Pasco Conserves conservation element 2050 update

1:28:59Okay, I think on today's workshop agenda we only have one item, that's the Pasco conserves element.

1:29:07Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Niktarios Pitos, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Uh today's local planning agency comprehensive plan update session will focus on the Pasco 2050 chapter, Pasco Conserves, which is the conservation element. This chapter, like all the chapters of the comprehensive plan, have been worked on by numerous industry-related stakeholders, the County Attorney's Office and County Departments, including in this case by the Parks Recreation Natural Resources Department, which was a significant participant and contributor in the development of the chapter. In addition to this,

1:29:38the Planning, Development, and Economic Growth Department facilitated the reviews for Parks Recreation Natural Resources and industry-related stakeholders. Stakeholders in order to capture their input and facilitate the development of the traff of the draft. Moreover, it bears noting that we received significant community stakeholder feedback on the question of natural resource and conservation needs within the county through thousands of public comments and surveys via the Pasco 2050 project website, as well as over 10 community workshops and open houses across the county over the last two

1:30:08years. We're presenting the Pasco Conserves chapter today, uh though, like before, our plan is not to go necessarily line by line. through the chapter, but to present the big ideas for the chapter and provide you all with an overview of new policies that were added to the proposed comprehensive plan update and in this case an overview of some of the deleted policies because they were either completed, made obsolete by state law changes, or were no longer necessary. With me today is Hyatt Mazilli. She's the Senior Planner with Planning Services and the

1:30:38Project Manager for the Comference of Plan Update. She'll walk us through the chapter overview. You should have received in your materials the draft chapter. A red line version of it, which uh shows all the different changes, and the policy change tables that illustrate the various edits made in Pasco 2050. So in that table you can see what's an absolutely new uh policy, what is a modified policy, what is a deleted policy. Um and that's compared against the current comprehensive

1:31:08plan um Document. And the data and analysis for this chapter has also been provided, which supports the goals, objectives, and policies of the proposed chapter. So if there are any questions or comments, at the end of the presentation we'll be available for discussion, as well as our counterparts in the park recreation natural resources department. And with that, I'll turn it over to Hyatt. Thanks, Hyatt.

1:31:43Good afternoon, Planning Commissioner.

1:31:47As you you know, Pasco 2050 is comprised of 11 chapters, each addressing a key topic that guides our county's future growth and development. On this slide, you can see the full list of the chapters, ranging from land use. public facilities, housing to recreation, open space, and natural resources. And speaking of natural resources, like Terry has mentioned, this afternoon we will be discussing the conservation element or the Pasco Conserves

1:32:18chapter, which is chapter number seven on our list here. So I will begin with an overview of the proposed amendment to this chapter and then we will open the floor for your questions and feedback. We also have with us today staff from the Natural Resources Department who will be assisting us with answering your questions. They have been very instrumental in reviewing and updating this chapter. Okay, let's roll into the next slide and take a closer look at

1:32:48Pasco conserves. The conservation element of the existing comprehensive plan was renamed Conserves. This chapter is required per Chapter 163 of the Florida statutes, and the purpose of Pasco Conserves is to ensure that we continue to identify and protect Pasco County's significant natural resources, such as water resources, air quality, land resources, and our conservation. Yeah. This chapter also provides the framework

1:33:19for how the county manages these resources while still acc accommodating growth and all while preserving um our environmental integrity. So What has changed in this chapter? We have streamlined and reorganized the goals, objectives, and policies. The chapter now has two goals. nine objectives, two of which are brand new, And sixty-seven policies, twelve of those being new as well. These goals, objectives, and

1:33:49policies also incorporate recommendations from the Habitat Study, including ecological planning units and the agricultural reserve, which help support open space protections. We also made edits for statutory requirements, removed policies that already exist in the Land Development Code. Updated, outdated information, and rewrote policies to be more concise and clear. And of course there is some renumbering and retitling of policies to fit

1:34:19the reorganization. Overall. These updates make Pasco Conserves easier to navigate, more consistent, and better aligned with state requirements, the county's strategic plan, and the overall county's long-term goals.

1:34:40This slide highlights the new objectives and policies we are proposing in the Pasco Conserves chapter. Thank you. These policies are crafted to protect and enhance our natural resources while balancing future growth. We have policies focused on land and ecological conservation. For example, Policy Conserves 1.1.1 emphasizes on linking natural areas, while policy 1.1.8 focuses on tree preservation. Policy 1.6.18

1:35:12is another new policy that addresses reducing nutrient loads in surface waters. We also introduced a new objective, 1.3, that includes policies pertaining to ecological planning units and the agricultural reserve. On the water and marine management side, we added Objective 1.8, which lays out a comprehensive approach to estuarine and marine habitat management.

1:35:42And next we have this slide that shows how the goals, objectives, and policies of Pasco Conserves directly reflect the community's vision, especially around the vision theme of natural resource preservation. The community told us loud and clear that protecting waters, wildlife, and natural system is a priority. And in response, we have strengthened policy language to reflect that priority. For example, there

1:36:12are several policies and Objective Conserves 1.1 that include policies related to protection of listed species. Humanity protection, protection of existing conservation lands, tree preservation, and public education on conservation. Objective Conserves 1.2 is all about ecological corridors, their protection, mapping of the ecological corridors, the permitted uses and development standards, and environmental

1:36:43management plans. We also have Objective 1.5 or Objective Conserves 1.5, which is about wetlands and surface water protections, how we regulate wetland impacts, wetland mitigation and preservation, upland buffers and river setbacks, and infrastructure planning to minimize the impacts of the wetlands or on the wetlands. And then we have Objective Conserves 1.6, which is all about groundwater protection and water quality. All

1:37:14in all, we are carrying forward the community's priorities into actionable policies that will guide growth while protecting what makes Pasco County unique, and that is open spaces and vibrant places.

1:37:32This concludes my overview of the Pasco Conserves update. Now it's your turn. Let the discussion begin.

1:37:44I I I can start 'cause I have a question. I know Keith is gonna knows I'm gonna ask him so

1:37:57So Keith, let's start with what

1:38:02Okay. You and I both know the history of what we got through on the ecological corridors. So my question to you is

1:38:11What is your intent as it relates to EPUs and agricultural reserves in terms of their

1:38:21Acquisition. Like what what is in your mind the map the the mapped areas for EPUs and Agricultural reservoirs, what is the intent of that map? So uh maybe we can pull up the maps. Yeah,

1:38:34yeah, we're we're gonna pull that up. So Keith Wiley, Director of Parks Recreation, Natural Resources Department. Um Mr. Goldstein, the purpose of this was is kind of flows from the open space conversations that we've been having through the 2050 process. And our contribution to that discussion countywide in terms of does the county want to revisit requiring open space requirements within master plan developments? Um and if so, where would we start creating a list of of Of spaces that make sense for

1:39:04us to target, technically. And so we felt that, well, what better place focusing on natural resources protection than areas that were already identified in a previous study and that already existed in the comprehensive plan that were identified as environmentally sensitive, such as the ecological planning units and the ag reserves. So really the purpose of this, and maybe the execution wasn't exactly what we needed to nail down, but the purpose was to identify these areas as eligible spaces

1:39:34that we would, if we were going to move forward with an open space requirement, our recommendation is we start here. So, you know, back up to a development application, development application comes in. If the county decides ultimately that we're going to have some kind of open space requirement, whatever the percentage would be, used to be 40% when I first joined Pasco County 15 years ago, we would say, okay, this is the area in the county that makes sense that we would probably want to use one of those spaces. Not entirely,

1:40:05not a hundred percent, just an opportunity to visit. A section that deserves protection because of its environmental significance. So that was, I don't know if I clearly answered that, David, but that was my I think the team's intent.

1:40:21So so then these are not areas that you would be looking to acquire with Elamp funds?

1:40:28I I would say that they've already been identified as areas significant uh enough to that if a willing seller was interested, we would we would look at that. But through that program it's I mean we look at parcels or properties that are nominated that don't even fall within the EPUs that have environmental significance. So it wasn't an add-on to the existing program if that's your if that's at the root of your question. I would argue that these areas have already been identified as environmentally significant for the most part. Now, since 2002,

1:40:58a lot of things have happened, a lot of development has occurred, and maybe possibly that the shapes in the polygon should be modified, but you know, in an effort to kind of get this on the on the books, this is this is what we have so far.

1:41:11Well, I guess I have two questions slash concerns. One is

1:41:19Well that's why I asked you, do you intend to acquire them? Do you have enough money to If you project out penny for Pasco, mm-hmm. Do you have enough money to acquire the ecolog because you're sort of legally obligated to acquire the ecological quarters. You don't really have a choice because those are regulated. Do you have enough money to acquire the ecological corridors? and some of this land that is mapped.

1:41:45It would be difficult to answer that, David, because I mean even even if we identified all the acreage in the ecological corridors, we don't know if a property owner would want to keep some, all you know, I mean it it's it's tough. Uh I think um

1:42:00Yeah. I I I don't think that I would be able to answer that question because I don't really know what the future would hold. Even if you said, okay, 7,000 acres or or 4,500 acres are remaining in the ecological corridor, and you did some rough math on $200,000 per acre, you know, based on the future projections of revenue, yeah, it could be tight, right? Um but that's not that's not the purpose of this exercise. The purpose of this exercise is getting back to the open space. Wouldn't we want to make an attempt to protect areas that we know are environmentally

1:42:31significant versus just some random corner of a development that makes no sense? That's that's what we were trying to accomplish here.

1:42:39Yeah, but I'm trying to figure out what that means in

1:42:42practice. Let me let me so I do so when we worked on this, we never intended the ELAMP funding to have anything to do with this action. This was something that would be negotiated through the development action if the county was interested in establishing an open space requirement. And then we would have incentives.

1:43:03So I'll ask I'll ask you and Mr. Pito as a hypothetical that maybe help will answer my question. So If a land use amendment comes in, a proposed land use amendment to increase density And it's in the area labeled agricultural reserve.

1:43:22Is there is can somebody argue that they don't they're not entitled to a density increase because it's labeled agricultural reserve?

1:43:29I see your point. Uh I don't think that's our intent.

1:43:37The the reason I the reason I'm saying this is because the reason this is important

1:43:44For ecological corridors we did do that. I mean we we came in and we said you will not get a density increase In an ecological order, and therefore we had to compensate

1:43:53for that. Right. And again, David, that's not what we're trying to to do here. We're trying to basically say that keep shifting back to the open space piece, which quite honestly has been a challenge to identify. Uh I think if you were to Define all of the eligible uses within open space. What I'm recommending is that we look here first. That again doesn't have to be a hundred percent of whatever the area is. It could be whatever whatever the LDC ultimately ends up being. But i I what

1:44:23I don't want to do, and I think Mr. Moody was in a we had some some stakeholder meetings. What I don't want to do is we create an open space requirement, and we're just creating we're setting aside open space that doesn't mean anything or has no value. And this was an effort for us to really make it.

1:44:48Mm-hmm.

1:44:49If that's what the county chooses to do. So it's a planning tool. So like we're uh what I don't want to do is go through another study and we're trying to figure out what should we have.

1:44:58My problem with the saying it's a planning tool.

1:45:02is in my mind that also means a future land use amendment which is a plan amendment. A plan. Okay. Mm-hmm. that it can be used to deny a plan amendment. So you say it's a planning tool Well tell me where where would I find language that says it's that not gonna be used for that purpose? Mr. Pitos, anybody? Yeah.

1:45:24I mean

1:45:25w uh Terry Pito I'm Terry Speetto's point of human economic growth. The idea uh from a future land use increase in density or intensity or or development potential uh is to primarily look at the future land use to govern that information. My understanding of the agricultural reserve was that it merely established a target area of where policy could be affected. It doesn't necessarily Say that. Every

1:45:55it doesn't extract um uh entitlement, let's call it, or or or subtract entitlement, maybe is a better way to say it. It doesn't subtract entitlement, it's just uh establishing a target area. Um to the extent that the map could be adjusted, the map could be adjusted. But but our analysis from a land use change perspective or zoning perspective would discuss uh based on the merits of future land use and zoning.

