other I mean I th maybe the the boat has sailed on making this one confirm or conform to a plan because the plan wasn't in place and the application was made. But
Part of the conundrum we have here. And
Is I don't think it's unreasonable to think that an interstate interchange is going to be developed at some point in time. The conundrum we have is that in the infinite wisdom of the planners that were at the county back in two thousand five. That's none of you all. They also they this a rural protection area at the same time. That's prop.
But the issue I was gonna use the word litigated apparently wasn't litigated, it was negotiated and settled settled and stipulated. And there's an agreement. There's an agreement signed by Actually I couldn't find in here. Can somebody sign me? Who was the chairman of the board of the county commission that signed this? Ann Hildebrand. Anne Hildebrand signed it. Mm-hmm. And Some of the most vocal members that
I've been working with for 20 plus years of the Northeast Rural Area are signatories to this document.
So
That's the problem we've got to work through.
I don't see the project. is imminent. I see them asking for an entitlement so they can go out and figure out how they're going to get utilities, like you said. How they can start attracting users And yes, I think it's the logical progression of things that the other quadrants of this interchange are going to follow suit and the other properties in this EC.
We've got to remember this is an applicant that didn't ask for this EC to be imposed on them. I hear the public and I sympathize with them. I've heard quite a few of the the members of the public come up here and say Why can't they sell five and ten acre ranchettes? Well the answer is because the land use doesn't allow 'em to do it. Maybe they would, but it doesn't allow to do
it.
He can't speak from the audience. We've got everybody's chance to speak.
Go
ahead, John.
So that's the conundrum we've gotta work through. I at least that's from from where I see it. I will say Other than Miss Hazelwood, I had many discussions. With people that spoke here today. And only one of you followed my advice.
And nobody came up here and offered a bunch of comp plan policies. That show that they're in some violation of the comp plan with this proposal, and I don't believe that they are. But what I did say. was that this is an MPUD zoning. And then in an MPUD zoning, unlike a Euclidean zoning, a multitude of conditions can be applied.
And I'm not sure what that was. I was actually hoping that the folks some of the more vocal folks in the northeast rural area would come here with some conditions that their group could live with and the developer could live with.
In my personal opinion, I'm leaning towards a continuance. No, I don't want to deny these people.
only for a very short time for them to resolve differences from staff. If the staff thinks they're gonna go out and do a study for the next five years and delay this applicant, I wouldn't be in support. You're gonna now twenty years later we're not gonna do an area plan. This is not a surprise that this EC is in the comp plan. And then I'm going to say one other thing to the staff.
The two gentlemen sitting Right? Right in the front row. Are two of the best attorneys. in the land use practice in the Tampa Bay area and in this state. I've worked on cases with them and against them. And if you think you're gonna come up here... and start grasping at straws in the comp plan, when they haul you into court, you're going to get a lesson you never forget. I can assure you he
will teach you a lesson. You guys are Especially Will, you're young, you're up and coming. You gotta do your homework. These guys are the best at what they do. And I see that some of the reasons cited for denial are absolute grasping at straws that you're not going to get anywhere with. And I I can't support that. But I might support a continuance for a short time. to get this to the board. They want to get to the board.
And I think there needs to be a resolution. I don't know what else to tell them. I asked the staff, okay, if you don't want 'em to do this, what can they do? But she can't give me an answer.
What are they supposed to do? You can't tell me what's an acceptable use, what's acceptable buffering. What's acceptable timing? I don't know what they're supposed to do. Yes, it was known in two thousand five that there are no utilities out there. And that's exactly why these flu policies were put in that they could do the utilities because that's the only way they can ever get that interchange developed. I don't know whether developing the interchange is a good idea or a bad idea, but I know
this. in my life I've driven up a lot of interstates and every interchange gets developed. So I don't think it's unusual to think an interchange is going to get developed. I'm sorry that this staff got left with a poor planning decision made by a prior staff. And hopefully you'll go to work to try to fix it and I can tell you that it's going to be a political football based on the discussion in this room. I wish and I'm sure, well, if I'm still sitting here, I'm
guess I'll be part of that resolution but We gotta find a resolution to this case. And we need to find it soon. I'd support a continuance if staff tells me that they've got a few conditions they need to iron out and these can be ironed out by the next time we have a meeting here in Dade City. If you can't tell me that that you need it in two or three months, then I'd probably support a recommendation of approval. All that being said, I'll also say this to the applicant. I'm not sure that when you get to the board that
you got all the votes you think you got. So sh everybody here is gonna roll the dice and the chips are gonna fall where they may.
