PC11 Omnibus Text Amendment comprehensive plan changes

2:17:59The next item on the agenda is uh PC 11. Uh this is the Omnibus Text Amendment, which is a county-initiated conference plan amendment to do a few text changes to the comprehensive plan. It's PEG 240011. And the purpose here is to improve on the consistency between the comprehensive plan and the land development code and a few provisions, address commercial compatibility within

2:18:29the comprehensive plan, and we'll talk to the issue that we're just going to talk if I touched on. Describe the location of industrial land uses and implement development standards for future land use classification. Within the urban service area. And the amendment's going to touch on these two chapters, Chapter 2, future land use element, and the future land use pedagogy, as well as Chapter 3, Conservation Element. But the vast majority of the work is happening within the future land use element, and we'll see in just a second. Uh before I I

2:19:00continue though, um in your attachments in in the packet that you receive digitally, on page seven of the um of the of the red line version of the proposed changes, you'll note uh the ROR and on page eight the MU uh future land use uh categories. Um I would like to uh request Withdraw

2:19:30certain amendments that are associated with those future land use categories. Particularly in both cases, they have a ratio of land uses. For example, for the ROR retail, office, residential, we have a ratio of residential 0 to 75%, retail 0 to 75%, office 0 to 75%. The proposed amendment. was striking that language and including new language that would say that residential development should be located with an initial 300

2:20:01feet. I'm not going to get into all of it, but that language is being withdrawn for both the ROR and the MU. So I'm not going to present are you going to come back with something different? Potentially, potentially. But for today we're simply withdrawing it but continuing with the rest of the thing. So that won't be part of this presentation.

2:20:23Uh so those are the particular policies that we're touching in this text amendment to the comprehensive plan. Uh policy flu 123, which is a category one wetlands and incompatible uses policy that's going to talk about our industrial future land use classifications. Policy flu 161, commercial development.

2:20:44Policy flu 162, location of commercial development, policy flu 164, neighborhood commercial uses. That's where we're going to touch the 20,000 square foot question. And then some additional amendments that are happening in the appendix and in flu A4, calculations of residential density, and A6 and the definitions of the future land use. classifications themselves. The last one, policy C O N 1312, is actually an

2:21:15associated policy

2:21:19to policy through one two three. So what's happening in one two three is being repeated in one three twelve for C O N.

2:21:32So what is happening in Policy 3123? What we're basically saying is we're amending to allow greater flexibility where industrial uses can be located adjacent to Category One buttons. We're essentially saying that industrial, heavy industrial land uses are limited from being adjacent to Category One. We're deleting from the provision. I L, which means that IL can now locate properly next to category one levels because all

2:22:02all systems, all all manner of industrial activities contained within the light industrial buildings that typically go into IL. Um and then there's some further clarification on

2:22:14just a quick question about that. Just the language. Category one wetlands and surface waters. I'm not aware of any place and maybe there is, but I'm just not aware of it in the comp plan where we talk about surface waters.

2:22:32And uh so and the question that I have, are you now re-categorizing things as category one wetlands and surface waters, meaning you're giving a category two surface waters? Or are you just saying that light industrial or heavy industrial uses can't be next to surface waters 'cause I don't think there's any place in the comp plan that talks about surface waters.

2:22:57Uh my understanding is simple.

2:23:05Natural resources requested that addition of surface waters um and it only is affecting heavy industrial uses.

2:23:12Well I understand that, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't need to be inserting New places to add confusion into something we're trying to clarify.

2:23:27Let's let them explain it if they're available.

2:23:30We don't regulate to to the best of my knowledge, there's no regulation of surface waters.

2:23:35I think I know where they're doing it but I'll let the natural resources speak to it first. Say,

2:23:41good afternoon, can you all hear me?

2:23:46I'm Jackie Jordan with Natural Resources. We're working in the Pump Rings of 2050 updates, and wetlands and surface water is consistent with state language, so we're going to remote the entire palm plan and eventually land element code to match that working. So it's wetlands and surface waters.