1:46:25I don't want to disagree with you, Terry, but I think the law requires that you evaluate consistency with the entire comp plan. I don't think you can just isolate the feature land use element and say it's only consistent i I don't know that you can ignore the conservation element when you're evaluating consistency with your comp plan.

1:46:41No and I'm not saying that we would ignore it, but I didn't look quite look at it as a quote unquote planning tool. I just looked at it as in within this target area. The county may have

1:46:56a number of targets that they would potentially acquire. Through market means, essentially.

1:47:04Okay, well you now you and Keith are saying different things. And so that's why we're having this conversation because if it's a if it's a future land acquisition tool I mean it's sort of through voluntary acquisition um That's a different purpose than

1:47:22Uh that's why I'm at this is how was why I asked what is the purpose of this map? Yeah. Um because I don't it's not clear to me from the text.

1:47:29Understood. Well, I mean I we were we would be open to suggestions to language that helps us meet the intent to utilize it as a as a planning tool to address what I've just described, trying to find uh open space. uh criteria that makes sense and and that it may not even actually happen. But so yeah, to be clear, our intent is not to add another layer on a map that we're going to deny an application in the future. That was not the purpose or the intent of what we were trying to achieve. So my concern

1:48:00my concern about not mapping it, quite honestly, um, is you know, eventually I'm going to to retire, maybe sooner than later, depending on how this goes. But uh you know, um and it it it's a good reference. It's a good point, you know, it makes sense for someone to see it. I'm I think the team is okay with describing this narratively in a paragraph too. Um but I am telling you that there's lots of discussions about open space that I have both with the the board members and just residents. And I think M. Hyatt pointed this very clearly.

1:48:30The residents are concerned about this. So this this is.

1:48:34What you're telling me is that we need a policy that says that we will consider future amendments to the land development code that provide increased protection to these areas. Is that accurate to what you're saying?

1:48:47If and when the County decides to establish an open space requirement This is where we should look first. That that's all that's basically what I think.

1:48:56So you would want it to say something like: in the event the county

1:49:01adopts additional open space requirements, these should be the target areas for those requirements.

1:49:07Can you do everybody a favor?

1:49:08Yeah.

1:49:11Open space means different things to different people. Can you tell us what your intent is for what is open space?

1:49:18Just had this debate or discussion with one of the county attorneys a little bit ago. So it can mean lots of things, Mr. Moody. It could be civic space. It could be actually we were just working on a a project a couple days ago. It's it's basically anything that um Could be usable, right? That it could be a neighborhood park, it could be conservation land, it could be all cement in some cases. Um this is why I'm concerned about this definition not being nailed down. But all of it is useful.

1:49:49It could be a community hub. And what I'm suggesting about these areas specifically is of all the things that open space slash civic space. Community hub space could end up being living somewhere in a future development design, that these areas should fall in there somewhere. That's that's all I'm suggesting. And that let's not go make an arbitrary claim to set aside something that doesn't have an environmental benefit underneath that definition of open space. When you have

1:50:19a very clearly targeted area or areas in the county that makes sense. Let me

1:50:23ask the question a different way. In the areas that are white. Okay.

1:50:31High priority for your for you. Yeah. Are you basically saying that our neighboring park regulations are enough effectively enough open space in those areas?

1:50:39I'm saying that in that case that might be the a suitable, you know, um eligible criteria to satisfy open space. You might need nothing else other than that. But I would also argue in an and I'm not a planner, so any of the planners can h hop up here and help me, in an urban environment, you might focus more on civic space or community hub. I'm saying that in an area where you have, you know, these I these these zones already identified and you have an open space, and if the county agrees that of all the things an open space definition

1:51:10could include,

1:51:14So What I'm really asking is if the po if there was text that went with this map that said Pasco County shall consider additional open space requirements in the EPUs and agricultural reserve areas depicted on this map. Does that achieve your goal?

1:51:30I think so. If if the county as a whole agrees that open space is something that they would want to see holistically, the first one

1:51:36just trying to see what you're trying to achieve because I couldn't tell from the text or the map. So you're trying to achieve that these are areas where we might look at doing additional open space requirements and to Mr. Moody's point, in theory if it's a future land development regulation, that could define what we mean by that. But you're looking for just a general policy objective that

1:52:02That forces us.

1:52:08No, that's not what we're doing. No, okay.

1:52:10I'm sorry, I'm maybe we're we're we're missing each other. I apologize, David. But um I just keep going back to what I'm being told is the overall goal of establishing some form of open space requirement. All I'm suggesting and will continue to suggest is that When an application intersects with these areas, instead of requiring maybe instead of requiring neighborhood parks, right, David, in those areas, maybe we allow a set aside of these areas that both can be used as active

1:52:40space. Maybe you wave the neighborhood park piece, or maybe you have a combination of You have an all standard against neighborhood park, you do less neighborhood park because you're setting aside more environmentally sensitive area, and they all meet the future open space requirement.

1:53:01And so for agricultural reserve are you d are you considering open space to be any area where there's not

1:53:09I mean if it's farmland do you consider that open space?

1:53:13Um no, no, not it. I mean I so my opinion of open space is would be post it' it it's it's in the built environment, I think is how I'm trying to, you know, and the team is trying to envision open space. So I would say that in the ag reserve where you have uh uh both agricultural property and impacted property, you also have stands of of of natural plant communities that maybe you know, kind of makes sense to include into this open space piece if there is a standing requirement. I'm not looking to

1:53:43create an open space requirement just for the EPUs and the Ag Reserves. That's not the goal. We we were under the impression that organizationally, we were pursuing an open space requirement. So I'm trying to contribute to what that would actually, you know, what would actually be included in that. Not create the

1:54:02same. I'm asking you, are you considering these to be the target areas for where you'd either have some additional or alternative open space requirements.

1:54:12Yeah.

1:54:15That's under the assumption, David, that we would have an open space requirement for MPUDs or future plan development, yes.

1:54:22But the presumption would be that you wouldn't necessarily have alternative or heightened open space requirements in the wide areas.

1:54:31Correct. I think I think those again, so let's let's go back to the old forty percent ratio that we used to have, right? That's what it used to be. In the w in those white areas, it might it wouldn't be these things. It would be a neighborhood park requirement or it would be civic space or community hubs.

1:54:50different focus because you're in a different part of the county and y again we should Uh we should focus on areas that are telling us that should be protected and conserved.

1:54:59And and we'll let the public speak to it too in the Blanket Commission. But I to me in my opinion Number one, you need a statement that makes it clear this is not regulatory uh not a regulatory map. For purposes of any land development proposal. Right. Um 'Cause just saying for planning purposes only, in my opinion, doesn't cure it because planning purposes includes Land Development Code.

1:55:26And then secondly, I think you need a very clear statement as to what its purpose is, and if the purpose is solely to for us when we're considering future amendments to the Land Development Code, that these would be the target areas for either alternative or

1:55:44heightened open space requirements, I think the text of the Complan needs to say that. I didn't see anywhere where it says any of those things currently.

1:55:53No. yeah, I think you're correct. We were yeah, we were attempting to just maybe the planning tool reference was the was not the correct terminology.

1:56:05Yes, we would love that.

1:56:08Because it's really hard to, you know, set set aside, say is this should be the future. I'm particularly concerned as it relates to

1:56:13the agricultural reserve because One could argue the farmland is open space.

1:56:20Uh yeah, I I don't

1:56:21disagree with

1:56:22that

1:56:22either.

1:56:22Especially if your intent is to preserve its agricultural nature

1:56:27I think our intent of this, again, the intent at least of all the staff I've talked to that are talking about this requirement is to make sure that the the future end product has these community hubs within it and open space elements and it's just not wall-to-wall units and to try to use that as a planning tool and then incentivize it.

1:56:47I'd I'd say in addition to what David's suggesting is that there's some areas on the map that are that are shaded that are in fairly planned intense areas, you

1:56:55know,

1:56:56fifty air and cutoff over to Bellamy Brothers, for example. Um so I understand what you're saying. It's not the intent of a

1:57:08So I mean that the overlaying of of you know whatever that is agricultural reserve on that area doesn't really uh is not congruous with what's what's already planned in that area. Yeah or what's approved by the board, true.

1:57:20I that's what I'm

1:57:20saying.

1:57:23My two suggestions m probably we carry that issue because if it's not regulatory today And that it's only a a potential tool for a future regulation, you could exempt anything grandfather, anything that predates it as the time you do that regulation.

1:57:40Um but if we know those areas now, why wouldn't we just kinda take that layer out from the disagree with you, but 'Cause you know people are gonna look at this map and it it's gonna become that point.

1:57:53Yeah.

1:57:55I'm not opposed to them being taken out. I want to be clear. I'm just saying that if it's not regulatory

1:58:02I'm not sure it makes a legal difference, but but

1:58:07M my question for you is how does this interact with some of the existing stuff that we have? For instance, the the Northeast Rural Protection Overlay. Yeah, because that that covers a lot of the same ground of some of the agricultural reserve and with Lakchee River.

1:58:23Well again, I mean I think um not too familiar with that specifically. Um but I'm sure it could be compatible. We wouldn't want to add or again, the goal is not to add on top of something. So if there is an open space element or some kind of uh planning tool that is referencing that or implying that, then this could be used in its place. Yeah,

1:58:40I mean it defines rural character. Yeah. Yeah. Which again, some may define that as open space. Right. Right. Um but we won't know until we have that definition, I guess. But

1:58:54I think that's a Fantastic statement. Uh uh a clear definition on open space would be wonderful.

1:58:59So what's in the way of handling women

1:59:02What's in the way? Um I think everything we've just discussed. Um and also, you know, is this civic space, are they community hubs, are they neighborhood parks? It's a

1:59:15little bit

1:59:15you have to

1:59:16know? Uh but I think sure.

1:59:28That's right. Good afternoon, Elizabeth Blair, Pasco County Attorney's Office. Um, yeah, we've had this conversation a couple of times, and just amongst our staff. I've spoken with Terry and some of his folks. I spoke with Keith this morning, I've spoken with some of Keith's people previously, and we recognize that this open space thing is quite confusing, means many things to many different people. And I think maybe the approach that is possible, that the one that I've advocated for, is thinking of an umbrella of open space. And then you've got different segments Segments of what that open

1:59:58space is and what it means in a different context. Everything from an urban, suburban, and a rural open space. And then you start talking about natural lands, environmental lands, all these different words that you think mean something different, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, and really looking at those definitions and drilling down in the context. Of what the development is going to be or what what it looks like there. So you have civic centers in your urban area. When you think of a civic area, you think of you know cement, you think of something that's not your open space in a rural context. So we recognize that this is a problem. So

2:00:28having the umbrella term drilling down in different categories is what I'm hoping we end up doing. And I think it's gonna take some brain power to

2:00:35use there. So with that. Yeah.

2:00:40If I Hear you. We can have open space in an urban context. What's that have to do with this map? Because you're identifying all the non-urban areas.

2:00:53Exactly. Exactly. So so you end up with these different places that have different uniqueness to them. And I'm not as familiar with what staff's thought process was for open space in these areas. I'm learning as Keith talked and as his folks were talking with me this morning. But I think that having this division in different categories will really go a long way in, you know, getting to where we want to go. This is just one of the categories. Yeah.

2:01:19And right now it's these may not be urban areas, but that's not to say that couldn't be an urban area at some point in the future in one of these areas.

2:01:26Yeah, I mean we we don't even like our existing space definitions. So Well

2:01:31yeah, I mean There is there is an open space definition in the comprehensive plan now. But it's

2:01:38very confusing and very long. It's

2:01:39very lengthy.

2:01:42Uh open space, undeveloped land or water body which is free of structures and equipment except that incidental to the land's open space uses. For urban land use classifications, which include residential land use classifications, non-residential land use classifications, and mixed-use land use classifications, open space is a common area under common ownership that may include the following. building, flood protection, creating a sense of spatial separation for incompatible land uses, areas for agricultural operations, passive

2:02:13recreation, active recreation, conservation uses, not otherwise defined in this glossary, and historical and archaeological sites. For the rural land use classifications, open space can be of any size, treed or open grassland. Functions include the providing of flood protection, creating a sense of spatial separation for incompatible land uses, the provision of passive recreation, active recreation, or conservation uses, historical site preservation, and areas for agricultural operations. For the RES One, residential one dwelling of Pergros Acre,

2:02:44land use classification. Which is classified as both residential land use classification and a rural land use classification when such land is developed as estate lots, one acre or greater in size, or as an MPUD master plan unit development under policy flu one dot one four. It shall be classified as rural land use classification for the purposes of this definition. When such res one is developed as a cluster residential subdivision MPUD master plenary development under special provision A, the REST One land use classification definition. It shall be classified as

2:03:14a residential land use classification for the purposes of the definition.

