An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Amending Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Section 802.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 802.2 Applicability; Renaming Section 802.3 Tree Removal To Exemptions; Creating Section 802.4 Tree Canopy Standards; Section 802.5 Tree Removal; Section 802.6 Problem Trees; Section 802.7 Tree Replacement And Mitigation; Section 802.8 Tree Protection Requirements; Section 802.9 Trees Of Special Significance; Appendix A Definitions; And Other Sections, As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion Into The Land Development Code, And An Effective Date.

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

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

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

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

2:23:00Okay, presentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:32:47Okay.

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

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

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

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

2:33:57And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:36:59One second.

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

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

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

2:37:51to

2:37:51be a good idea?

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

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

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

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

2:38:22They're gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:42:49Commissioner Weightman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:45:43Yeah.

2:45:43I don't

2:45:44know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:48:35But

2:48:35they're not

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

2:48:41We cause

2:48:41that man

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

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

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

2:49:21say not

2:49:21a city

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

2:49:48Commissioner Yeager.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:51:27slide?

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

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

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

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

2:52:05Seth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:55:38Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

2:56:40Um I have a question.

2:56:41Commissioner Starkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:00:25No, I think

3:00:26stamp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:01:21they can res research that.

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

3:01:35I just wanna make sure.

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

3:01:42public

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

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

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

3:02:23Slides, right?

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

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

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

3:02:51No caps.

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

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

3:03:01Uh I would

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

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

3:03:20Understand.

3:03:21Thank it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:05:46Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:09:01Give him some exercise.

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

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

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

3:09:13Okay. Uh Julia Partinic.

3:09:20So

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

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

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

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

3:11:25species. And also we want

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

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

3:11:59Second second.

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

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

3:12:08Uh next person up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:14:31Jasmina Foriol.

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

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

3:14:39Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:18:01Just a second.

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

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

3:18:19All right, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:21:51Do

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

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

3:21:55Do you want a second?

3:21:56Second.

3:21:57Wait,

3:21:57am I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:25:28And then I just wanted to

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

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

3:25:52Okay.

3:25:53And

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

3:26:24the heritage trees. Okay.

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

3:26:35Yeah.

3:26:38Not in the ordinance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:28:35We

3:28:35did that.

3:28:36Did that earlier today.