An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Amending Section 1001 Docks and Seawalls; Section 1001.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 1001.4 Visibility; Section 1001.5 Maximum Projection and Location of Docks and Seawalls; Creating Section 1001.6 Boat Lift Canopies; Appendix A Definitions; And Other Sections, As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion Into The Land Development Code, And An Effective Date.

2:17:06Mr. Chairman, the last item on the list is PC sixteen, which is the proposed Docks and Seawalls Ordinance by Amandala Hill.

2:17:15Planning, development and economic growth.

2:17:21Uh the item before you is section one thousand and one, Docks and Seawalls Ordinance Update. The intent of the ordinance update is to readopt text changes to the Pasco County Land Development Code that were invalidated by the Circuit Court for Pasco County Civil Division. through a motion for partial summary judgment in 2023. Uh an additional intent of this ordinance update is to provide standards on bolt lift canopies.

2:17:51There we go. So just to give a brief history of the ordinance. Back in 2012, uh section 1001 Docks and Seawalls was created by the Restated Land Development Code. In 2017, there was a BOCC workshop to discuss, among other items, whether or not to continue to prohibit roofs over docs. Ordinance 19-12 was passed in twenty twenty nineteen. And then in 2021, the BOCC had

2:18:21a discussion that resulted in the decision to abandon the previous direction that the board wished to proceed with an amendment to the LDC to allow covers over docs. And then like I mentioned before, in 2023, there was that invalidation of ordinance 19-12.

2:18:45Uh right now covers are not allowed over docs.

2:18:47Not allowed

2:18:48over

2:18:48docs. Correct. Okay, so in 2019, ordinance nineteen-twelve prohibited Roofs over docks, correct?

2:18:55Yes.

2:18:55And then in twenty twenty one the board

2:19:01Change voted to allow them.

2:19:04So there was discussion as to whether or not to allow them. They decided to abandon that discussion as to proceed with allowing them.

2:19:10Yeah, I think that that bullet's a little confusing. Yeah, it sounds it sounded to me like they were approving. So so my understanding is that twenty nineteen the ordinance The twenty nineteen ord wasn't there an ordinance that allowed roof silver docks but only on lakes?

2:19:27I don't have clarity on that, uh Tari. That was in the

2:19:31staff in the that was in the I believe that was in the twenty twenty one effort. And then It was dropped

2:19:39basically. Yeah, before that, okay, the ordinance and I believe it was ordinance nineteen dash twelve. Um I don't know if Sam's a villain but he knows this history better than me, but My recollection is that originally they were prohibited entirely We then adopted an ordinance that I believe it was nineteen dash twelve that allowed them only on inland lakes. But it still prohibited them. Yeah. So uh so I believe

2:20:09that was ordinance nineteen dash twelve.

2:20:11Okay.

2:20:12Um Which you might want to clarify that in your bullet about ordinance nineteen dash twelve.

2:20:18We'll do.

2:20:19And then

2:20:22There was some discussion about allowing them even on the coast. in twenty twenty one, that was the ordinance that was brought to the board and then abandoned basically. After that the court invalidated nineteen dash twelve, which basically meant that they went back to the prior version which meant they were prohibited entirely.

2:20:46Right. Like

2:20:47they're not even currently allowed on lakes because nineteen nineteen dash twelve was invalidated, is my understanding.

2:20:55So Then what happened is after nineteen dash twelve was invalidated There was a discussion and with the board about whether We would just readopt ordinance nine da nineteen dash twelve, which would allow them on lakes but not The coast.

2:21:12But it appeared that the board wanted to now allow them countywide. Mm-hmm. And so that's the ordinance that's before you today. That's my understanding of the history. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong. Anybody? Think that's right. Okay. Is that clear? Sorta.

2:21:30Thank you.

2:21:31As mine.

2:21:32Yes. Okay, so for the proposed changes, uh for section 1001.1, intent and purpose, an additional purpose is added to provide standards for reasonable protection of vessels from the elements. Section 1001.4, visibility, additional clarification on the prohibitions of buildings or structures on waterfront properties provided. Specifically, there's an expansion of the applicable structures listed. There is also an expansion

2:22:02in the description of allowable structures that are subject to height limitations. Uh it also clarifies the exception of when roofs are prohibited. and it prohibits residential use of enclosed areas built over docks. For section 1001.5, maximum projection and location of docks and seawalls. That section is renamed from navigability and protection of watercourses to maximum protection and location of docks and seawalls. The

2:22:33previous prohibition of obstructions in this section is removed. Additional guidance on the maximum projection is added. The retroactive applicability of the subsection is updated to provide revised guidance. So more specifically. Uh there's removal of non-applicable language to the subsection.

2:22:52Uh an exception is added to the existing maximum projection standard.

2:23:00The seawall location text was just relocated. There's nothing that has been added there, but it was relocated from the end of that subsection to the section immediately after the common ownership doc section.

2:23:14And then for the subsection regarding um

2:23:19Regarding the retroactive applicability, there's a summary of the description of non-conforming structures, and it also addresses the restoration of substantially damaged structures.