2:03:20Makes total sense. Thanks for

2:03:21clarifying

2:03:22that.

2:03:25Let me just ask it this way. When Hyatt was up

2:03:32Says the public wants open space. Well what is it with what what is it that staff perceives the public wants?

2:03:39Uh I I mean honestly I really feel like that should be answered by the planning team. But f you know, from my perspective, you know, when you look at um the the old citizen surveys, it's it's a loss of um I don't let you speak, but I mean just from from my perspective it's a loss of natural areas, but fully understanding that open space can mean lots of things That's why I think Elizabeth's recommendation to have categories does make sense, but I think the perceived issue is just loss of of natural areas necessarily

2:04:10that provide that open space feeling. So I don't know if I

2:04:16Okay.

2:04:18I think the question is answered contextually across the county. On the east side of the county, open space is gonna generally mean um long view sheds across it can include the agricultural activities that are happening on large properties, uh the ability to see far away and to be moving between structures and places over a distance.

2:04:43On the west side of the county, it can be as as specific to how large people's front yards or backyards are in those more urban settings. Universally, I think most people consider open space the natural areas and also included with that in terms of layman's perception of how they move through the world, parks, um detention facilities, uh even well manicured,

2:05:14can I say parking lots can often be considered open space to people because it's It's not in their minds uh buildings all upon each other, you're not in the city, quote unquote. So it's there's a there's a number of contextual definitions which Our current comprehensive plan is trying to reach for those contextual definitions. I think Elizabeth is right. that there probably should be an umbrella term. And then we're going to do that. Under

2:05:44neath that unroller term identify the the diverse understandings of open space.

2:05:49So getting back to what is Key's area, this map, which which version of open space was he trying to

2:05:59I think I can clearly answer that, David. So the it would be the natural environment or the viewshed piece of of an agricultural piece of property? I think that's a good thing.

2:06:14Yes. Yeah. Or or the or whatever that creates for someone as openness in a in a view shed.

2:06:26I I I can't speak for every citizen in the county that's wanting open spaces, but I can speak for myself and m me just as a citizen would think that an open space means no development. Or no more development than what's going on than than what's already existing. So, you know, I I think you'd be hard pressed to for someone to say that an open space is considered a parking lot in on nineteen. Um you know, I don't think that that would fit the definition of most people's uh idea of opening.

2:06:58I caught that.

2:07:01Well if it's well manicure in that case. Um yeah, I think I think that's really what the public is looking for. Is it solar

2:07:08farm open

2:07:08space?

2:07:09Is it solar farm open space?

2:07:12Yeah, I think if you're the expert in open space, is it solar farm open space?

2:07:16I I I I preceded this with saying that I can't speak for everyone. I can speak for myself. In in my in my opinion, a solar farm would probably be considered open space, yeah. Yeah. Because that's the only that's the only use of the property. There's no there's no just additional congestion. There's no

2:07:35people of the northeast rural area have

2:07:37a

2:07:37Virginia about a bit of

2:07:39a

2:07:39Yeah, but that's just me.

2:07:41Well the legislature adopted a law saying we have to allow them in agricultural areas. So Um and we are following that law, Mr. Moody.

2:07:51Yeah, I mean I'd would I'd rather see cows on a rolling rolling pasture, yeah. Than than a solar farm, yes. But I think a solar farm doesn't add traffic or Yeah, create the congestion and stuff that people bring up. As an issue.

2:08:05Good news is we're starting to think differently about that technology in Washington D C these days. So

2:08:12Well, I mean there's also wind farms. I mean there's there's other things that happen. Like I said, the good news is we're starting to think differently about that. Um so but to getting back to my original question and so You'd be okay if this was revised to say that that I mean we're we're gonna consider some future changes to our regulations regarding open space in these targeted areas.

2:08:39Or that these targeted areas could meet the future definition of of an open space uh category. That's I mean

2:08:47just to ask you a question. Put yourself in the position of somebody who owns a piece of property out there and you guys are coming in here telling me you're targeting my property.

2:08:56Mm-hmm.

2:08:57Okay, who are you to target my property?

2:08:59I don't think that's the right-of-way.

2:09:00You've decided what you're going to do with my property.

2:09:05Nobody elected you to decide what you're doing with my property.

2:09:09Mm-hmm.

2:09:09Okay?

2:09:10Mm-hmm.

2:09:11I question the value of having such a map. whatsoever. Nobody can come in here and give us a clear explanation of what this map is for, what its purpose and intent is. We can't even define what open space is, and we've just spent how many minutes now discussing this map that nobody can have nobody has a logical explanation or simple explanation for what it is. is.

2:09:41Well uh with all due respect, Mr. Moody, I feel like I I feel like I did attempt to at least try to describe what the purpose is. And I also said that maybe our execution wasn't perfect. But um anyway, I appreciate the discussion and and I'm open obviously to maybe modify oh Terry's standing behind me. Modifying the um the definition is Terry and I were just having a sidebar conversation to talk talk, you know, maybe. Maybe capture what Ms. Blair had discussed.

2:10:08Are are you ready to retire yet?

2:10:11Until we figure this out.

2:10:16I don't agree with everything that Mr. Mooney says. The difference with ecological corridors is we were very clear what their purpose was.

2:10:24Mm-hmm.

2:10:25And we yes they were targeted, but we agreed to compensate Because we target it. Okay, so That's I think the underlying concern here, Keith. There's no clear purpose and it's not clear whether we're gonna compensate for that targeting. I get it.

2:10:46I I just want to note on the origin of this map. The the map is actually um in the current comprehensive plan as map three-three and the conservation element. The difference between what's in the current comprehensive plan and this map is merely the just the agricultural reserve. um teal colored shape on the map. Everything else is there and and just as the agricultural reserve is added as a

2:11:16shape to the to the to the map, so too has the updated version of the map included and agricultural reserve in the name. So to the extent you know understood, you know, just get rid of it or something like that. It would probably be I I I would presume that you're referring to the agricultural reserve, not necessarily the whole

2:11:36map. But Terry. I understand what your point but the reality is we never implemented anything. with EPUs. I mean, Keith knows this. The only regulation we adopted The only regulation we did in any way, shape, or form is ecological corridors. I I'm not aware of us ever applying EPUs in any regulatory framework whatsoever.

2:11:59No, and again that you know listen, let's just agree to maybe kind of continue. I'm fine obviously with if the recommendation of the committee is to is to remove the map, I don't have an issue with that. What I'm what I'm suggesting to the planning team and to everyone else that's trying to figure out this open space is let's just not lose sight of these areas as an opportunity to be eligible. Yeah. That's basically it. And and my team view this as an opportunity to again to contribute to that conversation. Um if in fact, you know, David, I do respect your legal opinion. Uh if if you're

2:12:29saying this creates a situation where we're we're um indirectly implying a take, that's not that's not not what we want to do. So

2:12:38I I'm not saying it does or doesn't. Uh the the way the language and the map are drafted today, I can't say

2:12:45That's fair.

2:12:45I would have difficulty defending it the way it's drafted today. Is there a way to draft it so it's Legal probably, but uh

2:12:56for the purpose that you want to use it for I'm not sure you need it.

2:13:03Okay.

2:13:05I mean the reason I'm saying that is bec the my slight concern with it is I'm not even sure it's in the best interest of the county. Let me explain why. Okay. Because if you're saying these are our targeted areas for

2:13:18More open space or different form of open space. It somewhat presumes that We don't want open space in the wide areas. You know, and I'm not sure you're saying that either.

2:13:26I'm not.

2:13:29I'd almost be worried about it used being used against us and saying, Well, why are you doing additional open space in the area you know, say you c say the county wants to come in and want to do additional open space requirements in the wide areas and says, Why are you doing that? You're gonna it's not even in the mapped areas that where you said you were gonna want Want more open space. And are the people in the wide areas not entitled to more open space? Yeah, I I think they are. And I and I guess Well I mean I you probably showed up at the workshop asking for more open space too. Why so why are they being excluded? I

2:13:59mean I

2:14:01A lot of rural areas in that white spot too.

2:14:04So It just seems to me you're creating s the haves and the have nots for open space.

2:14:11And to the point this becomes a planning tool, you

2:14:13know,

2:14:14at at at the end of the day. So it's yeah, I mean, to John's point

2:14:19Well

2:14:20I'm that that's what I'm saying.

2:14:27Because it sort of implies that we don't need open space in the white areas.

2:14:33Yeah.

2:14:39How they're going to interpret this map and what that means under the comp plan. We want to make sure that as this government continues that there's clear direction going forward as to what these things mean.

2:14:54So here here's a here's a recommendation. I I think that this came out as a single open space requirement through conserves when we are attempting again to contribute to the larger discussion. So what I what I would recommend is that we withdraw the map, right, and we talk with the planning team of how we have that conversation through this development.

2:15:15I think you could just do a policy that says the Pasco Gavin show consent.

2:15:22Yeah. Where does that live though, right? And that's that's not for me to decide.

2:15:28I agree with the one thing I said that I agree with all of you on is that it it is context specific. It differs depending on where you are. So Maybe we do need to look at open space based on its context as opposed to But you could say that in just words without creating a map.

2:15:46And I agree with you. So

2:15:51All right. Um as enjoyable as this has been.

2:15:57I'm sure there's other questions.

2:16:01I did. I did. And actually I think um honestly it went almost exactly like I thought it would go. Uh because

2:16:10we really I think are struggling on what this ultimately looks at uh looks like uh for for Everything that we discussed already. So yeah, I think it was a very productive conversation. So

2:16:21Okay.

2:16:22I have a I have a question for you just from history. Seems to me a few years ago there was some discussion about Wetland wetland buffers and V OPH versus genet general wetland buffers. I assume that's been resolved. It has. Okay. Well how was that? What's the is it just whatever the comp plan says is the wetland buffer or

2:16:47specific sub-area policy that was created for VOPH and then hence modified to be more in line with standard. Okay. Standard practices.

2:16:54Is there like an additional hundred feet something? Yeah. Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. I was just curious how that worked out. Yeah. Okay. It's effectively a slightly enhanced wetland buffer in V OPH. Is that an accurate description?

2:17:07Yep. That's correct, yes.

2:17:09Okay. All right. So ideas like that could translate to a open space.

2:17:15Look, that just naturally worked. That's exactly what we were trying to accomplish.

2:17:22Any other qu I'm

2:17:23Yeah, I'll throw another eight hundred pound gorilla out there, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that has on this diocese questions or comments about it, but The old subject of wetland categorization and the intent of wetland categorization and the need for it with the state regs that are that are on the on the books. Um yeah, we essentially defer to the state regs. That are on the books. And I I can see with with the you know the

2:17:53context of a category one wetland maybe, but you know, with within this planning document, you know, we we talk about category three wetlands. Um we essentially Defer.

2:18:08Uh shall be authorized impact season should be authorized by a political state and federal agency. So what what is the point of even having a cat a category two or category three wetland when we're following 62 340 and 62 345 as far as the authorization impact those. So that's one part of my question. I'm sure my fellow commissioners who were engineers sitting on this dice have similar

2:18:38thoughts, but I just want to open it up.

2:18:40Just historical buttons. Oh wait a second, hold on. I mean The We asked in fairness, I mean a question was asked and I don't know do we need to give Keith the opportunity to to respond 'cause I mean I don't know John, did you want to like elaborate on the question or?

2:18:54Go ahead, go ahead. So

2:18:58Yeah. Y if there's a specific policy that you're identifying, if you can just state that policy so that we can be tracking. Yeah, on screen.

2:19:09Exactly. Yep. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Yes, ma'am.

2:19:17Sorry. Uh I was just getting clarification. So um it's a valid valid question. I think that maybe um For transparency purposes, if it just goes away completely. Um I think that we were trying to build in an exemption. Is that yeah?