2:24:10So they're synonymous, is that what you're saying? They're not.

2:24:14Well all wetlands are surface waters, but all surface waters aren't wetlands. So the state's um 62340 Board Administrative Code that delineates and defining wetlands, it's listed as wetlands and surface water to our matching barly, which should be consistent with the state.

2:24:30I guess I'm confused. I don't know how uh surface water can can't be a wetland. Right. How what is

2:24:35surface water

2:24:36exactly?

2:24:40And I will tell you that I do not agree with that statement that all wetlands are surface waters. That is not a factual statement.

2:24:47That's the state state definition.

2:24:51Surface waters does appear in the component right now, but I don't know much about it. just doing a simple fine.

2:25:06Right. That's an exactly the point.

2:25:10Right.

2:25:11The reason that I'm bringing that up is because I've actually had somebody come tell me I need to put a 25-foot buffer against a residential canal. Claiming that it's a wetland. It's not. It's a surface water. And so I don't want to add another point where there can be confusion about where things that were where we require protection from wetlands. And I'm not against wetland protection by any means, but I don't want to start creating confusion as to

2:25:41where these things are required and where they are not required. Right.

2:25:47I don't want there to all of a sudden be this confusion that now it's required adjacent to surface waters.

2:25:56Objective con one point six is called groundwater and surface water protection. It talks about maintaining and enhance the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water through the utilization of natural resources, etcetera. So there's already some regulation in this objective for surface water protection. So it does make sense to say you don't want heavy industrial next to it through this other policy.

2:26:16Okay. So an upland cut ditch is defined. in state law as other surface waters. Can I have a drainage ditch go through an industrial property?

2:26:28We're talking about

2:26:35the language. We need to be very, very careful here because there are very legal definitions And like I said, an upland cut ditch. That's a wet ditch. is categorized as other surface waters in the state. So if we start put inserting the word surface waters, then all of a sudden we can have problems where, oh well you can't have that industrial site next to that drainage ditch. It's or or mosquito control ditch. Mm-hmm. So

2:27:06And all I'm pointing out, John, is that the word's been in the diction then here in the Complan

2:27:10since two thousand

2:27:11and six, so I don't

2:27:11know what problem's now

2:27:12coming up.

2:27:14I I understand that, but now we're creating the word category one wetlands and surface waters. I don't think the intent of the comp plan is to stop industrial development where we have a drainage ditch.

2:27:26No, of course not. What we're trying to accomplish is what we've run into with having to create using the P D land use category to address this very situation and having to use sub-area policies say You can't put your heavy uses here on site, we can put your light uses here. Oh, put your heavies over here. We're trying to make it so simple that you don't have the prohibition of light industrial next to

2:27:48But if somebody goes back and interprets and and somebody gives a legal interpretation of this section, are they gonna read that and say you can't put heavy industrial next to surface waters? That's

2:27:57the question. That's the European.

2:28:04I'm

2:28:05not saying it can't be resolved. I'm just saying this adds confusion. The whole purpose of this amendment is to cla is to get rid of confusion and clarify things. And I think by adding that language, we're adding confusion. Perhaps you and David can come up with whether it be a definition or something to create clarifying.

2:28:26And maybe a definition that says surface water does not include man made drainage ditches. I mean it can be simple, you're right.

2:28:32Why do you have to add and surface waters into this section of the code that we're talking about? That's

2:28:37that's my point. And what she's saying is 'cause we're gonna add it in the twenty fifty comp plan. Well, I'm glad staff has unilaterally decided that's what we're going to add. We haven't had a discussion about this yet.

2:28:49I understand you're trying to keep with the state language, but Yeah,

2:28:53that's twenty fifty.

2:28:54Well what I'm trying to say I I didn't know that that was the plan. Jackie, I'm sorry I didn't know that was your plan. And why you're doing the twenty why you were looking at putting surface waters in here now. I thought it was simply just to clarify that we didn't want heavy industrial next to surface waters, not knowing that that includes drainage.