2:23:34There is also a proposed edit to Appendix A to uh amend the definition of mean high waterline.

2:23:43And then in terms of proposed additions, uh there is a proposal to add section 1001.6 for boatlift canopies.

2:23:55There are dimensional standards and standards regarding placement that are included within that section. And then there's also a proposal to add two new definitions, one for boatlift canopy and one for waterfront property.

2:24:10Can you

2:24:11go over those? I have it in the presentation. Right. And the staff recommendation is to recommend that the local planning agency find a proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. So I could just Right found stupid. This is just a red line text.

2:24:33So these are the proposed uh edits and additions to appendix A. Could you go back to

2:24:38your picture for

2:24:39a second? Sure.

2:24:42So that's this is showing the type of covering you could It will now be allowed over

2:24:52That is correct. And it gives specifications as to the height, length, width Horizontal projection, side setback, curtain length and maximum production.

2:25:01Generally consistent with what staff was proposing in two thousand twenty-one before the board told staff to go away.

2:25:07This came directly from that initial proposal in twenty twenty one.

2:25:10Okay, thank you. And the mean high water line definition?

2:25:15Okay. Too fine.

2:25:19So previously it was the intersection of the tidal plane of the mean high water line with the shore. Mean high water is the average height of waters over a 19 year period. And now it's been amended to the intersection of the tidal plane of mean high water with the shore. It shall also mean the ordinary high water line of non tidal natural water bodies, the precise delineation of the ordinary high water line or mean high water line. Shall be determined through site-specific studies and field determinations by the applicant and SWIFMUDEP and

2:25:49or Army Corps of Engineers as applicable prior to the construction plan approval.

2:25:59And then A question about the ordinance. So So and maybe you could go back to your picture.

2:26:13Would allow a cover over a boat? Lift. But so long as the boat lift is part of the dock. But if one could not so if they had like a boat lift it it says They can't do this if it's attached to the seawall. Rather than the dock.

2:26:33So in terms of placement, there is specifications here. So they're allowed over vertical or cantilever lifts only. They're prohibited over elevator lifts, Davits, or other similar or similar similar scenarios where the canopy supports would be attached to a seablone or a similar condition.

2:26:52I get it, but I'm not sure. Why the prohibition over uh Davits or, you know, if it's attached to the seawall. I'm trying to understand why there's a difference.

2:27:04I personally don't have the context on that. Uh Terry, do you have additional insights from twenty twenty one when this was first proposed? Because the language here is also the same from that initial proposal.

2:27:15Uh That was over four years ago at this point. Um I don't have the the recollection. The only thing that I do recall though is that that language was brought before the Planning Commission and was moved through the process and it got to the board when the board decided to abandon the pro so what we were doing in this latest effort was just take what was what had gotten through the process in twenty one. And reinsert it again.

2:27:41Well w

2:27:42one of the problems might be with the Davits is they might just be The Davids are too high, they're gonna way up above where the boat is.

2:27:51Well

2:27:51so there's limits.

2:27:52So there's a height. There's a there's a height limit of fifteen feet above the mean high water line. So I guess what I'm asking And I'm not sure. trying to be a proponent of these things one way or the other. What I'm asking is what's the difference if the canopy is over a davit and it's no higher than fifteen feet above the mean high water line, how's that different than if it's attached to the dock? I just Not understanding that.

2:28:20We can potentially take that question back to BCS for some clarity on it?

2:28:24Yeah, I was I think we need to go back to BCS because it may be a building code issue too. So Well it is, yeah. So we we we can we can find the answer

2:28:34to

2:28:34that.

2:28:35Uh building. Yeah. As long as it meets the Florida building code, why would I'm Just not understanding that. And I'm familiar enough with the building code to W whether it's attached to the seawall or attached to the dock, it still needs to meet a certain wind loading. It Well number three requires a comply

2:28:57with the building code anyway. Right. But I Again, I don't w think we have anybody from BCS here to know.

2:29:05I mean I will say the problem. policy standpoint, I believe the board direction was to L our roofs over docs, not necessarily these other structures. But but

2:29:14And that's all I'm asking is why? I'm trying to understand why I I Why

2:29:20roofs over docks?

2:29:22Why only over the dock and not over if one if one had pulled their boat up against the seawall and put out fenders, why they couldn't have a canopy out over the seawall versus Over the dock. That's all I'm trying to understand.

2:29:37Yeah that well

2:29:38well

2:29:38that picture that you showed earlier is That's attached. It's not over the dock. It's attached to the dock. Right.

2:29:47And that's what I'm getting those.

2:29:50If you have it attached to the water, you can see that the right-of-way,

2:29:52right, that's what I'm asking.

2:29:54Mamble, just just kind of for background, why why did this just go away in twenty twenty one?

2:30:01It was based off of that discussion that the board wanted us to basically shelve at at that point in time. Yeah, thank you.

2:30:13There's been a change in the membership of the board county commissioners to be quite honest. Someone so a majority of the board in twenty twenty one did not want to see a roof server docs. That's it's as simple as the majority of the board has has changed now. And now they're willing to allow roof server docs. Okay.