2:19:32Jackie Jordan, Parks Wreck Natural Resource Department. So the idea was to kind of change the categories to simplify them a little bit. So whereas twos and threes kind of meant the same thing to the county, threes would now be those exempt ones that the state would historically consider exempt from any requirements, you know, upland cut ponds and things like that. So that was the intent there. In regards to the category two wetlands, one thing that we were trying To add in was in the instance for single-family projects that are not necessarily subject to an ERP. So it might just be a single

2:20:03family house.

2:20:10So we're still trying to implement that 15-foot minimum 25-foot average buffer on those systems so we can be consistent with what the state would require if an ERP was being sought.

2:20:19Why?

2:20:21To ensure that there's no adverse impact to wetlands and

2:20:24states determine that they're not interested in it, why why do we need to be interested in it?

2:20:29Because we're finding when we're doing single family reviews, we're just trying to be consistent.

2:20:34With what? We're not being consistent with what the state law is. Why do we think we need to have a more rigorous wetland buffer requirement that the state doesn't see fit to apply to a single family home. Why do I need to burden a homeowner with something B b just because you moved to Pasco County. I can move to Hernando County and buy the same single family lot and not have to worry about this.

2:21:00I'll take a uh I'll take a stab at that. So just a quick history lesson. Uh County was sued back in the early two thousands and through that lawsuit several complan policies were created. I know Mr. Moody knows this because we we had the discussion during the stakeholder uh working group. And and through that, that's where the that's where and I'm hearing it's not true, but that ultimately that's the creation of a lot of these policies, including the ELAMP program. Um so I think that it's obviously the will of the board to have their own

2:21:31categories or not. We were attempting to simplify the process uh you know, listening to you, Mr. Moody, and other stakeholders, and we thought that's what we accomplished. While still maintaining the intent of additional protections in wetlands from in Pasco County. That that's the mission. So if the board chooses to have a different mission, then that's the board's decision. So

2:21:52Keith, I'm sorry. Keith you were you were just explaining why we even got into categories for

2:21:58wetlands? Yes, Mr. Girardi, correct. Yes.

2:22:01And I'm can you repeat that again? I'm sorry. I'm exactly what you said.

2:22:05Yeah. So the county, and I wasn't here at the time, but sounds like some people behind me were. The county was sued, and through that lawsuit, several comp plan policies to increase environmental protections were put in the comp plan. Okay. One of them was it was increased wetland protections. Environmental lands, listed species. So all these policies basically were created, you know, many, many years ago. What we've heard through working with many, many applicants is we

2:22:35need to attempt to streamline the process. And that's, I think, ultimately what the team's objective was here was to streamline the process. Mr. Poole, you bring up a good point. If in fact we're attempting to create the threes as an exemption, maybe they don't need to be in there anymore. That's fine.

2:22:52So the plaintiff in this lawsuit alleged that we were not being protective enough to be able to do that.

2:22:57That's correct. Of many things.

2:23:03So even when we were adhering to state law. And being as protective as state law required us to be. We were not being protective enough.

2:23:11Yeah. I'll let maybe someone else that has the history speak to that, but uh th I w I wasn't a part of the litigation, so

2:23:19That that's what confuses me and you know the same thing confuses me to this day is you know we're being more restrictive than s well

2:23:26motor. Okay, so let me be clear. So Whether it was or was not part of some lawsuit to begin with It doesn't prevent us from amending our comp plan. So I I wanna be clear about that. So Staff and the Planning Commission need to do whatever is the best policy today. You don't you're not bound by All that re even if there was a lawsuit, all it required us to do was to amend the comp plan at that point in time. I don't remember whether double wetlands, my recollection was more about

2:23:56ecological corridors than wetlands, but I'm sure. Elizabeth or Barbara can tell us exactly what happened. Um But Even if it did, it didn't stop us from Even if it did say we had to have category one, two and three wetlands, we can change that now if we want to.

2:24:13Right.

2:24:14There's nothing that's not a good thing. Somebody would have to challenge that decision as part of this update for that to Not happen.

2:24:21One of the problems I've always had with the categorization of wetlands It's arbitrary. Somebody and nobody's been able to tell me this yet and have asked the question multiple times in a couple of these stakeholder meetings. What's the difference between a ninety nine point eight acre wetland and a one hundred point oh one acre wetland? Qualitatively. Nobody can tell me that. It's an arbitrary definition. I might be for more rigorous wetland

2:24:52protection, if you can give me some qualitative reason to protect that wetland. And I'm thinking about wetlands definitions. I'm thinking about Clark, I don't mean to pick on your project, but you got a mind. Project. And I'm gonna come down the road later and I'm gonna have a hundred plus acres of mine. that has an open surface water and qualifies as a wetland and surface water under the state law. Is that the right-of-way?

2:25:22Is that something that I'm going to apply rigorous protections to? Look at b because it exceeded an area? Or am I worr more worried about the green swamp? On the east side of the county. That it's a definition that has No science behind it. Somebody pulled a number out of the air. Like I said, so it's all it's all okay. I can have I can use the Swift MUD definition of a wetland buffer if my wetland is 99.9999

2:25:53acres, that's all good. But I gotta have a hard 25 and there's no exceptions. And then I've got to go through an extra burden to make an imp to to justify an impact. to that wetland because it's one hundred point zero zero zero zero one. If someone can give me a qualitative reason, I am absolutely willing to consider why we should apply better protections. But right now, no one's been able to do that.

2:26:29Mm. I I feel like we've uh I mean, for what it's worth, I feel like we have had this discussion. So um I I I think you could make a very general statement that the larger the regional uh the regionally significant system is.

2:26:45I just don't feel like why county staff feels like we need to apply more rigorous buffering standards than the Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires.

2:27:00And I think Mr. Moody, that's where I mean, this isn't county staff uh making this recommendation. We're actually

2:27:07Well court imposed this on it and I agree with Barbara and I was here back then.

2:27:15Yeah.

2:27:16Okay. We're adhering to the policies as they exist today. As Mr. Goldstein pointed out, if the Board of County Commissioners wants to change the policy, th that's the that's under their purview to do that. Which we can recommend. Which you can recommend. But I'm not going to sit here and be attacked over a policy that I inherited.

2:27:40It's not. But I've asked this question multiple times. And what I don't see is staff providing justification not to You want to maintain this policy. You're adamant in the position that you want to maintain this policy, but you can't provide a justification why.

2:27:58I think the justification, John, is that a a a watershed or a larger system provides better ecosystem services than something that's smaller. I mean, uh I think if you were to run these through UMAM, you would probably ultimately get the same results.

2:28:13That's where I'm trying to get to.

2:28:15I know we've had this

2:28:16discussion.

2:28:16Yeah.

2:28:17But that you, ma'am, is a qualitative evaluation of a wetland. Right. Doesn't it make more sense? to say that if I have a UMAM score of A, B, or C, then maybe this wetland is entitled to better protection than something of the lower UMAM score other than just the arbitrary acreage requirement? Because acreage Is isn't going to make the U Mam score. It could, but it affects the

2:28:48score, but it doesn't it's not make or break of that score.

2:28:51True. Valid point. But I think where you have to be careful is if you if you Step away, what UMAM doesn't do, and the state rules don't do necessarily, is they don't look at the cumulative impact of multiple impacts on a large system. And so by standing on principle saying that the larger system deserves to be uh the integrity of that system is important, then you provide greater protection because what the you know exit the the processes that you're referencing, it'll allow a system to be impacted at

2:29:21multiple lines along its boundary. But there's no cumulative analysis. So maybe the answer to your point is we look at some structure. That allows us to do a cumulative analysis on regional systems that we know provide a lot of benefits to future communities and existing communities. And I think that's the that's at least my team's position of what we're trying to make sure we want to avoid that, you know, nickel and diming.

2:29:48So, Keith, are you saying that your team believes that what the state has in place isn't adequately? protecting the wetlands?

2:29:55I mean I I think that we see that, you know, it's that because there is no cumulative requirement, right, to look at a system holistically, it's challenging. And I a lot of a lot of applications come in and maybe the desire is that if they could do that, that would work, but that's ultimately not what we're seeing. I mean if you want me to say on the record that I think the state rules are not adequate.

2:30:15I'm not trying to buy back in the box. I'm just I mean I mean I I've w I've seen situations where projects have I mean Let's take it all the way back to square one. I mean we'll go back to You know, GIS layers identify the wetland as a category two or three. Well then by the time we get into site plan and and down the road, somebody at staff level comes in and says, No, we think that's a category one, so we've got to fight that fight. Okay. Then we look at that wetland, and that wetland, there's a lot of different characteristics and a lot of different components of that, what's lumped being all lumped together

2:30:45into one big category one wetland. Some of it's pasture, some of it's wooded, there's all kinds of different components. They all have the same value? Should that requirement be placed on them saying Absolutely not unless you're building a road, you're not going to touch any piece of that wetland. And you're going to stay twenty-five feet away from it. I mean I I I think there's some key properties in Pasco County that are very important to the development of the county. that have that situation and if this imposition remains in the comp plan You you restrict those properties

2:31:15from being developed. And I think that's that's very important. a very no narrow minded approach a at wetlands when you have all these other agencies looking over your shoulder and and that that is their task is to look at this. I mean you got the core, you got D E P, you got Swift Mud. I mean there's other people that that look at this topic specifically and we're gonna say, oh no, we're gonna take our staff of five or six people at Pasco County and we're gonna regulate it better than they are. I'm not saying you said that. I'm I'm just using that as an example. I uh I'm not sure.

2:31:45I would argue I'm confidently saying that local protection provides more protection. I mean because yeah, you know, it just does. So um but again,

2:31:56we had a former county administrator here that didn't believe Swift Mud was doing its job.

2:32:04Let me finish please. And he decided that We would adopt More stringent, restrictive stormwater regulations.

2:32:15Okay. And then we just had all of this So did our County do better than the state did?

2:32:26Not a stormwater expert, so I can't speak to that.

2:32:29Well, Mr. Moody, I will say that most of the areas that were adopt were built under county and Swift Motor regulations did not occur did not have significant flooding. I agree with the Most of the S most of the flooding occurred in areas that were not built to Swift Motor or County standards. I I understand that. So I'm just saying don't I

2:32:50you shouldn't blame the flooding on I'm not blaming the flooding on Pasco County. What I'm saying is And anybody that knows me in my practice, and I will tell you, the people at Swift Mud do a very good job. Of regulating wetlands and stormwater and they do it in the most professional of manner and the most consistent of manner and I think they've got a pretty good track record. of demonstrating

2:33:21that the regulation that they do is effective. I can tell you as somebody who grew up in this area, Okay, the water in that Gulf of Mexico out here when I was a kid was brown and the beaches were closed down. Then we got stormwater management regulations and I got septic tanks off the coast and I got the people on the coast on sewers. And if you go out there to Ancloque Quay today on the ride out from the Pithla Chuscoti out there to the P Ancloak Key, it's crystal clear and you

2:33:51can see and I remember as a kid driving over the Skyway Bridge and when you drove over that little clunky big clunky metal bridge that's no longer there. That water in Tampa Bay was brown and when you drive over it today it looks like the emerald water of the Florida Keys. These regulations work. And those are all courtesy of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And Swift Mud. They do a good job. I don't see any need for the duplication of regulation or any further additional

2:34:21regulation. What they are doing works and you can see it with your own eyes.

2:34:27Well along those lines, I think that, you know, the there's a statement in there or policy one point five point eight, if we scroll down to that that Allows us to do alternative wetland protection strategy and I mean I I don't see why there was a need to even have that sort of language in the in the plant. It's ex

2:34:46it's actually a modification to some existing language. We were attempting to clarify um what w when there was an impact to category one wetlands, ironically there there was no ability to actually go to a wet to a bank. So th you know, that was actually cleaned up. So

2:35:06That's not what they're talking about?

2:35:08No, one one point five point eight is analysis of Swift MUD FDE P and Army Corps wetland protection strategies. Essentially saying that It's it's uh I think it's a different where's the markup version? I'll get the markup version of them too. Yeah. It's

2:35:28one point five point seven.

2:35:30Yeah, one point five point seven in the markup version,

2:35:33Yeah, so correct.