2:29:12So I think that can

2:29:12be clarified.

2:29:13Right, and that's all I'm trying to say is that hey, someone can come along and say, Well, that's categorized as surface waters. You can't be there.

2:29:21You might have a I don't think that's the intent.

2:29:26Yeah, bro.

2:29:28May I just have one more thing?

2:29:29Sure.

2:29:32So if it was a open cut drainage whale or ditch, it would not be considered a category one well and surface water therefore would not be subject to this requirement.

2:29:42So so you just made my point for me. That's what I said. Are we creating a new definition of a category one wetland and surface water, or are we having just category one wetlands? It's a nuance of the language, Jackie.

2:29:58Right. And the river river systems are can be considered just surface waters as well, so there are any wetlands on the banks.

2:30:04Correct.

2:30:05So we look at more in industrial heavy activities next to the Equal River for example, it's considered a category one wetland and surface water.

2:30:16You're not understanding the point. Today, in the comprehensive plan, the wetlands on the fringes of the Anclo River are category one wetlands. Okay, we don't have a definition of category one wetlands and surface waters in the comp plan today. Right.

2:30:37The service water's part wasn't extended.

2:30:40I think the planning commission understands my point.

2:30:42Yeah.

2:30:45And I I I mean again uh maybe I I think somebody down the road's gonna interpret that that you can't have heavy industrial next to. I mean I've had people give me legal interpretations where it says okay, it says can't have it next to sur category one wetlands and surface waters. So you take the word and clo category one out and so you can't have it next to surface waters. Right. I don't know why I I I can't comprehend why the and surface waters

2:31:12That's just my opinion. Yeah.

2:31:15I agree.

2:31:18Yeah. So we can remove

2:31:20those surface waters now.

2:31:27We're here to make a recommendation so we can talk about that after.

2:31:37Okay.

2:31:39Uh well let's move on, Terry. Let's come back to that I guess.

2:31:47The selection.

2:31:50Thanks, Jackie.

2:31:57No, I made you lose your place, Terry. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry. I said no, I made you lose your place, I'm sorry. No, that's okay.

2:32:06So now we're going to start talking about future land use policies 161 and through 164 to talk about the commercial development project.

2:32:19In the upcoming classifications and provisions for the future land use policies, we're going to talk a lot about small-scale neighborhood commercial. and commercial infill and there's other parts of the in a commercial a small-scale commercial definition that are sort of at odds with one another. Two of them are talking about five acre thresholds and one commercial infill uh definition is talking about four acres. And so in the next set of

2:32:49policies we're aligning all of that to be five acres. as the as the consistent threshold across the board. And also in the particular provision uh for 164 we're going to delete the 20,000 square foot records. So in this case here uh we're defining policy through 161.f commercial infill development of five acres or less and we're taking the definition that's currently in the glossary of the conference Plan and bringing it forward into the

2:33:20comprehensive plan, putting it under F because the glossary really shouldn't be regulating, the provision should be the regulating feature. It's also easier to read this way. And then we're also adding number three within the urban service area, the floor area ratio shall not apply, and lock coverage, lock coverage of the zoning district shall be used. This this uh number three. three provision uh is also being added as we'll see in a minute uh to each of the future land use classifications so that when a future

2:33:50land use is within the urban service area uh they are consistent with past uh county ordinance and policy as it relates to height restrictions or lack thereof.

2:34:06Next slide. This is policy flu 162. This is a clarification on roadway intersections that these that you may put com at the intersection of arterials and collectors or any combination thereof. Sorry, so this is just a clarification statement.

2:34:30Here in Policy through 164, you actually see now the discussion that was playing out not to exceed five acres or less in size is the new statement that uh fits in fits into 164 to make it consistent across the board so that we're only talking about a five-acre threshold and not five acres for here and four acres for there, just five acres per. the board. That's gonna be the controlling aspect of what enables small scale commercial

2:35:01development or neighborhood development versus uh anything larger, more regional

2:35:05let's say. Shouldn't it just say not to exceed five acres in size?