2:30:29I think the

2:30:30thrust

2:30:30of it is to pro protect their boats.

2:30:34Yeah. Well, I mean there's other ways to protect your boats too. My concern with something like this is it

2:30:38tears those boats up.

2:30:39But s they make don't they make covers for boats too?

2:30:42Yeah, but they tear up the covers too.

2:30:45Well, I mean I I understand, but but putting a canopy out there st all of a sudden you're you're blocking and put causing visual obstructions for is everybody that's enjoyed the canals or the waterfront.

2:30:54Sorry, Jamie. Am I to understand that the the the canopy over this thing can only be like a fab can't be a hard surface. It has to be like a A fabric.

2:31:04There are specifications to that, yes. Um the canopy shall be a fabric or a similar material that can be rolled and or folded. And there are color specifications here too as well. Got ya. Okay.

2:31:18I guess here's the question I have from a zoning perspective.

2:31:24There's a s in the supplementary rela regulations uh for waterfront properties. there's a fifteen foot set back from the mean high water line to anything that presents a visually solid wall.

2:31:43So

2:31:46It would seem that the boat covers are in direct conflict with that section of the code. And maybe that's fine. But my question is

2:32:02Where do you draw the line? Okay, if it's fine that I can block the view down the canal with this boat cover, how come I can't I just had a client. that was a hurricane Rebuild. And he had to move his house because the balcony off the back of the house was gonna encroach in the fifteen foot high me mean high water setback. And this balcony was twenty five feet up in the air. where

2:32:34it probably doesn't obstruct anybody's view, especially that's down lower. I'm trying to figure out how you

2:32:45It seems that one This allows something that another section of the code is expressly prohibiting. for the purposes of protecting view.

2:32:57I think that this section speaks to that to some extent. Let me go back a little bit.

2:33:04Here comes our um zoning.

2:33:08Let me just

2:33:12mentioned um that fifteen feet setback, um it actually expands the list of applicable structures to include fabrication fencing or barrier that presents a visually solid type wall or roof. Right. And that's that's what

2:33:26you're talking about. So that's what I'm getting at is okay, so now here we are we're allowing a roof that would encroach in Fifteen feet. mean high water. water setback.

2:33:38But then

2:33:41or The reason the reason that there's a fifteen foot mean high water set back is it's perceived that there's some harm That if you have an encroachment into that fifteen feet that you're blocking somebody else's entitlement to a view. So how is d allowing this structure not in conflict with that.

2:34:10Aspiration.

2:34:13Yeah.

2:34:15Liam Devine, Planning Development and Economic Growth Department. Um so I do know that section. I know you and I have discussed that section. So that section from supplemental regulations talks about creating a visual screen similar to a wall. These canopies can only be two inches thick, so in in in

2:34:35Yeah, but this is they're

2:34:36adding the word roof. Yeah, but they are adding or roof, which implies it's more now not a wall.

2:34:40And it allows a two foot curtain.

2:34:43a two

2:34:43foot curtain. So I was unaware of the curtain. But I would say if it was just the roof, it wouldn't necessarily be creating a visual wall. Um that would be creating a roof line, but the there they're there it would still be passable to be able to be viewed. So it wouldn't be necessarily creating that wall.

2:35:03Wall. That's if you have a flat roof. If I got a gable roof. And I'm looking at it from that side. Well I think

2:35:13Liam, I I do understand your interpretation When it just said presents as a visually solid type wall. But With this code change they're adding or roof.

2:35:27So a roof doesn't present as a visually solid type wall. Correct. Isn't the addition of O roof

2:35:36Make a direct conflict?

2:35:41I'm

2:35:41confused by your question.

2:35:43Well Your argument is that there that This section one thousand one point four A is not in conflict with the concept of doing a two-inch roof because it doesn't present as a wall. Correct.

2:35:59And I see that line which it says it says that presents as a visually solid type wall. But then this this amendment to the code is proposing to add or roof to the af after wall.

2:36:15Went to the supplemental regulations five thirty? Okay, I'm I'm going by what's on the screen right here. I don't maybe that's not the provision we should be looking at. I don't know. That's the same language that's the

2:36:31That's in the supplemental.

2:36:36I think it's roof.

2:36:41Why can't you just remove roof?

2:36:44Yeah. Well they can remove the roof. Yeah.

2:36:49Uh Terry Nicaragua Spito was playing development economic growth. It seems to me that either the word fabrication More or a roof. are the w are the words that are tripping this up a little bit. So to the extent that we can clean this up, perhaps we just delete the word or roof. I think part of the original um drafting from twenty twenty one Uh Considered the fabric roof. Uh to be an amenable material that can be as a as the ordinance

2:37:20notes rolled up. In the event of a hurricane coming. You could just basically take the roof away and then now it's a little bit more wind resistant in that regard. Or Wind resilience maybe is a better word. W when resilient in that regard. Um and then also if there's no boat docked. And you don't need the roof, you can just

2:37:42But but but to get to the heart of Mr. Moody's question, it sounds like what you're I hear stop saying is that You view it. That requirement as basically prohibiting somebody blocking the view of the wall. Or a fence or that's with a wall, yeah.