I'll just make a general comment for the benefit of the the audience. Um a lot of f folks talk about government, you know, this is what government does to us or it's us against the government. It's a quasi judicial body, so we're weighing Rights between the property owner and applicant versus the rights of everyone that lives lives around it. And we can't we have to be fair and impartial when it comes to to those things. You talk about um that land use.
The land use has been in place for or the future land use has been in place for 20 years. And some of you hadn't bought property there yet, and when you bought property there, that plate that future land use was in was in place. Other folks that did own property before that being in place, you had the opportunity to be part of when that land future land use was being changed. I understand where you're coming from and saying, well, if if five-acre lots make a difference, you know, or or would be would be more appropriate,
um, just change it. Well, the problem is is in just changing it, is what happens to the rights of the person that's owned that property with the possibility of selling it for development in the future. By just changing it, then you devalue their property. That's within that area. So it it it's it it's of course it affects you, but it affects them as well. And that's what we have to weigh. I'm not offering, at least in this statement, I'm not offering opinion yes or no. I think I tend to decide with Mr.
Moody. Uh and I do have some concerns about how um where we're at with this, whether or not this is premature, um th this level of development's premature for the area. That's that may may be true. But that being said, just for the benefit of of Of you all knowing what we have to do, we have to balance those rights between between you and between the property owner and the applicant. And we have to ab abide by that legal standard. So I just wanted
to mention that.
Yeah, you mean?
Well, I personally I I hate to sit here just like everybody else for four and a half hours or five hours, whatever been sitting here and then k kick the can down the road again. Um Seems like we're getting pretty good at that. Unfortunately. Um I don't know. I I just I agree there there's a conflict here and how do we resolve the conflict? I mean you got the whole Northeast Pasco Rural Protection versus the EC. Why in the world this area wasn't either excluded from Northeast Rural Protection or made something else?
I mean I personally I'm I've got issues with compatibility of the uses, I've got issues with the traffic. I mean the the the thought of let's wait until a couple of people get killed at the interchange before we do anything about it, that's a problem to
me.
Okay? And I and I've got a problem with the utilities. Um so I I I don't know. I'm I'm still wrestling. I don't know whether I'm gonna go with a continuance or not, but I can tell ya that doesn't excite me.
Yeah, I'd say in my in my time on this commission, I mean this is the most difficult case that's come in front of us I think and in that time. It's uh highly contentious I hear everything that's being said in the audience. I'm sympathetic to it. I've driven this area numerous times and it's it is beautiful. I mean it's a little slice of heaven up there. Um That being said, on the planning perspective, I mean I'll I'll echo everything Jamie said. I I I think I share those same concerns with it and uh It's
it's um I I don't know that uh John they're gonna be able to get to staff would be able to get to an answer within a within a month, so um I guess we'll list the rear cons. But yeah, this this is a very, very difficult case.
Well and to John's question, I think the requested continuance was for a month.
Yes,
sir.
Well, I mean so I think Mr Moody's point was though, is that if there could be additional conditions added in a month to deal with things like buffering and some other issues.
I don't get the impression that Mr. Ingall's request for continuance was for that purpose. But I'll let him speak to why why he would want a continuance and
Well i it it wasn't to come up with a an area plan for this project. We just received information on the weekend and then during the week this week. And uh as you know, Mr. Goldstein, we didn't have the normal time for uh us to undertake the RLS process and get fully aligned with uh with you. And uh we just needed some more time. Regarding uh generating an area plan, I I can't make a commitment to do that within one month. Um
but I think it's it's warranted at least to look at the area holistically. Now the the preponderance of zoning in the E C area there is A C, it's agriculture, and including this property, so it it does have entitlements. They're seeking new entitlements to be consistent with their arguments supported by the comp plan and litigation settlement. But uh any alternative there's a conflict between the comp plan and the zoning
the L D C right now. So you know there's another way of looking at it than you know looking at the Comp plan and making it consistent with the LDC. So So it was an open discussion. I'd be willing to do my best to work with the Evans folk and listen, you know, take in what's been said in the community, understanding our concerns, and see if we can find a collaborative consensus. But I can't guarantee it, but we will give it an effort. You
know, I have I have no axe to grind with Mr. Two or his family. And uh you know I'll treat them with respect like I do other property owners.