2:35:12Yes, that's a good one, yeah, get rid of board less. Yeah, well we could that's not we we could do that.

2:35:20Like inside English teacher was screaming, so I just noticed it

2:35:25myself when I

2:35:25was talking though.

2:35:28Not to exceed.

2:35:32So moving on then to section A4, calculations of residential density, uh this provision is modified uh to explain what should happen when you have fractional density. So essentially if you're 0.5 or more round up to the nearest whole number and you that's your new density. Uh if you're point five or less, then you keep it at that. So So if you're like three point four, we're three point four. If you're three point six, you can round up to four, basically.

2:36:06Uh in the A6 appendix, uh we're clarifying that daycare facilities are allowed shall be permitted in all land use classifications. They technically were. They were just listed multiple times across the the different uh future land use classifications. Uh and then of course number seven there the the the additional density calculation language was added there to make sure that it's it's applicable uh in every

2:36:36density calculation that we that we make that we do.

2:36:44Okay, so this is an example slide. This is res six for the future language classification. This language here has been added pretty much every flu.

2:36:53Thank you.

2:36:55uh definition within the urban service area the floor area ratio shall not apply and lot coverage shall be subject to the zoning district. So each flu has a FAR or floor area ratio.

2:37:08Uh worth it very well.

2:37:14Okay. I'm trying to use it cleaner.

2:37:16Yeah.

2:37:18Oh the laser. Yeah, that might

2:37:26So each each uh future land use classification has a floor area ratio and go back to the basics this guy, it's easy. Um and what we have on the books right now is in the urban service areas, uh we try not to limit the height for certain types of development, non-residential or other residential development styles. And so the floor area ratio actually creates the cap, which

2:37:56is a sort of an unintended consequence. If you remove the floor area ratio, then that height allowance that we have as an incentive for redevelopment and development can actually occur now. So FAR was introducing an artificial cap. but we didn't want it. Then what actually controls the development if you don't have that hype limit from the FAR is the actual lot coverage on the zoning district itself. And then

2:38:26this this is carrying through pretty much through each of the future land use classifications.

2:38:36Oh.

2:38:38In this uh amendment the IH future land use category is further explained in terms of what's going to be allowed and not allowed for retail commercial support uses. They they both have I don't remember which button I'm pressing with these two things. Um you have this line here and it taught and it gives you a list of the types of commercial support uses that can occur within e either of these industrial

2:39:08future land use classifications. And so uh currently there is an allowance to do fifteen percent uh commercial, but nobody knew exactly what kind of commercial can actually take place. And there was always a certain type of commercial that we would allow to take place that was sort of compatible with other with employment generating land uses. And so this provision attempts to uh clarify that for the IH and IL.

2:39:36Quick question, Terry, on that one. Are you saying if they develop support commercial that it shall include restaurants, dry cleaners, auto maintenance, repair and service stations? Or Are you is the intent and I think your intent is, and this is another place confusing language, that you know they may have support commercials such as restaurants, dry cleaners, auto maintenance and re you're not saying they have to have all of these things, but I think that word shall include

2:40:07May add some confusion to that. I see your point.

2:40:11Yeah. And may include, yeah.

2:40:12Yeah, maybe the word may. Okay. That's noted.

2:40:17Come here.

2:40:27And are this is there a current limitation of fifteen percent? Yes. Where is that? In the A6 appendix. Okay. Okay. Are you just moving it out of the appendix to Well

2:40:39no, it's still in the appendix. The what's in there today, the language that's in there today, only says fifteen percent support commercial. I see. Yeah. Fair stuff. So Would would you put like a a cell phone shop? ATT or Verizon wireless or something like that. As a typical retailer, would you allow retail into an industrial area under that fifteen percent? I think the the logic of making that fifteen percent allowance was to put commercial uses that were compatible

2:41:09with the employment center so that people could go get their sandwiches or drop off their kids at the Dickens. Or pay their cell phone bill. You could do that by too expensive.

2:41:19Not if it's broken. Yeah.