2:38:02it's basically blocking it this way.

2:38:05Yeah.

2:38:07But if it has if it's only blocking it with the some roof type structure or canopy type structure. that would not be a violation of that section. I think that's what Liam is saying. If that's what your if that's your what your position is, you can't be adding or roof. Right. I would tell you that depends upon your point

2:38:29of view.

2:38:30Where you're

2:38:30viewing this from

2:38:32the right-of-way. I've been saying I want to be clear. I'm not going to weigh into the policy issue about whether these should be allowed or not. I'm just trying to reconcile The two code sections. So If staff's position is that one thousand one point four A only applies to wall type structures I agree that you should strike the word Fabrication and the word roof.

2:39:00In practice Well for instance and I'm not trying to support or defend a c client, just using it as an example. It was a balcony with balusters. That's not solid. But it's still obscure. Could obstruct someone's view. Yeah, I mean to be clear if And so it was still prohibited from encroaching into the meaning of

2:39:25water setback. If Planning Commission andor the board don't want to block the view at all To your point.

2:39:35then you probably shouldn't be allowing this ordinance at all. I mean Because that's a good visual stuff.

2:39:41The commission wants the ordinance.

2:39:43It appears that a majority of the commission current current commission wants to allow some type of Can and be over the boats.

2:39:53Mr. Chairman Mariano. I was just re referring to staff. So If we w if we strike the or roof phrase from the sentence, it would be consistent with um section five thirty dot thirteen, which also references the same type of language.

2:40:11Yeah, that looks like it's almost identically the same.

2:40:13Yeah, so it sounds like maybe that word or roof was some leftover clause that probably shouldn't have been there.

2:40:20So it looks like it.

2:40:24Well why don't you just refer to that?

2:40:26Yeah,

2:40:26why

2:40:26are

2:40:26we

2:40:26regurgitating the same s language again? Why aren't we just referencing that?

2:40:33So

2:40:33if it's

2:40:34coming from this.

2:40:38And that's one of the reasons for my question is I

2:40:41We c we can

2:40:43I don't want there to be a confusion, well if it's this it's this ordinance, or if it's this, it's it's one or the other.

2:40:50Yeah, we we can uh that either that language already exists, I don't have the actual code open in front of me right now. But it from what it looks like on the screen, there's existing language in the code that's already referring to this. But in any event we can go back and just refer to the one section. But

2:41:06clearly Staff's intent is that It's th whichever section we're talking about, it's a prohibition on basically solid Solid tape wall structures. Is that what you were basically saying? Sorry, I

2:41:19was going to you answered that one.

2:41:21Yes. Okay. Yeah. And it doesn't necessarily prohibit the right-of-way. this ordinance which is canopies. So that's your position. I just wanna

2:41:32I'm trying to understand and I just want to give

2:41:35the answer to the question first. Okay. So Is that accurate that you're not You're not trying to through that those two sections we just talked about prohibit boat canopies.

2:41:45I th the idea of the amendment in twenty one and then w what's coming forward now is to Enable the bolt lift canopy. But with a specific type of material.

2:41:58Go on

2:41:58with your question now. Sorry. So excuse me. If I could wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Go ahead. Okay. Sorry, I just want to note because I know there is confusion. You're trying to not have confusion between the language that already exists in this code and this proposed one. Just so you know, section five thirty point thirteen of where that visual screening comes from comes from actually references section one zero zero one. Okay. So they reference each other.

2:42:22Nonetheless, it says visually solid type wall. All right, but that same Code section. Prevents A birdcage around a swimming pool. to encroach in that fifteen foot

2:42:42mean high water setback. Well a screen for a pool is not a solid wall. a balusters on a balcony are not a solid wall.

2:42:59So there has to be consistency. either consistency in the language Maybe the language needs to be changed because the interpretation has been the historic and I've been doing this a long time. The historic interpretation is we go after screens We go after Fences You know, it went to the right-of-way. I I could even come in with a picket type fence that you can see through. But it's still Prohibited. Interestingly enough And here's where

2:43:29nobody thought beyond lunch when they wrote this.

2:43:33There's nothing that stops me from going out and planting a viburnum hedge in the fifteen foot mean high water setback and watering the living heck out of it and letting it get twenty feet tall and blocking somebody's view. It's only if I want to put something that's

2:43:55So was staff's intent to prohibit

2:44:00vertical obstructions and not horizontal obstructions? Is that The general gist of what You're trying to achieve here.

2:44:08I think that um the horizontal obstructions was a concern in the initial discussions about roofs over docks and what kind of um barrier to visibility that an actual roof over a dock would cause. And what the middle ground was in twenty twenty one. and what's being presented here is that if we're going to put a cover of some sort, a canopy of some sort over a dock or a boat lift Uh it should be of a very limited and specific type

2:44:39of material that can be um folded away or taken down. in the event that there's a hurricane because I think the the there were the two main issues in twenty twenty one were the aesthetic value of preserving the visibility down the canals and what have you. And the second was uh the danger posed by high winds. When these canopies get blown off. That was that was what w what was happening in twenty twenty one.