Chris.
Well, like uh you all have said, it's it's it's a conundrum. I mean easy in this northeast rule is a different animal. And it but it's unfortunate that it's existed for twenty years and yet we haven't try to address it and come up with a planning mechanism to right. And based on what I've heard, you know, there's I think John mentioned it that you
know there's r no resolution as to okay, well how do we how do we address the Northeast rule and make it make an easy fit. But at this point, with it this long, a as Derek said, They've had these entitlements now for that many years. I mean we can't just in my opinion we can't just keep penalizing them. Again, I live in this area too. I don't like seeing all the growth that's
going on, but they're again weighing weighing what the property rights are. I I don't see keep penalizing them trying to come up with a plan that's that we should have done a long time ago.
So I guess where I was going with the the question to Mr. Ingall is in following up on Mr. Moody's comment is if the purpose of a continuance is to develop additional screening or buffering conditions That could probably occur in a thirty day period. If the purpose of a continuance is to develop an area plan or up you know, that's not going to happen in thirty days. So i i Mr. Moody to your question, I'm just being realistic. If you think staff's
gonna What bothered me is that he testified Well we need to study this. This need we need to s we need to study the traffic, we need to study the roads. That's not gonna occur in thirty days either. I that that's my point. That's why I said I would support a continuance if this thing was gonna get resolved and we were gonna be done once and for all and I agree with Jamie, we can't continue to kick the can down the road. And I actually feel bad for the applicant and I guess the good news for the applicant is if we don't do a continuance, you'll either get a recommendation of approval or a recommendation of
either denial, and either way you'll be on your way to the Board of County Commissioners.
We just want to see the end on the line. So
so Mr. Mooney, I it depends on what your goal is with the continuum.
If you want to see additional screening on Lake Iola Road or additional buffering imposed on Lake Iola Road, could that be drafted between now and 30 days? Yes. It also could be drafted between now and the Board of County Commissioners.
My my problem with that, David, is that when I asked the staff what do I do to make it compatible, they s they couldn't tell me. And so now I'm supposed to do the planning.
You can come up with the what's
the so so uh it depends on what you want to do. If you want I mean, you could approve I'm not saying we I'm not telling you what to do. You could do denial, approval, whatever you decide to do. I'm just saying that if your goal is that you think it's approvable if there was additional screening and buffering on some aspect of the project, you could make a motion that says approve if that a condition is added for additional screening or buffering, and then staff would have to figure it out or the applicant would have to figure it out between now and the board. But
I can't tell you what to do. I'm just saying that well if that's your purpose of a continuance
It can be accomplished. If your purpose of a continuance is because you want staff to go back and do more traffic analysis or utility analysis. I don't think that's gonna happen in thirty days. So it depends on what your goal is. I don't know what your goal is.
Well, my concern is that I know y uh Joel, I know you all have been at this for a while. This is really the first time it's come to us though. And You know, since since we just got it last night, I don't think anybody's got a chance to come up with a solution to it. We were just thrown into this, I think of everybody's clonic conundrum, uh, of how do we treat both parties in a fair way, an equitable way. And um
The thing about rushing the de the decision through and the reason that I would tend to tend to go more for a continuance is because whatever we do, these people are gonna have to live with from now on.
You know, the Evans family, they're a great family. They've contributed a lot. They've got a ra great great representation, high integrity. You know, I really feel sorry for that somebody would turn around and and assail you like they did. And uh But I think to give it another 30 days to try to come up with an equitable plan makes a lot more sense to me than to
ruin these little people's lives. Because I'm trying to put myself in both positions. And if I lived there, I know I'd feel just like they do. You know, if I owned the property I know I'd feel like Mr. Evans does. And so you gotta we gotta try to come up with an equitable plan, one that we were stuck with. We had nothing to do with this. One of my thoughts.
Okay.
I hope
I'm a careful. I know.