2:41:23Well if we don't have any towers.

2:41:27This next amendment was to the employment center, future land use itself. There's a number of big amendments happening to the employment center, future land use. These amendments were requested by the Board of County Commissioners. The main thing is to enable greater flexibility for land use implementation. So what you see on the overhead board here is that corporate business park or targeted primary businesses or industrial.

2:41:55Take up the entire employment center flu. Uh before they were mandated or limited to just 75%, up to 75% of the flu. That meant that at least 20% or possibly even five percent of the land uses could be uh non-employment generating land uses. There was a mandate in the E C. Flu that at least 20% had to be multifamily and 5% had to be support commercial

2:42:26or office. With these edits, what we're we're know we're now removing the mandate for multifamily, and we're also removing the mandate for support commercial office uses. You can still do these uses in the EC flu, and we capped the maximum. Homes in place. You can only do up to 40% of the EC flu maybe multifamily, or up to 20% of the EC flu maybe at commercial or office, but no more than that. The key

2:42:56was to increase it to 100%, which is really the goal of the Employment Center. Future land use is to be a place full of employment generating land use. Because it's excellent.

2:43:10We also made some clarifications in terms of what should happen if we have rezoning taking place. They should be EC MPUDs, or they should be Euclidean districts with a development agreement, or in a development agreement on the existing Euclidean zoning district itself. So you might have an I-1 already in an EC. We could handle that through the development agreement project. Process. if there was any particular kind of uh condition that needed to be met.

2:43:43And of course at the very bottom you'll see once more the FAR restriction not applying within the urban surface area.

2:43:57Uh this amendment is just simply to remove the wetland overlay altogether. Uh most wetlands are taken care of by the conservation C O N flow. We've seen a couple of amendments recently actually where they will they will partition the site and say this portion we're going to keep as con C O N conservation. Uh in other pro in very many other projects, like as in MPUDs you often see conservation easements being placed on wetlands. So between the easements on the one hand and the conservation

2:44:27flu on the other. W L O has really never come forward. And so it's just extra in the co in the comprehensive plan right now. So it's uh

2:44:37So we don't have any lands with that classification on them today?

2:44:43Not that we could find. Yeah.

2:44:48And then finally, uh on to Chapter Three, Policy CON 1312. This is the same policy provision that we just talked about a few minutes ago at the very top of the presentation and Mr. Moody had questions on the surface water. It's uh it's the exact replica within the conservation element. And if if uh the Planning Commission has a recommendation as to the surface waters language we would carry it through to this policy as well.

2:45:19And I believe that it's really

2:45:21All right.

2:45:22We would recommend uh that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive planning and recommended the Board of County Commissioners minus the language that we talked about for ROR and MU. And surface water. And the surface waters if that's the the Planning Commission's recommendation.

2:45:44Terry, there's a definition of surface water currently in the glossary that we should probably look at.

2:45:51Yeah, if you want to. You want to say that please okay.

2:45:54Yeah.

2:46:10No maybe could choose a better though.

2:46:12I know, right? But this was not like this on the west side at all. Uh it must be all the oaks here or something. I don't know.

2:46:19Scaricum. Yeah.

2:46:23Who was this trouble with

2:46:23the

2:46:27We're max.

2:46:30We

2:46:30actually have the comp plan open over here.

2:46:45Well, this will actually make my point.

2:47:00So I I I can try to read it. Surface water, a recognizably permanent body of water, including swamp or marsh areas, contained within a discernible boundary or bank created naturally or artificially. Water from natural

2:47:18Spring, spring. Spring. Springs shall be classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth's surface. And

2:47:27includes the word artificially, which would include wet detention ponds and wet the drainage ditches.

2:47:34Terry, if you go back to your last slide of your presentation, the last sentence in that slide kind of again further exasperates. The point of if if I'm reading that in I again I didn't go to law school and tried to practice law in my life holiday. If if I read that and I see it, I read it as any development which occurs in these locations must demonstrate that no significant adverse impacts to the surface waters will result

2:48:04in an increased buffer shall be required. Mm. I I I just personally don't like the word and surface waters in that in that section.