2:45:05Yeah, but if they're required to meet the building code. then there's a wind load that they have to meet whether it's a fabric or whether it's wood or fiberglass or steel, they still have to be able to survive that Wind.

2:45:21I understand. I'm just relating that what some of the the background was in twenty twenty one that went into that.

2:45:28And

2:45:29practically the John practically the The the v visibility barrier comes from having the boat lifted up. That's so that's where you that's what blocks the vision. Not the roof. So I mean if you're gonna Take that tact, you gotta say, Well you can't have a vote either, because that blocks my view.

2:45:47Yeah, and don't get me wrong, the the the reason for my questions Has more to do that so that the code is consistent, what I'm getting at is you may need to go back and change One zero zero one point four to better clarify what it is you're trying to do And then you can make the statement that you find that these boat covers or whatever are not in conflict with that particular

2:46:18Section. I can just tell you as someone who uses this code My clients, they go down to the building department, and one person tells them, Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's all right if it's in the 15-foot mean high water, and then it gets over into the zoning person says, No, no, no, no, no, you can't do that. There needs to be, I think the language is a little ambiguous. It's like I said, what talks about a visually solid type wall, but yet a swimming pool enclosure with a screen to you can see through is considered to be a visually solid wall.

2:46:49That that makes sense.

2:46:50Well I'm wondering now 'cause I'm rereading this, it says or roof. I wonder if staff's position was that he These canopies are not roofs. Right. I mean, I think that's a good thing Is that is that why Oarroof is there? Is because His staff's position that these canopies are not functioning as a roof, they're functioning as something else. They're because they're removable, they're Not a roof.

2:47:16Well in the past many people have used the thatched roof over their boat. That on the dock. On the it's not on the land at all. But if you have a boat and you lift it up out of the water, it's gonna block the pew. This is true.

2:47:40And then by the same token, if I have Davids.

2:47:46I have Davits and I lift my boat up. Just above the seawall and then swing the davits. So that they're pointing into the backyard. Now I've got this visually solid obstruction in the fifteen foot P9 water set back. That's why I'm trying to figure this out. Trying to figure out what's what's important. What are we trying to protect

2:48:07Are you asking? What were we trying to protect in With the original ordinance or with this current ordinance?

2:48:15What's To me it seems that the two are in some

2:48:21I think Mr. Pitos is correct.

2:48:26On roofs, canopies, whatever you want to call them over Over docks or over boats. was the fear of the visual impact and them becoming projectiles during a hurricane. So that was for many, many, many years, up until this last year that was the county's position is that These should not be allowed for that reason. And part of the reason we allowed them on inland lakes is because there was a less first of all there was less of

2:48:56a hurricane potential on inland lakes. Um But also they tended to be more spread out on lakes and so the the vegetable impact was not as Severe on lakes. So That was the reason why the board eased up on the requirement in two thousand and nineteen. It was only recently that the board said and we want you to also ease up on the requirement On the coast. So that's so in s staff's defense all they did was say, Okay, the

2:49:26board has changed direction, we're gonna bring back the ordinance that We brought we're gonna bring you in tw two thousand twenty one. And here it is.

2:49:39All right. So it appears that the board is less concerned about those two issues now.

2:49:48By the way, you also need to take public comment on this ordinance before you Oh.

2:49:57Unless you have more questions for staff, you probably should take public comments.

2:50:01Mm. Any more questions for staff? No. Okay, so is there anybody from from the public is here to comment?

2:50:16No I step aside so that

2:50:18Cold work.

2:50:22She's not gonna let

2:50:23anybody come.

2:50:25Barbara Wilheites, an individual who lives at [address removed]. I have a beautiful home in Gulf Harbors. I've lived there for almost ten years. So to me this is a question about change, right? So Should there be a change? My home's been there for 41 years. And the point of saying, Well, there's a boat there, there's two reasons why I have a home there. One is so I can have a boat out back. It's common, I actually have three of them, but because my husband has to have three, but it's common to have

2:50:55boats out back and you buy considering that because you actually want to have a boat out back. The second reason you live there is for the view. I am fortunate enough to live on a canal that face that goes east west. So when I look down the canal, I get to see the sunset. It also means I look by all of my neighbors all the way down my canal and look at their boats and their docks, but all those things are common. And I bought into that. But I also bought into no boat covers. In Pasco County, no boat

2:51:25covers. And so to change for the convenience of some people that want. To protect their boat in that manner, to change my view. To change what I bought into for the convenience of someone else isn't fair and not reasonable. There are ways to protect your boat? You get out there and you put the cover on it, take the cover off, or you say, heck, you know, every three years I gotta put new soft goods. That's a term that I understand from my husband. That's what you call the padding

2:51:55on your boat. So I really want and so the board may think they want to do that. And the other question is, did anybody notify any of the HOAs and any of these affected communities? Not that I could go talk to my neighbors about this because most of them don't live there now. I have my neighbors that live with me. I have roommates for going on six months because of what happened to our area. I was fortunate enough, my house was built to FEMA codes when I built when it was built in 1984, so we had no effects, none, of either of those hurricanes.