One of my thoughts about this, and I apologize, Cliff, if you take this as an insult. Yeah, it's okay. But that MPUD plan is an orange blob and two blue blobs and two D R A's. And it was funny because when we were here hearing the tall timbers we had a massive debate about you know, binding concept plans. Now I got a blob.
But there's a reason for that.
I
I
understand. I understand. And
some of the discussions I've had in
the
employment centers they apply those residential, but they're not applying those to commercial and
industrial. So it's not
applicable.
In some of the discussions I've had with staff about binding concept plans, they agreed they would be applicable to residential at first and not non- Residential. But it has a residential component. And I'm not suggesting you come on here and give me a layout of a townhouse or a condo complex. What I'm more concerned with is the one thing
in the E C description in the flu appendix and the comp plan is that It specifically talks about this employment center and that there needs to be a step down a transition of uses I would feel more comfortable if the M P U D plan made some attempt to illustrate how you would achieve that step down transition of uses.
I think that was
I know a lot of the audience is probably gonna disagree with me for saying that, but that was one of the protections for the northeast rural area that was put into the comp plan when this E C was created. I would feel more confident if there were a little more detail as to how we might do that. I Joel, I understand the conundrum of trying to get a development. You don't you don't know who your users are. You don't know
We have zero idea. I mean we can pay somebody to draw you basically any picture you want. Because we have no users.
And that's why I asked the staff the question, but I'm disappointed that the staff could not provide that question.
I I can make a proposal that I've been authorized by Evans Properties to make that I I think is consistent with what I'm hearing from the Planning Commission and can get us all to dinner at a reasonable hour. But it's contingent on Mr. Ingel making a commitment to you that you've asked him for about three times and I want to be sure that it's clear. Evans will agree. to a an extension to your next Planning Commission hearing here in Dade City. provided that what I don't
hear back is what I heard on January second and what I've basically been ghosted on since then, the message that Mr Ingall delivered to me clearly, was they were going to oppose the project. If I'm coming back here in 30 days for him to oppose the project, then I need a vote up or down tonight because I've already heard that argument and I'm not going to waste 30 days. We go up or down. We go to the board in March. They do whatever they do. We either have three or more votes or we don't. And
win or lose, no harm, no foul. Evans can assert its legal rights if necessary, but I'm not gonna waste thirty days and get stonewalled in a shell game played. because they made no serious effort to do what you're asking them to do. They dumped that on me yesterday at two thirty in the afternoon after telling me on January second that they were going to change their position. That is disrespectful, it's discourteous. I told David that. That's why I got mad
and hung up on him. I actually had worse than that to say before I hung up. For good reason. Because he and I've done a lot of work together and to get treated that way Is is disrespectful and unprofessional and I'm not the kind of guy to put up with it. So I'm not gonna play the game 30 more days with David unless he tells you that they will in good faith sit down and he'll authorize the planners to do it and we will work on conditions. But if they come back here and say deny
and throw that crap against the wall, the other thing too, they can't come back and make more arguments on consistent they made their arguments. I'm not going to continue a hearing to now that they've heard our position to go try to gin up their defense, because they got no defense. So well I need to know clearly what it is staff intends to achieve in 30 days. If it's in good faith to work on buffering and and and a better, more detailed plan. We're happy to
work on that. But I'm not going to play the game anymore. And if that's the game, please please vote us up, but if you can't do that, vote us down, but don't continue us unless they agree to that. And that's that's our offense.
All right, thank you.
So guess the ball's in their court.
Well we all have conundrums. My conundrum is the definition of an employment center. Two distribution warehouses and three hundred apartments. It's not an employment center. The the comp plan is very clear that the priority is creating high-paying good jobs.
I didn't offer more of his substantive argument. It's an easy question. Are you going to work on conditions? Are you going to pose? It's funny, those those that picture and those entitlements he signed in writing. are consistent and he supported their approval. So he liked them until he didn't like 'em. So he's now arguing against himself in his own September 15th. This is what I'm not wasting time on. If he's gonna say another word like that, just vote it up or down.
Answer the question.
But he's not answering it.
Well give him time, okay? We're giving you lots of time.
I'm giving him a lifetime.
I won't respond to that.
That's
not like a marriage. Um what I can say is um you know, typically it's not our job to tell the applicant what to do on the property, but I understand in this situation the Planning Commission, some of the members are looking for some direction.