2:48:12then we're gonna recommend they pull that. Surface water words.

2:48:17Yeah, again a perfect example is an industrial use that needs shipping uh to a waterway. And you build a canal to ship stuff out of your industrial area through by water.

2:48:30It's artificially created.

2:48:32The water in the port

2:48:33itself is surface water.

2:48:34Exactly, yeah. So you you create that canal to ship it's a few years. And that would

2:48:37be the size that meets the category one. Definitely should be right.

2:48:45Okay, well those would be our recommendations. Can we make that in the form of a motion? Okay. So uh hearing a public hearing.

2:48:54It's a public hearing.

2:48:57Oh do we have to? Yeah. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak?

2:49:06No, you had a turn. Just teasing, come on. We're more happy.

2:49:23And make suggestions. Nancy Hazwood, [address removed]. First off, I read through this, probably skimmed it. This is not easy reading. Appendix, page 3 of 21, A6, Official Future Land Use Map, General Applications. I liked that first page. It explained a lot. But I go and turn it to four of twenty-one. And number three says within the Northeast Pasco

2:49:53Rural Area, res one Future land use classification is deemed to be a rural land use classification. Within the rural transition area, RES 1 may be developed as either a conservation subdivision or an MPUD. Somebody explain that to me, please. That sounds like it says Res One is a rural thingy and I don't

2:50:18think it is. Where is this?

2:50:20It's um of the packets, page 162, 161, 162 of the package. And

2:50:28and you know this is existing language, right? We're not we're not making this change. This exists now.

2:50:42Terry, do you have something to comment on there?

2:50:45No. You want to put them first? Okay, the other one is in the E C um the

2:50:55that you just um went over the employment centers. There's nothing in here about employment centers in the Northeast Rural Area Plan. I think some special criteria needs to be put on 'em so they fit in. Maybe not taking up every single inch of land, but making it look like an employment center in a woods. or something. Even if you add light industrial, let's make it work within the northeaster area. Okay, I am finished.

2:51:24Thank you. Thanks, Nancy.

2:51:29Uh as McTarios Pito's Planning and Economic Growth. As it relates to the Res One, as um Ms. Blair noted, it's existing language. It's been in there for a long time and it's actually integral to the rural strategy for the commune that Res One is the highest density classification within northeast uh rural area. So um

2:51:55I in northeast rural it's considered rural. In the rest of the county, that is to say outside of the rural territories uh or territory uh it's not considered rural. It's actually called sprawl density. Congrats.

2:52:13So the pa the comprehensive plan, it doesn't specifically define it as small density, but it has a series of policies that uh favor res three, particularly in the acquisition of utilities. So if you're not essentially res three density, um or excuse me, if you're if you're looking for utilities, you have to be at a minimum of res three density.

2:52:39So to the point that Res1 is a sprawl density and we're trying to discourage that.

2:52:45We're doing all kinds of neat things today. Yeah. When they don't like something, we just give it a bad name. Sprawl density and dirty uses. Dirty uses. I don't use that term. Dirty uses. Um well apparently somebody from the staff used it.

2:53:01Is that like taking a bad bill and giving it a pretty name? All the time, yeah.

2:53:07But but the sprawl discussion has happened many times over the years yeah at public hearing so that that's an important thing.

2:53:14Well those of us that live on more than an acre like our sprawl, thank you. Mm-hmm. We're happy with it. You know what? I can walk down my street right in the middle of it. I don't have to worry about getting hit by a car.

2:53:30Yeah.

2:53:31Oh yeah,

2:53:31sure. As far as the employment center, uh that's not really that wasn't really a question, so uh noted from the public.

2:53:40Yeah. Thank you, Derek,

2:53:41Derek.