2:52:26But so I want you to think about change. And is it fair if somebody wants a boat canopy? That's gonna sound harsh, but go buy in a county where you can have that, but don't come where where you're where the rules are no boat canopies and change it on all of us for the convenience of others. It does impact me. The view is really important and I will definitely change my view if if everybody can have boat canopies all the way down my canal. Thank you.

2:52:55You would support the borders readopting ordinance nineteen dash twenty

2:53:01lakes.

2:53:02Yes, I the lakes are a different situation. I recognize that. My husband's from Canada, they have lake houses there, you know, so I get the difference. They all have boat houses. It's very different.

2:53:12Quick question in that same regard. Yeah. I had a house. Let's say I have a house at Gulf Harbor's Beach that faces west directly to the Gulf of Mexico. My view is is the Gulf. I'm sorry, did I say Mexico? Gulf of America.

2:53:38How if I had that view on open water.

2:53:45This ordinance or The ordinance you would propose reinstating would also prohibit them from having a boat cover and I'm not trying I'm trying to figure out in my mind how would that be any different than being on a lake.

2:53:58Well, I can tell you that the sun changes. So at one point of the year you look this way for the sunset if you're if I'm if I'm on the open golf, and then the next part of the year it's over here.

2:54:07Okay, similarly on a lake.

2:54:10Maybe, maybe, yeah. I'm hey, I'm I didn't I didn't suggest the lake. I mean that was something the board did, but I'm just saying that's not a reason to to change the views for these waterfront properties.

2:54:20Well Barbara also don't forget that there was was a time. When they did allow vote covers they even allowed boat houses along the river. Yes, there was So the They're historical in fact. They they weren't very happy about that change either. So Yeah, there's a there's history.

2:54:40Sure, right. Um I I'm just saying for m for my Gulf Co front community what my experience is. So Thank you.

2:54:49Is

2:54:52So in some of the discussions that I've heard

2:54:57It seems that There are some communities

2:55:01Move free free

2:55:09Oh they didn't have a agenda? Oh, you already spoke once though.

2:55:17Um Pastor Jen Kerouck, [address removed], and I would just say You know, um likewise I think that those that may or may not be watching who live in a rural protected area might feel the same way that they purchased their home in a rural area looking to enjoy the scenery that they purchased. And likewise change has been coming.

2:55:48And if there are, you know If there are reasons why, I'm not sure that I necessarily know why, but I think that just as Chairman Gray mentioned, you know, there are changes that happen and we have to go with the flow. and there are a lot of people not happy with that. Um and I think that, you know, just as I am now, I have the opportunity to come and and, you know, state

2:56:18my concern and I know that I looked into this particular situation in depth and it seems like there were a lot of folks that were unhappy about not allowing the boat covers and some choose to, you know, put the cover on and then some choose to build. Um, you know, we have rights, we own our property, and I understand maybe someday I'll get to the Gulf of America. Um I'm not there now,

2:56:48but I think to the point that, you know, they're asking for this to go back to where they were allowing boat covers and And I just don't see any difference than, you know, the disruption that is occurring in the rural areas of Pasco County. Thank you.

2:57:08Thank you.

2:57:12Anyone else?

2:57:16Okay. Sorry Mr.

2:57:17Mayor, go ahead.

2:57:20I was oh, I was going to ask In listening to these discussions in the board.

2:57:30I've heard One commissioner advocate for these kinds of covers. And the claim is that that commissioner's constituents support these covers and I've heard another commissioner argue that

2:57:48The constituents of that commissioner. Don't want these covers. The question is

2:57:57Can the ordinance be applied to those areas that want them. And those areas that don't want them, or for instance could the bo Sorry, Mr. Engel, to burden you with a workshop, but could one hold a workshop and find out, hey, this neighborhood really wants these things and doesn't have a problem with them, but this neighborhood's adamant they don't want anything to do with these and maybe they're prohibited there. So Or

2:58:24not on a blanket basis. I don't think that's defensible. I mean uh we were able to defend inland versus Coast because there are rational reasons to di differentiate them.

2:58:38I mean, you have to have some rational basis to defend your regulation. Now could you make them a special exception use and then handle them On a case by case basis, I guess you could. Okay.

2:58:49That's a possible solution.

2:58:51I mean that that's the only way I know to handle them on a case by case basis is to make them a conditional or special exception use were You only allow them

2:59:03You know, somebody's gonna have to file an application to do that. That's your I don't know how to d else to do what you're talking about.

2:59:12Okay.

2:59:17And I don't know if Margaret would have a different position if there were special exception or conditional use.

2:59:26Well, I mean th I guess one advantage is then you'd have to notify your neighbors That you were proposing the use of the easy. Which would give them an opportunity to object.

2:59:36or to agree on what Would preserve their neighbors' view to keep peace in the neighborhood.