I have to weigh the overall good of the community and the area with the property owner rights. I will tell you I'll do everything that I can ethically and professionally to meet with the applicant and try to come up to some resolution. I I again I can't promise anything, but I'll make a good faith effort.
It just a reminder, according to the two thousand six settlement stipulation, it's got those minimum percentages for those things. It's a got it's a twenty percent minimum of multifamily, so they are complying with that. Mm-hmm.
Can we I still don't take that as a commitment that he's not going to simply oppose, but can we at least have an agreement that the the argument pros or con are closed? We either come back here in 30 days with a set of conditions he decides he can support. or a set of conditions that you vote up or down. But I am I am not gonna open this up and give him a chance to go back now and do the homework that they clearly didn't do before today. And
change our position on that. They've had their chance to argue the substance and we're
not going to continue. Let me just ask the question in a different way and maybe this will answer it. If if the applicant proposed a different plan that had the step down and dense intensity or density that Mr. Moody asked for, an additional buffering Are you still gonna recommend denial thirty days from now?
I can't
answer that.
There
you go.
That's my point.
Move to recommend approval.
Second.
All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion?
Okay, all in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign? Nay. Nay. We do roll call though just to Yeah.
Mr. James Girardi? Nay.
Now, Mr. John Moody? Aye. Mr. Matthew Mike.
Mr. Derek Boblins. Aye.
Mr. Chris Williams?
Aye.
General Charles Gray.
Nine.
Four
days, three
eyes.
So that motion failed, so we need another motion.
I'd like to make the motion that we continue to the March 6th meeting here.
understanding that we can't guarantee that the staff's response or they're gonna change it, I would ask So your your point, Mr. Chairman, that we we had a very short period of time to look at this. That's not our fault either. I think we let have some more time to look at ourselves. But I would encourage if you can't get conditions with staff as the applicant come to us with some conditions. We we get the opportunity to improve those conditions here. I think you've heard our concerns. I I'd like to see some conditions that deal with better deal
with traffic and maybe, you know Figuring out a way to have a plan beyond I understand you gotta get your entitlements, but how do you
so let me ask you a little question. So even though Mr Ingall is not willing to commit to work with you on Additional conditions or revised plan. Sounds like the Planning Commissioner.
Can you propose something to the Planning Commission thirty days from now that would address independent of what staff is? Okay.
Yeah, yes, we will, as I said before, I'm happy to do that if Plen Commission is willing to keep an open mind, which clearly you are, or you wouldn't have the very close split boat you have. So I'm happy to do that and I will vet the technical side of that with Mr. Goldstein so that we have CAO sign off on whatever I can work out with the planners. But I'll get with the planners and we'll try to We'll try to work on the plan and the conditions 'cause obviously I've heard a lot today and there are a lot of Things we can distill from it. I'm happy
to do that. But I like I said, I'm not going to get in a procedural position at the next meeting that they get to come up here and argue more Um on the consistency and all that stuff. That's when it's gonna be Mr. McLaren at the podium. with his court reporter. And he's gonna stop that. And there's gonna be some cross examination of people under oath as to who told 'em to do what. So we're not having any more of that type of hearing.
But I'm happy to try to work on conditions that hopefully a majority of you can support because we we would like your support.
Well, the only way to accomplish control disaster will be is if you basically close the public hearing.
That's what I would like to do.
And the the only purpose of the continuance would be to determine whether whatever conditions are offered up or whatever rise plan says provided site plan is offered up is acceptable or not to the planning commission. What's the
procedural
mechanism to do that? You would make a motion to close the public hearing so that there would be no more public there would be no more testimony from anybody other than whatever they're going to produce to you in terms of conditions and and provide a site plan. That would be the limit of what you would discuss is But the public if you're closing the public hearing, that means nobody's commenting on on on these revised conditions or revised site plan other than you. There's
no
You you could ask for example you could ask questions and answers about those, you could flesh them out, and if you wanted to you can even negotiate to finalize them. I mean that's
that also allow staff to bring forth additional conditions?