2:53:43Barbara Woolhai, [address removed]. For someone, I don't know, probably just myself. Um I want to thank staff for bringing this forward. This is needed. They have a very High workload and to you know bring forward a glitch comp plan amendment is is appreciated. I want to say that. I do support the If the Planning Commission would remove and surface waters, can of worms, as you guys have have got yourself into, um and of course support staff taking out that language of the ROR and the M UI as

2:54:13they described. Thank you.

2:54:15Thank you. You're finally agreeing with us, huh? Maybe we should have Barbara make the motion.

2:54:24Don't often get to hear you as public comment.

2:54:29She's been patiently waiting for

2:54:31the meeting.

2:54:33All right. I think there was one more. I think Jen had a comment. Yeah,

2:54:39did you have

2:54:48Uh Uh Jen Kerouac um [address removed]. I'm just coming because oh, and I have my old points here and I've just lost them, I apologize. Um the things that are in here, it's there's a lot of changes. And um and the one thing that I want to say is that you know know I stand in agreement there have been many things that have happened in the Shady

2:55:18Hills community that where there were conflicting um uh um uses and you know I know that you know I believe that part of this is to address some of those things but some of the concerns when when you're you know the removal um in the wetlands and that's the one part thing I can't for whatever reason I can't get up uh to Bring up here on my fancy eye iPad. Um, you know, when it when

2:55:49it was speaking about the surface waters and the wetlands, and I think in terms of you know, a lot of the things that we have been advocating for and against in Shady Hills, and one of those things being you know the concern with regards to the um the light industrial going in um near the the head of the Pithlacucci I think it is and the aquifer, you know, being negatively impacted. by heavy industrial and light industrial uses. And so when I

2:56:19think in terms of the changes where it specifies the removal and just adding a buffer and to to you know the the potential contamination is the concern that I have with regards to the way it's written, um, regardless of of anything else, because you know, as it stands right now, there's remains concerns about um the potential contamination um to

2:56:49and there are many teachers and and folks at Mary Giella that have expressed significant complaints whether or not they they're coming and bringing those forward to the school board, I don't know. But there is a significant um concern from parents um and and teachers with regards to you know It's a slippery slope, essentially, is what I'm saying. And I think that this is a you know a huge

2:57:19change that is being proposed. But most importantly, you know, is there really public comment being sought out and is that taken into um you know consideration as we come today? There's no meetings after five guys. I'm just saying, you know, the statute one two five point six six and I'm not a lawyer either, but it says that sure there should be one meeting after five PM per Florida statute. We've continued to ask for it, and so I just ask

2:57:50with something as significant as this that we would consider a meeting after five PM. Thank you.

2:58:00Alright, Terry, anything else? Okay.

2:58:05Any comments, questions, emotions?

2:58:14Well.

2:58:15I I got a question for Jackie, just one last question.

2:58:19Are you still with us, Jackie?

2:58:22Yes, I am. Excellent. Um so if was your intent to protect things like lakes and rivers by the use of the term surface water?

2:58:33Correct. And and the way it would be read would be category one wetlands and category one urban waters. Oh there's category one. So it's not saying that

2:58:40something

2:58:45There

2:58:45aren't. That's the point I was trying to make. We're creating a new

2:58:49Well she means lakes and rivers. What we just say lakes and rivers then? Yes.

2:58:55Well, and then we go to Derek's Mr. Pontletz's point. What if we have someone but what if we have a water dependent use that is classified as light? Industry. Okay. that's on a surface water such as a lake or a river. Fish process.

2:59:17But lights a light's allowed to be next to those things. Heavy's not. That's the way it's written. That's what we're fixing.

2:59:22His point was a port. Cargo load. What's cargo load to Is cargo loading a C one use in our zoning code? Uh I'm talking about big cranes unloading boat. Exactly. No, it's not. right? Correct, that's industrial use.

2:59:43All right. Thank you, Jackie.

2:59:47Oh yeah, if it was a channelized cord, then we would it would be a man-made structure, it wouldn't be a category one.

2:59:54But it

2:59:55will be surface water. It says artificial artificially created. Right.

3:00:03Yeah, we're natural. In the double in the law three.