2:59:44In theory if there were conditional use or special exception you could approve it with conditions as well, such as Maybe a lower height or maybe even a higher height. I mean you could So that it doesn't impact the view as much. Um So it is It is a potential middle ground. Penny for We I can't tell you whether that's consistent with the board direction or not because

3:00:09The board direction was clearly to allow these. So

3:00:15Is that by and we have had at least one commissioner when we were talking about ADUs making some of them a special exception use who objected to it being a special exception use 'cause that was too much burden to put on somebody. Yeah. Or listen to it. So Can't tell you whether Board would agree with that, but I'm just saying I I can't defend a ordinance that says This applies everywhere other than Gulf Harbors. Okay. You probably could defend there an ordinance that says that it's a special exception or conditional use.

3:00:48Okay. Each each respective board could adopt their own declarations or something like that to prohibit the right-of-way.

3:01:00A man any mandatory deed restrictions that would prohibit this. Right.

3:01:03And I and I think that's a lot of the case in the uh the west side of the county. It's older. And so th maybe there were covenants and restrictions that were in place when the communities were first developed, but they've now been here fifty, sixty plus years and those covenants have expired. So

3:01:24But you're correct that any particular HOA could have more restrictive requirements that are prohibited.

3:01:32But a lot of the communities on the Gulf are n are older communities that that are probably only regulated by our ordinance and not By any each way of it.

3:01:51Can we ask Barbara what she thinks about the special exception or

3:01:53conditional use?

3:01:55She was contemplating it. Would she would that be more tolerable?

3:02:02Since you're the only person from the county that

3:02:04cares.

3:02:11That we're all struggling with. And at least that gives the opportunity for neighbors, to talk with neighbors as opposed to just so I mean it is it could be a better balance. Certainly This doesn't go away because one year it's we're not gonna do it, another year we're gonna do it and so maybe this is would would achieve a balance, uh, David's idea that that uh would allow it, but you could have to look at the circumstances.

3:02:37That's that's interesting that you say that because You've had one board that says no, we don't want them. This board says well we'll allow 'em, but the next board might say, Hell no, get rid of these things. And we just keep amending the so in some ways maybe the special exception is the answer.

3:02:56Certainly would allow for that balance and you could consider the cases on a case by case basis. Because it is different. It is different if you're which way your canal's going. It does make a difference, you know. Is that our meetings aren't long enough anyway so

3:03:09fifty of 'em at one time. Yeah.

3:03:13Jamie, they'll all be on the consent agenda, relax.

3:03:16Uh I mean my pay double

3:03:19time.

3:03:24Um it would add a a a workload to the planning commission and of course to the to the staff to process the special exceptions, et cetera. This wouldn't be the only special exception that we're considering.

3:03:35Well then you should just make the board hear those special exceptions and then decide before they've exist in one way or the other.

3:03:47So We're looking at two amendments that are making their way through the process right now, this being one where that could happen, a special exception c um compromise. But the other one of course is the ADUs which which has a special exception. uh built into it and it's just the workload aspect of it that's all that you'd have to think about a little bit.

3:04:06The difference with the ADE one though was it was special exception only it had certain things that were allowed as a right. Where you wouldn't have an additional workload. Um This in theory may be harder harder to do as sort of an as of right provision if you're trying to accommodate Barbara's concern because really any particular canopy could in theory block views.

3:04:34And I will say that with the ADU's We're probably gonna hear if if the people actually go for them, we're probably gonna hear a lot of special exceptions because the one caveat it didn't require a special exception as it had to fit within the existing setbacks and lock coverages and the If you live in a typical suburban type neighborhood, the chances of you doing that are slim and none. So Without the special exception. And a large lot, that's probably not a problem.

3:05:02Well, and by the way, the board hasn't even approved the ADU ordinance and it's still it's still

3:05:06in

3:05:07still state of flux, right? I had to argue first what an

3:05:09ADU was. Right. Um and the state may tell us that. That's true. There's a possibility that we'll get preempted

3:05:17by by the state on ADUs.

3:05:21But luckily you you don't have to you don't have to worry about ADUs for now unless the the special exceptions come before you. But I We do need to make a recommendation on this ordinance, so you need to

3:05:32I understand the board has changed direction a few times on this, but This is the ordinance be before you you need to make a recommendation one way or the other on it?

3:05:44Okay.

3:05:44Who's gonna be bold? Okay.

3:05:49I mean should we should we clear up the the minor issue

3:05:52the chair for a minute, then you can make the motion.

3:05:56So I think regardless of what happens, uh, staff, you're okay with getting rid of that or roof requirement?

3:06:02Correct.

3:06:06You want a motion to that effect or you're just okay just getting rid of it?

3:06:10I I think the record will speak for

3:06:12it okay, got it. Okay, so that we now we need just need something on the

3:06:19Recommendation on the remainder of the ordinance.

3:06:24I don't vote on this, so unless unless you all tie, I guess.

3:06:30I mean I'm I'm a bad person to make a motion because I'm against this thing because I just think I I just think it blocks and changes everybody's view. So

3:06:37Why are you a bad person to make it?

3:06:39So I'll make a motion to deny.

3:06:44So nobody wants to make the motion for the middle ground of allowing it by special exception or conditional use. You're worried about the workload.

3:06:53Okay, all right well. So

3:06:53there's no second.

3:06:56Says no second. Okay, that motion deck lack dies for lack of a second. By hair motion for something in the middle.