2:35:35Okay,

2:35:35there you go.

2:35:42I think Ms. Well Hate wanted to make a comment.

2:35:44Yes, I have one more question. That's existing language.

2:35:48I promise it'll be Keith, can I just Yeah. Absolutely. You scroll back up to the policy that talks about the it's related to the buffer. It's a follow-up to Mr. Moody's point, but a lesser point. Go back, no, go back you went to f the other way. That one. Okay. So

2:36:07Can you explain to me why first of all I'm not sure administrative variance is the right uh we don't have Patrick here, but I'm not sure that's is that the right deviation term?

2:36:17I thought it was alternative standard or something like that. I don't even know if that's the right re but my bigger point is why is it that we allow it to be deviated The twenty five foot upland buffer around Category Wetlands to be deviated, but we didn't We don't allow the minimum fifteen feet, average twenty five feet. For category two

2:36:40Or three. Like there's no similar deviation.

2:36:45I mean, I think that's a good thing Mr. Moody's raising a bigger point, which is that we shouldn't have to do this at all. My more technical point is Why are you allowing deviations for some and not others? Fuck.

2:36:58I think the the focus again is that the category ones take priority. We're trying to kind of s simplify and streamline the process.

2:37:06Okay, but you're allowing the deviation for category ones, but you're not allowing it for twos and threes.

2:37:12Maybe we can add it to the the administrative variance that's already existing for the category one.

2:37:17Yeah, there is a there is a standing administrative variance right now. I think it's up to five foot.

2:37:22Could we talk about this in a little bit? Bigger. Well What's the purpose of the wetland buffer?

2:37:32To predict prevent secondary impacts?

2:37:34Exactly. What are secondary impacts?

2:37:37Impacts that occur beyond the primary impact. So it could be an erosion, it could be um invasive species, yeah, sedimentation.

2:37:45Okay. And does the Water Management District and the DEP allow me to propose if The way the rules work is I'm presumed To have mitigated for secondary impacts by providing these buffers. I'm not required to provide the buffers. It's just that there's a presumption that I've mitigated for any secondary impacts by providing the buffer. You're free to go into the water management district and I've done this on multiple

2:38:16projects where we'll say, well, here's what we're going to do to propose to mitigate our secondary impacts rather than providing your buffer. How come we don't have those opportunities in the comp plan?

2:38:30I think

2:38:31I was saying I think it's definitely something that we could talk about.

2:38:35Yeah.

2:38:38Mr. Moody. I feel like that would be more of an LDC like adjustment.

2:38:42Well, no, the problem is this is very regulatory in nature and that

2:38:45you're requiring these buffers. The problem, Keith, that m if that was your position, you should have a more general statement of the Comm plan about upland buffers.

2:38:53Okay.

2:38:53Your upland buffer requirements are very specific. in this policy and it Did you? Which I don't think it's in there now. Well there's the twenty five butt one now, but you Added very specific requirements for Two's and threes. And you didn't even allow them to be deviated by Any variation in the land development code.

2:39:15Okay. Well I mean that's something that we could We can add

2:39:19just be easier to say and I understand there's a larger issue about whether we should be regulating upland buffer at all that needs to be resolved by the board, but Wouldn't it be easier just to say that counties shall continue to implement land envelopment code regulations that impl that protect upland buffers, period. I mean and just deal with l it's in the land development code because you're And El Bar will probably is gonna get up and say, We shouldn't be regulating through the Com plan. Um Right. Because then you get into how do you deviate from it. So I don't know

2:39:49that you need any of this deviation language at all if you just have a more generic statement about protecting upland buffers.

2:39:58Yeah, I mean I

2:39:58don't think there's really objections.

2:40:01What was that, David?

2:40:02No, most of these exist in the land development code anyway?

2:40:05Well, not so not I think we have there is really not the flexibility to kind of work through this at the application stage, and that's ultimately what we were trying to get to. We were thinking that this builds

2:40:16up through the land development code process, not through the comm plan. I don't think you should be this specific in the comp plan at all. I understand that Mr. Commission doesn't want up and buffers to be regulated at all. Yeah, that's

2:40:27a separate discussion.

2:40:28It's a separate discussion, but I'm saying if you're going to regulate them, you should not have the specifics in the comp plan.

2:40:34Great.

2:40:36Yeah.

2:40:38If I mean if the opportunity to, you know, do changes to the LDC presents itself, there are things that we have to change because it doesn't uh the the current LDC regs don't Don't work.

2:40:54Well,

2:40:56I have a question. Does an op does a does an upland buffer qualify as open space? That's what I want to know.

2:41:02Keith Keith, to your to your point though. So Terry's going to propose a whole new future land use scheme to which the land development code will have to be updated following the adoption of that future land use scheme. So I don't see that any different in your case. So yes. Then We need to put what our aspirations are here and then follow up with the later with the appropriate Land Development Code regulation. I

2:41:33think that's the normal course of how these things work. That's what we discussed.

2:41:36Yeah, and I think that works for staff and me, so um I don't have any issues with that.

2:41:41And no David, I don't I'm not here saying that I don't want any regulation of wetland buffers. I'm saying I don't see why we should have a requirement which is different from the state. And I don't think the state has demonstrated that they're incompetent At regulating wetlands.

2:42:05Well the good news is if we kick all this to the land development code, we can have that fight later.

2:42:09I'm I'm thus pe let's pencil it in, David. I'm this is yeah, very exciting stuff. So

2:42:14that's a key's retirement date. And I

2:42:18point to all the land development code and probably do that sometime in twenty twenty eight, I think, when this expires.

2:42:25But can I point out one other one other point here? Uh if you guys scroll back up to

2:42:30I'm gonna have to go.

2:42:31I'm sorry. I'm just I just want to make one point and then so uh 1.5.5. There's a statement in there about mitigation. Um it maybe yeah, mitigation bank grants are receptive, so down to the bottom of that uh page. Uh with preference of banks located within the Pasco County Adplicable Mitigation Bank Service Area. My comment is that I don't think that's consistent with Senate Bill 492 that just went into effect on July 1st. So just have you guys take a look at that and make sure that that's consistent.

2:43:00I

2:43:01wrote that down. Thanks. I'm so sorry. Barbara Wilhite, 8627. I have to get to a neighborhood meeting. I love neighborhood meetings. I I I just want to tell you a couple stories real quick. So the way the categorization of wetlands went down is I was in a meeting with the county attorney when I had David's job. And A person at Department of Community Affairs handed a piece of paper over the desk, over the conference room table and said, You will adopt these

2:43:31categorization of wetlands. That's it. It's all there was. was you will do this. We said, okay, we put it in our comp plan. There's nothing more scientific about it. A person wanted it in our comp plan. And it got into our compliant. And an employee at the DCA at a point in time handed it to the county staff. myself and the county attorney and said, You will put this in your compliment and we did. So that's one story. The second story is the five foot

2:44:01buffer. So I was tasked when I was Bobby Sumner tasked me with trying to figure out this conservation element and the ultimate ordinance, the land development code, as it was back when I was with the county. What to do about the Wetland buffer? So we marched down to the EPC of Hillsburg County and we said, you know, what do we do about this buffer? Is it right to do can we can we justify a twenty five foot buffer on wetlands? And they said no, that would be a taking, because there's no basis for that. So if you look

2:44:31at the way the code was originally written for the wetland buffer, it was a presumption that could be overcome. After I left, that was changed. And it was written that way because we were worried at the time Based upon what this folks said at the E P C That that's not justifiable. You cannot justify a one size fits all buffer from a from a um

2:44:56So that was the second story of how The b the 25 foot buffer was never intended to be a one size fits all. It was a presumption that then you could go through the process that Mr. Moody's talking about. And Bob Teats actually helped write that language of how you would go through the process to un you know, to actually figure out what that buffer should be so that we didn't have a one size all fits all that created a taking uh Bert Harris I don't know if Bert Harris was back then. But I just wanted to share those perspec perspectives with you because we find you know, we it's like these things, where'd they come from? I'm

2:45:26like with the only person that knows. And so just you know, I'm dying over there. So that's it. I gotta go. Um good luck. I think you're all, you know, good comments and and good making good policy. That's what this is all about. So thank you. Oh, I would say one other thing. When we were reviewing this this element, we were given a sheet of paper that said, Here's what here's the policy changes that we're seeking to make, so you didn't have to figure it out. Did you guys get that too? Okay, 'cause I didn't see it when I when I looked at the agenda. I just it it just links.

2:45:58Oh so we but the rest of everybody else. In the public? We get to see that too. But I'm glad you got it because it's helpful that you don't have to try to figure out what changes are being policy changes are being made. You can actually just look at the table and go, oh, that's what that's trying to do. So glad you guys got that. Thank you. Bye.

2:46:16Thanks, Barbara. Clark.

2:46:20Planning Commissioners. Uh if we can go back to the map series again, I want to look at the agricultural uh reserve map and I know we're gonna get rid of it, but I just want to make a little point about this. Uh my initial my initial no, it's important because there are policies that we still have to work through that are in the the language. I I just want staff to understand uh the planning commissioners, some of you have worked on these projects, but there are numerous projects within the area that say agricultural

2:46:50reserve. that are intended to be urban in nature, not even suburban. and there are numerous gigantic employment projects in there including the Target Center, all of Central Pasco Employment Village, the Heinz Cruise and Douglas project called KD52. They're not agricultural. And that all that's that my problem is you're calling things agricultural that the board has decided since 2000. And I don't know who did this study in 2023.

2:47:21I've never seen it, but whoever did it must not be aware that the board has changed the comp plan numerous times since 2000. And many of these areas are not even intended by our board or our competition. Comprehensive plan to be agricultural. I will work with staff on the language on what they're trying to achieve there, but as I've told them many times over the last few months, you don't need this stuff in the comp plan to do your job to plan out where you want to achieve open space. It's it's not even relevant if it if

2:47:51you're trying to acquire it. You can do that with your regular job and through the means you have with the E-Lamp and everything else. So that can be done. You don't need the map and you don't even need the comp plan policies to do that. If you're trying to create a a different form of open space and regulate people, generally that should be done through the land development code. We should work through that together because there may be compensation that would be due to property owners and we need to work through that together. If we can go to the next map, that I w also wanted to focus

2:48:21your attention on this map. And I spoke with Keith about this earlier today. It's problematic too. It's depicting the existing greenways and that's really not so much of a problem, but it's also identifying quote unquote opportunity zones outside of eco corridors in many cases. And those areas cover a large swath of uh Len Angeline that are already approved. Uh the area where the town center is supposed to go is within that area.

2:48:51And I don't see the county having an opportunity to acquire additional uh open space or greenways within that area. It also covers, and you know, we've been working on uh Changes with the Mitchell forty one project. We're already working on the eco-corridor project, but this would then create another regulatory map over the area we're trying to develop. And so I'm not this map, in my opinion, needs to go back to just identifying

2:49:22the greenways which we previously had uh on a map in the comp plan, but this is basically creating another regulatory map. That is inconsistent with the with the board's stated objective for some of these areas. Also covers two gigantic mines up there. There's a bunch of problems with it, but I will work with staff on it, but I don't see that this map needs to be in the plan as it is either. It's got major issues for my where I sit just as the other one did.

2:49:55Keith. Thank you, Clark.

2:49:59Yeah, Keith.

2:50:02Um just for clarification, Keith Wiley, Director of Parks Record and National Natural Resources. This is another example of us. This is really about the trail network and the master planning effort for trails. This is this was not a uh again intended to say we're going to now look outside the corridors and regulate more acreage or anything like that. I think Hyatt just confirmed that it's actually in the trail section. I don't know what that section is called. But place. Okay. So the purpose of this, and again, we ran this through the County Attorney's Office

2:50:32and through the Planning Department. We were saying, okay, there's a strong desire to create trails, a major trail system in Pasco County, as a I've learned today, planning tool is not a great term, but as a planning tool. These are areas that we would look at if an application came in where we would partner with a future developer to figure out what how they would connect to to a large trail system and what that would look like specifically focusing on the greenways.

2:51:00So

2:51:00if there's another way to do it, we're op we're open to that.

2:51:07Well

2:51:10for trails I don't know why it's in Prid Conserves at all.