So staff so Okay. I don't wanna commit Mr Ingle, but I don't know the staff it sounds like Mr Ingle tends to recommend denial thirty days whether it's thirty days from now or sixty days from now. So I I don't think you're gonna get staff to weigh in or buy in on whatever these new conditions are that you're gonna consider or do whatever site plan you're gonna consider. Staff's are pretty clear they would think this should be denied. Okay, so I don't know that they're going to change that position. And
I'm just asking 'cause Mr Engels said we've got a new thing.
And I and I wanna also say I'm not sure it's fair to ask staff to say Okay, you want this denied, but then we want here are some conditions that you you think are acceptable. Well then
at this point? The applicant just wants to move on. If a motion for denial gets him to move on to the County Commission, then I'll make a motion for denial.
Right.
I think there's two two motions on the floor. So but we didn't get a second further on Matt. Yeah, did Matt make a motion?
I was making the motion to continue to put the market.
So so you don't you don't want to work on conditions directly, is that what you're saying?
I think what he's saying is that he thinks you want to move on.
No, I just said that I was happy to do thirty days as David suggested and us work on commissions and I wanna be clear.
I wasn't suggesting I'm not comfortable. I'm not comfortable, Joel. With closing the public hearing if we come back with new c new conditions. However, the public does have a chance with whatever conditions you may come up with, whatever new MPUD plans you may come up with, they'll have their chance to speak at the public hearing before the Board of Commissioners.
Yeah, and I don't I don't know if I mean I don't know if we're gonna hear anything new. I mean we heard three hours of public. public comment today. I mean I think everybody understands what the what the public concern is.
Matt, did you did you add that to your motion? To close the public comment or what's the motion on the floor? Well I may have spoken out of turn, I'm sorry if I
cut you all out. So so if can't imagine
so the motion was for continuance, but if you want to add to the motion that you would close the public hearing as well, well that you could do that. Yeah, I would add that to the motion.
I'll second. So so just point of order, do you want to withdraw your motion because that one had a motion to second? I withdraw that. Okay. And we're back to Matt's. So
I'll move that we we close the public hearing and continue to March sixth. To reopen the hearings or opening. Well no, you're
not reopening the hearing. You're continuing to March sixth to receive additional conditions and a revised site plan from the applicant for your consideration. Yes, that's my motion. To see if that changes your vote or not. It may not, but we don't know. Okay.
That's my
motion.
Okay. That's it. Can we have a second?
Yes. Any further discussion? Mr. Chairman Mariano Carification. Yeah. So um when the Planning Commission would receive an amended site plan, Mr. Tues indicated that we have to stand down and not provide any other further comment or
I don't think so. I I think uh he'd like you to come up with your own ideas if you can.
Well I I expect that we were gonna get your conditions David, correct me if I'm wrong, but I expect we were gonna get your conditions and Joel was gonna bring conditions to the meeting if he didn't like any of the ones you came up with. Is that not the case?
Well I think there's uh I mean Mr. Moody's asked us to come up with ideas as to what the county professional staff would find, except and it's very unusual that we would do so, but uh we would try to work with Mr Two and and Mr. Linton and his team to to come up to some Some consensus.
I get I guess David, so to here to get to the point, staff did work with the applicant to come up with the what I call the
in-case conditions if this gets approved. Are you saying you would do the same for these additional buffering and revised site plan? Yes sir. Okay, well then there you go.
Okay.
But but with with clarity we're still recommending denial for the
product.
But
you do have an alternate possibility of approval with those
conditions.
Yes.
Okay, and we can we can add conditions from uh from a pair, correct?
You if you don't think the conditions that are offered up by the applicant are sufficient to get you to a yes vote, you could impose your own conditions, yes.
Yeah. Well and will there will this be closed to public comment on those conditions? Based on the motion that was made, yes, you're
closing the public hearing.
If you don't want to close the public hearing and you want to open this back up to public testimony again to discuss the conditions or a vice site plan, that's within your purview. But as Mr Modi Mr. Moody stated, they also could comment on them. It's not like you're denying them due process because they have the ability to comment on them at the board level too. If approved, we don't even know if you all are going to approve these revised conditions or revised site plan.
Okay, there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Night.
Who's the name? I
Chris. The Chris. Chris. The
other
next time.
We either will call
on that or is it pretty obvious too.
I think it's obvious.
He admitted it.
Okay.
Thank you all. We appreciate your time and sorry that it took so much time, but thank you.
Thank you.
Thank
you.
Mr