3:07:05Well then I would Move to

3:07:11Continue. It doesn't matter. For another sixty days.

3:07:21If you get input? If the if the staff can work with that and I'm open to that, you you guys tell me how long to continue it. for you to come back

3:07:32And rewrite this, repropose it as a special exception use. I think that I think there's probably multiple language changes that have to happen to this ordinance to make it a special exception use that's probably too much drafting to do on the fly right here. That that's my only reason for continuance.

3:07:57It depends on whether you want to see it again. if you don't want to see it again you could just Make a recommendation that it be approved if it's made a special exception use and then you can let staff figure out between now and the board what

3:08:11with the board.

3:08:13They You know, that maybe they could propose an alternate version of the I'm saying I wouldn't hold it up just because of the drafting issue. Staff is capable of redrafting it so it's a special exception use.

3:08:26I mean that's This wouldn't be the first time they've done it. They just did it with ADUs. So I I mean it they're capable of doing implementing that direction unless you really want to see it again.

3:08:40Well I guess I'm not sure. I'm just slightly concerned that you guys keep continuing things at some point you just need to get things too.

3:08:47I guess what we're gonna see is if this happens, then we're gonna see some special exceptions. So

3:08:52Your choices are either special if you w if you're trying to make it a use that isn't as a right, your choices would either be special exceptions, which only come to the Planning Commission. or conditional use which come to the Planning Commission and Board. That's basically I mean there's difference in criteria but If you're asking who approves them, that's the main difference.

3:09:11Might interest is more that there's at least one public hearing and a special exception accomplishes a public hearing.

3:09:22So I'd still rather see it before it went back to the board. Yeah. This

3:09:28is up to the Planning Commissioner Yeah. Unless is well let me ask you Terry, is this one of those ordinances where the board gives you some deadline to get it Adopted.

3:09:39I don't think the Board of County Commissioners has issued me a deadline, although I was a and I may be Um Mm don't have the full picture here, but I thought that there was a a deadline on the part of the county attorney's office for this to move forward. Oh, so you're the

3:09:56same thing.

3:09:57I don't I don't know if I have all the information.

3:09:59So I've not discussed what that was saying. But I I my understanding though is that Did Nineteen dash twelve was invalidated, which basically reverts us back to they're not allowed at all. So Yeah. The question is whether we're okay with the status quo, which is they're not allowed at all. Um I don't think we're permitting any in the interim. Is is the is the issue. So Um even on lakes, technically they're not allowed at Currently. So

3:10:31I don't know. As long as nobody as long as the board has not told you that they're unhappy with the status quo for another sixty days or whatever that then maybe there isn't any urgency. Terry, are you are you

3:10:45Uh we would we were uh we were imposing our own deadline to get the project to the board and to the finish line by April in order to, you know, close this gap as much as fast as possible.

3:10:55Has it been advertised for the board meetings? Yes. So if it's continued you're gonna have to probably

3:10:59readvertise it. I don't know we'll have to ad re advertise but we'll definitely have to continue the board meetings. For the moment I'm gonna

3:11:07withdraw the motion.

3:11:10And that's so I can ask the staff. Another question.

3:11:17Is it necessary

3:11:20For This issue to be addressed in the land development code. In other words, could this be addressed in the code of ordinances?

3:11:39I I I would I'm gonna defer to David Goldstein as an answer first.

3:11:45Well but uh well, how does that help anything? I mean I I think it is a form of development, so it probably is appropriate to locate it. I mean you're allowing development to occur and by the way, if you want to make it a special exception, it definitely needs to be in Land O' Lakes that's where we regulate special exceptions. So I I don't I don't I think it is in the proper location. Right.

3:12:16So we're back to no motion on the floor.

3:12:18John, why would why would you want to see this again rather than just recommend It go to the board for the special exception with the dra staff draft and the language.

3:12:29Because I think sometimes there are

3:12:34If If all we were making was an ordinance that contained one sentence?

3:12:42Or one paragraph. Yes, but I think there's other issues in here. As well. And I'd like to see the hole.

3:12:54Mm-hmm.

3:13:00But another reason for asking could it go in the code of ordinance is you've got one, two, three, four, five people here that don't want to make a motion.

3:13:10I

3:13:11mean

3:13:11I made one. Sure. Make it again. Then make it again.

3:13:18Well I'm I mean I I'll make another motion to deny the ordinance again. And and and again, I I think Barbara raised a valid point with you know, the timing's not very good either. I mean most of the people that this affects Most of them don't even have their house right now. So who knows if they even got notice, if they even read or even paying attention. They're trying they're upstairs trying to get a building permit to fix their house.

3:13:38So to be clear your motion would have to be that you're finding it inconsistent with a comprehensive plan because that's technically your role for this for this ordinance.

3:13:47That's my motion.

3:13:48Okay, we have a motion and second. Further discussion on the motion.

3:13:57Silence is deafening. No further discussions at the discussion. Okay, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Mine carries.

3:14:12Thank you.

3:14:16No, but it just may come back at a different form.

3:14:23And that concludes the agenda for today, J Commissioner. Thank you.