3:00:07More

3:00:07natural.

3:00:07It wouldn't it wouldn't meet the it wouldn't meet the definition of a category one. If it was artificial.

3:00:13I would tell you that there are those of us that there's probably a lot of them out in the land use community, there's a lot of them in the development community. that are hoping at some point we're actually going to dispose of those definitions in our comprehensive plan. The state does not categorize wetlands and I don't understand why Pasco County sees any need to categorize wetlands beyond what the state of Florida the Army Corps of Engine the the US EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers don't

3:00:43categorize them. The state of Florida doesn't categorize them but yet We see fit to categorize them. We should probably at some point try to get rid of those too, but

3:00:53As a practitioner I would agree with you. It only creates confusion.

3:00:57Yes.

3:00:58Right. Because that definition clearly says m uh man-made natural or unnatural. And so surface water would fall under that uh if it's a man made canal. That means you couldn't you'd have to have a buffer. You couldn't have that port operation going on next to the water, which is where it would need to be.

3:01:20I don't think there's anybody here that wants to pollute natural rivers, lakes and streams and oceans. That's not the intent. But we also want to make sure that we're not backdoor creating some new definition in our common land that isn't intended to be defined and that could be a hindrance to economic growth. Correct.

3:01:44Okay, so So with that I will make a make

3:01:47the motion.

3:01:48Yeah.

3:01:49So is there like you might have to help me with this one, Elizabeth. Okay. Um so I think We'll call it I will make a motion to approve CPA 2212, the omnibus text amendment. Deleting those sections regarding the ROR and mixed-use land use categories, deleting the term and surface waters from

3:02:19the amendment, and then in the

3:02:23industrial section which maybe you can help me with this one, Elizabeth, getting word rid of the word shall and may for the support commercial uses. Well what

3:02:33page number is that on? That was a good question.

3:02:42Oh

3:02:43boy.

3:02:43Where it talks about the shall be limited to fifteen percent. Right.

3:02:47Yes, that's the one.

3:02:56That is

3:02:58it's on page ten.

3:02:59In the definition of the IH Land De Future Land Use Category on page ten of twenty one.

3:03:07And I L.

3:03:08And I L. Yes, sir.

3:03:10Uh would you like to add to your amendment the deleting the or less part and once more? Yes,

3:03:15and yes.

3:03:17What was that? Also deleting just uh just uh basically a typo where it says or less.

3:03:24The five acres or less. Oh yeah.

3:03:27Yes.

3:03:28Thank you. Well thank you for my help in creating that crafting that post. It's

3:03:35a team member.

3:03:36That's all.

3:03:37I'll second everyone.

3:03:39Can I just clarify one thing? You're not actually deleting the ROR and the MU. You're just not

3:03:44changing. We're deleting them from this proposed amendment. We're not deleting the ROR category.

3:03:56It's just that language deleting the ratio and adding that three hundred uh provision.

3:04:05So you So you are making changes of the ROR. Well it's

3:04:09actually then if he's withdrawn it, it's not part of the proposal. So how about we just leave it up? Because

3:04:15we we still have uh FAR discussion and ROR and so on and so forth. Yes. Understood.

3:04:21Yeah. So it's as though you never saw it.

3:04:25Correct. Right.

3:04:27Alright, I got it.

3:04:35Now the clerk has to actually memorialize that in a minute.

3:04:42So do we have it? Do you want to restate this motion?

3:04:45It's a motion to uh it's a motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the comprehensive plan, finding them consistent with the comprehensive plan, with the exception of the term surface water being added to those two policies. You want to see surface waters and surface water struck from there. And then the uh definition of uses in the industrial having industrial light to be modified using the word may instead of shall and then deleting this phrase or less from the five acre commercial

3:05:18Uh provisions from whatever section of the in one six four. Is that everything?

3:05:25Yes. Okay.

3:05:31You'll second that for the third time.

3:05:35So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Not all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed. The motion carries. Okay.

3:05:53Made it. Did we make it to the end?