2:51:14It shouldn't it should not be. It should be in plays or some other some other sets.

2:51:20How what it what its purpose is in plays, when we get to plays, but I'm just gonna do it. If it's if it's a recreational portrayal, we did that one already.

2:51:31Yeah we did. So yeah. So why uh I don't know why we're not dealing with this in plays as supposed to c I understand Clark's concern because it's in the conservation element. That implies that we're maybe trying to conserve it, not materials in

2:51:46it. Right. Yes. Absolutely.

2:51:49Hi, Ms. Lily Plain, Development Economic Growth. So this map is in the data and analysis of the conservation element. It's not in the comprehensive plan. We included it in the data and analysis because we make a reference to the corridor opportunity zones as we were discussing the conservation lands and um such.

2:52:11He's telling me he never intended it to be any data supporting anything related to conservation.

2:52:18that it was only supposed to be some supporting map to a trail opportunity.

2:52:30The element if it's not a conservation tool.

2:52:34Well we do have the um ecological corridors. So that's another reason why we have it.

2:52:47The ecological corridor part of this is not the issue.

2:52:51buffers around the ecological corridors.

2:52:57Mm-hmm.

2:52:58This this

2:52:59it

2:53:00My understanding correctly they the map doesn't need to be included in the data analysis for conservation because it's referencing recreational opportunities.

2:53:11That's what Keith is telling me is that he's intent now we can get we need to have that discussion later about How we make it match his intent. For con for for plays, but

2:53:22I think Clark raises a good point, is it doesn't I mean he's raising other points, but uh but my point is I don't even know why we're having this conversation at all on the conservation element.

2:53:33Again, it's part of the conservation strategy and the adventure analysis of the conserves.

2:53:39The map in my vers the map in my version just has the ecological corridors and public land on

2:53:43on it.

2:53:47Identical.

2:53:50So according to the data and analysis The uh The Pasco Conserves Chapter creates a comprehensive conservation strategy for the protection of county's natural resources through a combination of policies for ecological corridors. This is 2.1 in the data analysis. Additionally, the county's Greenway Corridor Opportunity Zones thus being referenced and the inclusion of the map. as implemented in the Greenways Trails and Blue Ways Master Plan, aims to connect parks, neighborhoods,

2:54:21and natural areas while encouraging mitigation to occur through incorporation of long term conservation of upland habitats, restoration of altered upland habitats, wetland enhancement and wetland protection.

2:54:33The conservation strategy includes land acquisition, management, preservation of listed species it goes on. So there's a reference there. So to the extent that the reference needs to be removed, is that what that can be?

2:54:51a potential future trail. Mapping exercise. Not Anything to do with conserving upland habitats, restoration of upland habitats, or wetland enhancement?

2:55:02That's correct, David.

2:55:05So it appears to me that you need to remove it completely from your conservation element and strike this language.

2:55:14Okay. We can uh amend two point one in the DNA, the d data and analysis. Um I'll I'll mark it on mine.

2:55:25in this same language deleting the term agricultural reserve.

2:55:32Is it is it referenced?

2:55:35Well

2:55:36I didn't get

2:55:36it. If that map gets deleted, which is not like Keith was willing to do, then yes, that would also be deleted. Okay.

2:55:41Oh there it is. Yeah. Yeah, I see it. Mm-hmm. Um right. And then if you take that out, the map goes away from conserves as well.

2:55:59That's correct. Yeah. So through through the trails master planning process w many things were identified, but the one thing that was Very clear was that we needed to focus trail opportunities along the greenway systems. So again, using this as a planning document, this is where this is where you would steer someone to say, okay, maybe there's a discussion about a potential trail project to connect to a larger rib system that maybe runs on the on the the larger corridors or something like that.

2:56:29But I view that more as like when you're reviewing your neighbor neighborhood

2:56:36the ecological quarters when they when they come in.

2:56:39Yes, that's right.

2:56:41Okay, well that's a very different than what was presented to us today.

2:56:45Yeah. Well, uh again I this it shouldn't even actually be it shouldn't even be in this section. It should be in it should be in place. Yeah. So

2:56:56Okay. I think you hopped in front of someone.

2:56:58Cynthia. I'm so sorry.

2:57:01Cynthia,

2:57:01thank you for your patience.

2:57:02Yeah, no problem. Uh thank you very much, Cynthia Svidel. Um Barbis Kramer at 2002 West Cleveland Street in Tampa. So um just a couple of quick issues. I've been in constant contact with staff over the Agricultural Reserve language, um, so none of my comments should be a surprise to them, but we I have been concerned with that map from the get-go. Um so and un unfortunately there are an increasing number of of uh frustrated landowners in that area who who perceive that the ability to develop their land is being continuously curtailed

2:57:33by an increasing regulatory purview, such as that map, especially because it's in the conservation element, so it gives a perception that it's supposed to be conserved. So um You know, I went back to the 2006 technical document just to even look at how the World Transition Area was uh created, and it's literally like a penciled sketched map. So I don't think that the areas have been particularly analyzed in granular detail. I was a little thrown off by the open space discussion. I thought that the intent of the

2:58:03Agricultural Reserve was to potentially allow Keith to apply. e-Lamp money to provide opportunities for connectivity when feasible when development kind of comes in. Um but uh so I was definitely a little confused by that. So I'd have to take a look at any any new language. I don't I don't think anybody would be objectionable to um Elamp money being used to create connectivity in this area, if if that's what the intent was. So let me just make sure I got my list covered. So

2:58:33then just switching back to wetland functionality. So I think that, and I'm not a wetland expert, I'm not a uh, but I do help people go through the site plan process. And I think part of the issue that we had with the size. The category one sizing was that it doesn't look at the functionality necessarily, and sometimes impacting a category one wetland or what is defined as a wetland category one wetland, you know, might be helpful to in the overall context of a better site design.

2:59:04So I think that we just wanted some more flexibility to ensure that if something's defined as a category. Wetland and you know impacting it to whatever extent could be permitted is actually in the benefit of um achieving a better site plan that that flexibility is somehow written in and I agree it shouldn't be in the comp plan, it should be in the land development code. But that was sort of the intent of that administrative variance language that you saw in there. Um I think that's all I had. Thank you very much.

2:59:34Thanks.

2:59:38Okay. Anybody else while we're taking public comment?

2:59:45Good afternoon again, William McCaw, [address removed]. I'm gonna have a slightly unpopular opinion. The current definition of open space in the comp plan is actually I think more in line of what Keith wants than what that map and the new revision to the open space. Yeah. I think if you divide it into separate categories, one being residential, one being commercial, industrial,

3:00:17and then another being agricultural conservation. If you split open space definitions based off of future land use categories, where those future land use categories are encompassing of similar land uses, you can create a better open space definition for these agricultural lands we want to preserve. And I point to um the Pomano Ridge M PUD and PD as a perfect

3:00:47example of a good way that that was open space preserved in an agricultural or former agricultural space, where everything north of the Vision Road, some, I believe, eleven hundred acres, was preserved for long term. Conversely, in Connected City, open spaces King Lake or some of the neighborhood or pocket parks within Connected City. So I think Reusing the current definition of

3:01:17open space to tool it to what Keith was proposing, where open space now is divided amongst the various land uses might serve better long term for conservation.

3:01:31So you want us to keep the definition and get rid of the map.

3:01:34I think changing the definition such that It specifically calls out the land use. Whereas currently it seemed like there was a little bit of mixing of the definition. Um I believe uh Terry was speaking earlier. He brought up that the residential, non-residential, and there was one other land use, but it's

3:02:03So are you suggesting there should be I A varying open space definition for each future land use category.

3:02:15Yes, and that's what I'm saying is maintaining that current open space definition and simply

3:02:24molding the new open space um element in the new conservation element such that It clearly defines If you're looking at a residential development, open space can be the parks that we're requiring you to build. If you're building in connected city or one of the special planning areas, it's these certain requirements that we're looking at for third spaces or civic spaces. And then for agricultural land, it's We

3:02:54want you to have undeveloped areas, whether that's former farmlands or wetlands or Elamp land, whatever that may be.

3:03:06I had another one and it's gone from the top of my head, so I'll just leave it at that.

3:03:10Yeah, I mean the the fundamental problem and Stop can explain this better is even that we have a definition of open space The only regulations in our code that I believe that actually implement it is neighbor parks, and that's it. Right.

3:03:24Yes to regulate all the other open spaces that we might need.

3:03:28Right. And I think that's why it's important to have it in the conserve Pasco conserved section is once we've defined open space, have a policy that Pasco County shall define in the Land Development Code or through Policies, what open space is required. And then it's further driven down in the LDC.

3:03:51Okay.

3:03:53Thank you.

3:03:59Anybody else?

3:04:02I got a couple of policy specific just questions for clarification. Uh one point five point two.

3:04:16I think if I read the last sentence it looks like the word issuance was changed to submittal. Am I interpreting that to say that The delineation of wetlands has to be approved by the district before we submit a site plan application?

3:04:29That's already in the land development code. code.

3:04:34Can I ask a question? Why is that? Well I was gonna ask why is that necessary and I would tell you under the current regulatory language of buffers in the current version of the comp plan. I could see why we would do that, but if we were to Get rid of the regulatory statements regarding buffers and the comp plan then that necessarily wouldn't be required and where I'm going with this Jackie is

3:05:06You can when you submit an application to the water management district. You can have the delineation done as part of your ERP application rather than going for a formal jurisdictional determination prior to making application. in my own practice I always recommend that my clients go get the formal first and then we know exactly what we're working with. if they wait till they f file the ERP then things may get elastic around the wetlands a little bit as

3:05:36as that line moves here and there, but

3:05:41I don't know.

3:05:42I'm just trying to understand why we Again Just from where I come from. I Don't see the need for duplication of what the state already Does.

3:05:57Well I I agree. When the state gives you the flexibility

3:06:01So in eight oh five point three, I don't know if you're able to pull that up in Municode. Under um eight oh five point three B.

3:06:11Hold up.

3:06:15Oh yeah.

3:06:31So up that B where it says specific. So it's it speaks to the precise delineation of wetland, shall be determined through site specific studies and field determinations by the applicant in Swift MUD and or DEP as applicable. Prior to mass grading, stormwater management plan and report, fill, construction plan, or operating permit, application submission, delineated boundaries shall be submitted at the time of application.

3:06:53I'm gonna get back on my soapbox and regulating through the compliant. So It may be in the existing code. Don't disagree, but the difference is that the code there's deviation processes for the land development code. There's Alternative standards, there's a section three or three point

3:07:11six

3:07:12C, whatever the laws Staff to approve to waive application requirements. There's a whole set of relief procedures for the land development code to deal with unique situations. The complain doesn't have that. So The problem with putting being that specific in the comp plan is then it makes it very difficult for Patrick, Terry, whoever, to or even your own department, if you wanted to grant some relief from that requirement. You

3:07:42can't do it if it's in the calm plan. You can if it's in the land development code. So I I don't know why you're feeling a need to sort of codify everything that's in the co in the code into the comp plan.

3:07:58Yeah, and I think from your previous statements too, so we kinda we have an understanding of that now. So it's gonna be throughout where we're making these kind of changes where we're just mirroring what's in the LDC. So we can

3:08:07start thinking going back through this element and anything that is already regulated through the Land Development Code, strike it. Take it out. Because it's

3:08:16done a lot of the

3:08:19L D C um requirements that are in the comp plan. So we will go back and then we'll

3:08:24Yeah, I d I don't know what happened with this element, but this one seems to have a lot of very Specific requirements in it that are already regulated through the Land Development Code.

3:08:48Yes, we can definitely make those updates.

3:08:50Okay.

3:08:55Can you talk about the next line? Just what the thinking is here. It says Pasco County may delineate wetlands for single family development sites that are zoned residential and not within an MPUD. We need to go back to the Com plan on the screen here.

3:09:10Oh Oh yes.

3:09:14I'm sorry. This is

3:09:15one point five point two. Yes, the second

3:09:17yes. or a planned subdivision without a valid environmental resource permit. I'm not understanding what you're trying to get at there.

3:09:27Sure. So um I know we did discuss this a little bit at the workshops we had in the um focus groups, but so currently the way the code is written Um, I guess and the comp plan, we supposed to defer to DEP or SWIFT MUD. So for our single family homes, those projects that come into through BCS building construction services, the way it's written, we would have to r they would have to go get a formal delineation done with DEP. So we're trying to allow um to offer that service to the county um citizens. So that way we're it's a cost savings for them. It helps speed speed up their application process. And this is only gonna be

3:09:57for BCS applications. It doesn't have anything to do with you know site plan review.

3:10:02So if we're to strike the issue we just spoke about, then is that that still necessary?

3:10:10I mean I in my opinion, this is just policy just to be a general statement about a desire to for or to delineate properly delay wetlands in coordination with And that's all it should say. I mean your Your code should deal with the details that Like who delineates when, when it's gotta be submitted, and all those details should all be in your land development code.

3:10:33Okay. And I think that was our intent just to put it in here that way we can put it into the land development code. So you're saying it doesn't need to be in here, we can just add that to when we make our LDC amendments just for the single family.

3:10:44I I know what you mean in that Yes. A homeowner doesn't need to call one of my expensive environmental consultants and then go through pay the seven hundred and seventy seven dollars and get the formal delineation. But it says single family development sites that are zoned residential and not within an MPUD. Well I could get fifty acres of land that's zoned R four and then Ask you to come do

3:11:14the delineation, right?

3:11:19That doesn't necessarily restrict it to a single family home lot. It says single family, states that are zoned residential. So that could be land that's R one, could be hundred acres of R one, it could be fifty acres of R four.

3:11:39Well

3:11:39I I appreciate that they want to give the service to the homeowner. What I'm not wanting to do is provide welfare to developers either.

3:11:47And yeah, and that was not our intention either.

3:11:49But regardless, I think this belongs in the line of Oman Code. Sure. Not the Complan.

3:12:00Okay, I'm gonna anything else on that one? Policy one point five point ten.

3:12:08And this is just a definition thing more for my knowledge than anything else, I think. Um the end of the first sentence, primary tributaries. Is that defined somewhere?

3:12:19It's already defined in the comp plan glossary. Okay.

3:12:26Thank you.

3:12:37Primary tributaries.

3:12:59So it says water body shown on the most recent USGS survey quadrangle sheets as having perennial flow which eventually drain into a permanent open water body.

3:13:12And what well. I sat in the stakehold some stakeholder meetings with you and so I already know, but can you explain to the rest of the Planning Commission what the intent is for the fifty foot setback?

3:13:29So It would be it would be um s you know more system specific. So for example, um I'm trying to think of the name of uh one of the uh like a branch that comes off of Sy Cypress Creek or something like that, that would also be subject 'cause it's a primary tributary tributary would also be subject to the fifty foot setback.

3:13:46of the fifty foot setback. So here this is something that's a r another regulatory statement in the cop plan. We're requiring a fifty foot setback. And When I when I had meetings with staff The explanation that I got for that was we want to protect people from the potential dangers of flood waters, which is noble. my comment as an engineer is the horizontal set

3:14:17back from a waterway is irrelevant. It's the vertical separation between that waterway that is important. So I'm trying to figure out why we need this.

3:14:29It's all about topography.

3:14:31Correct. And And I'm gonna add again the same statement I keep making. I don't know why you have a specific requirement in the comp plan because

3:14:39it's already in there too. We just moved this section up from it was actually under the um water quality section.

3:14:45Let's just say, to Mr. Moody's point. You had a particular development w which had a huge vertical drop. between the development and the primary tributary And there were everybody agreed that you only needed ten feet in that Setback that that would adequately protect against flooding.

3:15:10Maybe ten, so let's just say it's twenty five feet, okay. If it's in the Com plan, you have no ability to deviate from that requirement. If it's in the land development code Mr. Moody could come in and say, I want an alt standard, because I can show you that if it's because of my vertical drop, the twenty-five feet is sufficient. You can't do that if it's in the common plan, but you can if it's in the land development code.

3:15:33So I think it if you go back to the Complant text, I think it should just say if you c uh if somebody could put it back up. What?

3:15:44I think one of the things that's been Exposed here. And I don't mean that in a b in a bad way. only to make this process move forward in a better manner. is I think staff feels like if it's if it's in the comp plan today it's it's almost like it's a sac it's sacred. I can't get rid of it. And I think the message that's being delivered today is yes, if you see a regulatory statement, get that out

3:16:14of the comp plan and get it into the land development code and then I guess we can debate the merits of that when we try to amend the LDC, whether we need to have a 50-foot horizontal setback or a 10-foot vertical you know, set back from a river. You know, we can debate what the what the what the technical requirements would be. But I think the whole point is just because it exists in the comp plan today doesn't mean it's sacred and can't be moved out and put into the land development code.

3:16:42Yeah, I mean if it just a pass kind of shall continue to implement land development requirements requiring setbacks from wetland and surface water lines adjacent to the These rivers And without getting into the specifics of what those requirements are That's probably fine. Okay. And then you don't need to have things like the county may consider a reduced buffer for sites having an existing permitter or non conforming seawall because I can get the code. That could be handled through the land development code process. If you don't regulate through the common plan, you don't have to have exceptions

3:17:12in the common plan either. You're just making the comp plan longer. When you do that. Does that make sense? So But the bigger point. Which echoes Mr. Moody's point is

3:17:26Remember that the Land O' Lakes Code has deviation processes. But Terry, Patrick, David Ingle, that's their job is to evaluate case specific applications and determine whether deviation should be granted. Let them do their job. And they'll coordinate with you on those deviations if they affect your department, but let them do their job without regulating through the component.

3:17:54Understood. Thank you.

3:17:55Okay.

3:18:00Okay. That's all I have.

3:18:02I got some knit probably knit picky language things. Uh in the under and the I'll start at the very top in the introduction. Uh the second line says this chapter ensures the continued identification and protection. I just get nervous about the word insured all the time. Does that need to be more does that mean that if there's a problem if we don't protect some natural resource? Should that be promote the continued identification and protection? I'm sorry, which policy

3:18:29are we on?

3:18:29It's the it's in the introduction.

3:18:31He's up at the introduction.

3:18:33Second line.

3:18:33Second line. line.

3:18:35It says the chapter ensures the continued identification and protection of the county's significant natural resource.

3:18:42top. I think it's all the way at the top.

3:18:46Yeah, page seven.

3:18:47First paragraph, second sentence.

3:18:49Page seven. There you go, second end of the second line. This chapter ensures a continued identification.

3:18:59Yeah, it is a strong word. word.

3:19:04Is that better? Makes me feel better. If it makes you feel better, that's why we're here. That's right.

3:19:13And I don't I don't believe we think that was like I don't think that we actually wrote the introduction. Oh you did? Okay.

3:19:20But it's it's a valid comment.

3:19:21I think

3:19:21it'd be better to say promotes.

3:19:25Yep. Noted.

3:19:26Insurers makes it sound like we're guaranteeing it's going to happen. Mm-hmm.

3:19:32Um

3:19:32and then down to one point one point one. What so this is talking about connections of open space to natural resources that trying to c just Provide open space connected to natural resources? Natural research, I connect. conservation lands together, like b make connections between conservation lands.

3:19:54No. This is like the beginning. Yeah, this is the beginning.

3:19:57This kind of is where we started. Uh, which which uh in the sake of time I hope we don't have to repeat. But yeah, that that everything we discussed in the beginning is kind of where where we let off with this. So if that makes sense.

3:20:10Um Right after that, one point one point two we added language to impact uh for protection of listed species. the mitigation plan to be approved and implemented and then verified by Pasco County. How are we gonna verify that or are we do already doing that?

3:20:26Yeah, that's the one something we're already doing, so that probably just needs to come out. That's already something that's that'll n just need to be maybe um modified a little bit in eight oh three, but we're already doing that.

3:20:35Okay.

3:20:37Through site plan review.

3:20:39Uh one one three, manatee protection. It says that we're gonna require all development within its range to adhere to its established guidelines. I think the manatee's range is all in the water.

3:20:48Mm-hmm.

3:20:49So should that say uh what development are we doing in the water? Should that be like coastal development adjacent to its range? I don't know what those requirements

3:20:57are. I'll help you with that one. I happen to have a project It's a marina. All right, with a boat ramp. And actually this is a great opportunity 'cause manatees are an issue right now in our permitting in that Pasco County does not have an approved manatee protection plan

3:21:17with

3:21:18with F W C C or FWS. Um And so it may be a little bit more than a little bit. Yeah. The onus may be on my client to actually develop the manatee protection plan. It would be helpful if the county had one.

3:21:38Perfect.

3:21:40Currently this just says it's going to be handled on a case by case basis, basically, is what it's well that's how I read it. But you're saying that other counties have an established plan?

3:21:50Yes, other counties have established manatee protection plans, but Pasco County does not.

3:21:55Mr. Moody's correct. And so the county would have to petition F W C to start the development and creation of a plan. It could be by area, region, or project specific. Um we've never entertained that because the the actual work required to do that's pretty significant. Yeah. So so if you would like to do it for us, that'd be a good idea.

3:22:17That'd be a tidy little consulting

3:22:19gig. But even if we did, this policy doesn't prohibit it because it just has established guidelines. If we created additional guidelines that wouldn't prohibit us from doing that.

3:22:30Mm-hmm. I think it's referring to the existing guidelines. And and a lot of this this was again was existing language and we just kind of tried to update it to what how it currently works today.

3:22:41While while you guys are there, if you don't mind me jumping in. If you could go back up to I forgot there's one other comment or just observation, one point one point two.

3:22:52Uh mitigation plans where where was I? Management or mitigation plan shall be approved and implemented in accordance with state and federal requirements and verified by Pasco County as required, right? Because the management plan or mitigation plan is not required on every project. So just semantically just thrown as required at the end of that, possibly. Well

3:23:16I think we're gonna be removing that anyways. Okay,

3:23:18this

3:23:18is

3:23:18another one of those very specific regulatory

3:23:20requirements

3:23:20that probably should come out anyway.

3:23:21But I'll I'll make a note of it just in case it needs to translate into the LDC.

3:23:25Okay.

3:23:28Uh then one five eleven, just a wording here, it says Pasco County shall locate and design roadway improvements to minimize the impact of jurisdictional wetlands should be two.

3:23:40I think.

3:23:47Oh just to change of to two.

3:23:54And then down to one six, the title that's groundwater protection and surface water quality. There also are policies under there that are protecting surface water. So I don't know if it just water protection is more appropriate um or if it really matters, but just something I'd noticed.

3:24:14Mm-hmm.

3:24:16No, these are sessions that we'll

3:24:19Yeah, the thing we so we took out uh the surface water because this the um buffer requirements and that setback section for rivers and surface waters used to exist under this section, so we moved it up into the wetlands area. Um so we took out the surface water protection, but you're suggesting just naming the section water protection?

3:24:36Yeah, 'cause I think there are provisions here that talk

3:24:39about

3:24:39surface water quality protection.

3:24:41Mm-hmm.

3:24:44Um Like I said, it's probably not

3:24:50Yeah.

3:24:54Trying to see what I saw after that that made me think.

3:24:57Could I just ask a clarification question? So you're saying that you you had jurisdiction over the surface waters, so you were that's the change that you were making.

3:25:07Just when it comes to the buffers for those certain systems, yeah. We didn't really have any input as much input on the lower

3:25:12on the groundwater

3:25:13on right now in this.

3:25:15Yeah. I think groundwater means something particular. If we just change it to water That's very j general and we don't want to talk about gulf water or other kinds of waters, just groundwater in this case. Okay. I'm fine with that.

3:25:33Can I ask one stormwater question? So one point this is where Mr. Moody can help me.

3:25:44Wasn't there an issue at one point about that sentence potentially being inconsistent with the land development code requirement? That the land development code allows

3:25:59like modeling that deviates potenti potentially deviates from that requirement. I don't know if this is the policy or if there was a different one, but there was I remember at one point there was a Discussion with Stormwater about the a potential inconsistency between the complaint requirement and land development.

3:26:15I would tell you that that is inconsistent with the current SWIFT MUD regulations. And so for instance, in our L D C eleven oh four, we have a lot of the R Blood damage prevention. We actually require compensatory storage. as the means of mitigation for fill in a floodplain. The water management district will accept either compensatory excavation Or

3:26:46compensatory storage. as an option. Or you can demonstrate through hydraulic modeling that you've not had an impact on the hundred year floodplain. Um trying to think of a simplistic example. If I filled

3:27:05inside the floodplain of a river One way to mitigate for that would be to excavate out an equivalent amount of dirt to the amount that I placed in the floodplain. the other way would be to improve the hydraulics of the river channel so that I do not raise the flood stage and the way you intrude the hydraulics is I could widen the channel, I could smooth the channel. Straighten it out. Straighten it out.

3:27:32I I guess my point is is that if if our staff is not actually implementing what this sentence says And they're implementing either Swift Mud or County L D C requirements, I don't th I think it needs to come out of the com plan.

3:27:48Then I realize we don't have anybody from Stormwater here, but but But somebody needs to pose that question to them because I don't want to continue to have an inconsistency between our complan and actual practice.

3:28:02The only play I would tell you that in when I read that protection of floodplains I have no issue with a policy that says Pasco County shall protect the hundred year free.

3:28:13Yeah, I'm not talking about the first sentence. The first sentence I'm okay with. Oh you do, okay.

3:28:18And other natural areas which have beneficial hydrological characteristics. Well what are those? That's pretty vague. That could be anything.

3:28:29I have no problem with the first one, two, three, four, five, six, seven words.

3:28:35Well but even then it defers to the land development code, so we either do or don't do that in the land development code. I mean if we don't actually do it in the land development code,

3:28:43I'm we we do we our stormwater regulations, which by the way are way, way, way out of date. Um And in December are gonna be really out of date. Mm-hmm.

3:28:59We do we do that through the stormwater section and through 1104 flood damage prevention.

3:29:04So

3:29:08I guess my main point is that the second sentence is appears to be a regulatory requirement that needs to be put into just deferred to the land development code. If somebody could check with the D. Yeah,

3:29:20we'll take the lead on that, David, and communicate with someone in public infrastructure.

3:29:26I mean I remember getting an R L S on this issue and the question that came to me was they specifically said that sentence was inconsistent with the code, which one governs and I had to tell them, Well, the Complan governs. But then they said, We're not following the Comm Plan. I'm like, Well, fix it. So This is your chance to fix it.

3:29:50Uh one sixty six reads that Pasco County should prohibit septic tanks, buildings and or public utilities not designed in accordance with state and federal regulations from being located on unsuitable soils. prevent water contamination, I would think we're not permitting any of those things not designed in accordance with state and federal regulations. It seems like something we just don't need to say here.

3:30:15The way it's written. That's another place where we're I'm not even sure why it's in here because the state The state is the permitting agency for the utilities and or the on site sewage treatment and disposal systems.

3:30:32Well if they're not designed with state and federal regulations in mind, they shouldn't be permitted anywhere. Right.

3:30:42Well and then your problem is what is an unsuitable soil. You haven't defined what an unsuitable soil is and

3:30:51I can tell you historically I know what the problem is, why that's in here.

3:30:57I can think of the example of been the nineteen nineties when the city of Port Ritchie decided to install sewers, get the city off of septics, which was great. And they put in sewers and then dropped them right into marl and clay and then used the trench spoil as the backfill and paved over it and then a year later the streets had sunk down a foot in the middle of the road, so

3:31:25And and just to clarify, you recommended to remove that policy?

3:31:30Yeah, I think it's it's not I don't think it well, I'm not sure what it's trying to accomplish. If there's something we're missing that it's trying to accomplish, then we should reword it. But it's right now it to me it basically says we're not gonna allow anything the state doesn't. Well that's true.

3:31:44Mm-hmm.

3:31:50To me it sounds like, you know, if the state doesn't allow it, we'll still allow it if as long as it's on a suitable soil.

3:31:58Right. Unless we're trying to be more stringent than state. In federal regulations, there really wouldn't be a point to it.

3:32:06Which I think they're arguing that it it actually is arguably less stringent. But you don't want to be less drinking and staying for the right-of-way.

3:32:13My particular issue is

3:32:17How how does this the county Work. enforce this policy if I'm not developing a utility within the Pasco County utilities service area. I put a utility in FGUA's service area. You guys don't even know I did it.

3:32:43I mean do you still have to apply for county building permits to be able to do that though? Even if it's in FGUA's area?

3:32:53Not necessarily.

3:32:54Well, this actually raises an interesting question which is Probably a code enforcement question, which is if this if this prohibition only appears in our comm plan but not in the code, could our code even enforcement even Prohibit it. And could we even issue a citation? For violating the Com plan.

3:33:16Yeah, I mean is there? Can you get a code enforcement violations for creating your own cesspool? You know With um Plastic kiddie pool.

3:33:27Hmm.

3:33:29Yeah.

3:33:33Um

3:33:37Yeah. Well I I was just gonna note that b before we Keith makes a good point, we should probably talk to our the relevant subject matter experts, but also before there's a Final decision to remove this, we probably should check the state statute, which does require us to address groundwater recharge areas.

3:33:56Well, but also check with our code enforcement staff because

3:34:01even if it is consistent w even if state statute requires this

3:34:07Is it belong is the code is the comm plan the right place to put it? Because I I'm not sure if we have the ability to prohibit something that's only in our comp plan and not in our code.

3:34:20So you want to have to check with code compliance if they're actually enforcing?

3:34:23Yeah, I uh what would be the mechanism for us to actually prohibit it, is my point. Like I I don't know if we can issue a citation. I've never seen a citation issued for violating policy one point, you know, a policy of the comp plan. So maybe maybe we can, but I've never seen it done. They're called code enforcement, not compliant enforcement. So Um I but don't know if they can do it or not.

3:34:49And our land development code doesn't have the utility Regulations. We have utility policies that The county utility system enforce. We have a utility section in the code of ordinance.

3:35:05We can enforce the code of ordinance or the land of element code. That I'm confident we can do. I'm just not sure that we can enforce something that's only in the comp plan. Like so even if it's said that we will prohibit this, I don't know if we have a way to actually do it. If it's not in the code or but it may be in the code or comp uh code, land of element code or code or just I don't know. I'm not sure.

3:35:26That was the point I was trying to make. If if I'm I'm in a private utility, even even though I did it.

3:35:33Right, but if it was only in the Land O'Ma code, we wouldn't have to worry about this because or the code of ordinance because we obviously could only enforce what was in our jurisdiction.

3:35:44I mean the the provision or the policy may be resolved also if we just change the language up and make it less regulatory in in its scope.

3:35:56Yeah, I mean uh

3:35:58we'll talk to we'll talk to those constituent departments, utilities and

3:36:01I mean if it said something general like Pasco County should continue to implement requirements related subtotanks buildings of public utilities, I

3:36:10Or even if it just said that Pasco County will continue to uh

3:36:16implement protection of groundwater and unsuitable soils in the L D in the land development code, is that

3:36:23Well we're trying to if that's the right if that's a Legislative requirement to address groundwater protection in unsuitable soils.

3:36:34Anyway, take another look at it, please.

3:36:40Um one six thirteen it just mentions high aquifer recharge areas. Are those defined somewhere? Already.

3:36:59It almost seems like that'd be a good map. Yeah.

3:37:05Now we want a map.

3:37:10That's a useful map.

3:37:19Well, since this is a future regulation, arguably you don't Need it mapped, because you can map it through the future regulation.

3:37:27Right.

3:37:28But if you're just trying to figure out the intent of what we we might regulate in the future amendment, I s I understand why you want to know what those are.

3:37:37As a map w uh the current comprehensive plan doesn't ha doesn't have one that identifies with a high aqua recharge.

3:37:45He's asking is it defined anywhere? What a high aquifer recharge area is.

3:37:52Does the glossary

3:37:53no we don't have a definition for those

3:37:59I mean uh I'm trying to think like I know that like with s I don't know if Swift Mode's got those defined, maybe you know, as defined by Swift Mode or something like that would be appropriate. They're just maybe find a way to def to indicate what those are.

3:38:12Yeah. Uh you can do that.

3:38:26And then one six eighteen, I don't know that I've got a s recommended solution for this, but it's re reducing nutrient loads in surface waters. We speak to the specific Wiki Wachi B MAP and the Tampa Bay Reasonable Assurance Plan. Is that too specific? Should that be th should this be more general and that we're going to Uh I didn't you know implement implement any B maps 'cause there could be new B maps or just I don't know, it seems like it's

3:38:56a little too specific that we're limiting what we are gonna do to reduce nutrient loads in surface waters.

3:39:13Um it is common practice for um for the reduction of the nutrients lows to use the um Timpa Bay Sw estuary assurance plan. So that's why we included it in here.

3:39:24Yeah.

3:39:25As a reference

3:39:29A sentence that allows for other plans like other B maps that might Be implemented, you know, things changed, I thought we'd have to do that.

3:39:37Okay. Okay. Yeah, we're going to do that. Yeah,

3:39:39I think to his point is that we may end up as the state is doing more and more Water surface water testing we may end up with more basin management action plans that affect Pasco County other than the Weeky Wachi B map.

3:40:02We can reward that, maybe completely remove Wiki Watchy and just

3:40:06Just say Basin. Adopted Basin Management Action Plans.

3:40:10Okay.

3:40:16Okay.

3:40:19And then s all right. Down to w I think one eight two, that's completely new. It says that Pasco County shall coordinate and support federal, state can we coordinate data collection or is that we just need the support?

3:40:35I'm not sure what coordinate means we'll do.

3:40:37Which one are you on?

3:40:38One, eight, two.

3:40:42That's Jackie.

3:40:48I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

3:40:50Yeah. So one eight uh just on one eighty two it says that we'll coordinate and support those data collection efforts. Ki like I'm not sure what coordinate means we would do if we would if just support would be appropriate.

3:41:02Yeah, I think that that that was that's what we're trying to achieve. So just um take out coordinate and and just leave support.

3:41:07Yep, and then down to one eight four on existing.

3:41:13Now we just support with coordinate we would reach out to them. Now we don't have to reach out to them.

3:41:18And then on one eight four it says that Pasco County will shall continue to maintain and monitor as required existing artificial reef sites. One, what's what is as required by what or like what's what's the as

3:41:32requ it should be as required by the permits.

3:41:34Okay.

3:41:35Yeah. Mm-hmm.

3:41:40Um

3:41:43I think that's all I had.

3:41:51Chris are you good?

3:41:53I'm good. Quick question, just something for consideration. I see that we're Working with divers to monitor our artificial reefs. Has anybody given consideration to Monitoring the protection of our cave systems. Pasco County has a very unique resource. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating cave diving to anybody, but this is We have a very unique resource

3:42:24here in Pasco County. And that's something that we should be looking at providing some protection to.

3:42:36Fernanda too. Yeah.

3:42:38Well we will note that.

3:42:48Things what I'm getting at w one, I think you're half crazy if you go cave diving. But I agree. What I'd hate to see is cave systems where we get cave divers that come out in the future and tell us, Yeah, we found a whole bunch of debris and litter and they left this garbage down here and this is where they dumped all their scallop shells and

3:43:16Yeah, I mean that's part of our aquifer system, so those those caves.

3:43:27All right. Anything else?

3:43:33Good.

3:43:36You ready to retire now, Keith?

3:43:41All right, thank you.

3:43:42Thank you.

3:43:54All right. So I I guess my only question is w when is the next workshop?

3:44:02I hope

3:44:02not. Yeah.

3:44:04Seven PM tonight. No, I'm just kidding. Eight twenty seven.

3:44:07Did you coordinate your outfit with our element for the evening? Well done.

3:44:13Thank you.

3:44:15Six days. Six days from now. Yes.

3:44:19Yeah, and then we will be discussing the adapts element.

3:44:26Yeah.

3:44:26Okay.

3:44:27Yeah.

3:44:28I'm sure they'll be fun to be had by all.

3:44:32What time is that?

3:44:34All day and into the night. Ten A.M. Ten A.M. on. Yeah, ten

3:44:39A.M. which element is on? Adapt. Adapt. It's like a party invitation, ten A.M. to question mark.

3:44:46I did send the packet via email as well, so hopefully you guys had the chance or you will be um reviewing it at some point before our meeting.

3:44:58About ten o'clock.